Legal Opinion

Weiner v. Fisher

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 1, 2005PublishedCited by 38 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION BY

BECK, J.:

¶ 1 We interpret the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error (MCARE) Act1 relating to the qualifications of experts. First we address the Act’s time frame requirement that the testifying expert be “engaged in or retired within the previous five years from active clinical practice or teaching.” Next, we explore the meaning of the active teaching requirement under the Act.

¶ 2 In this case the court granted appel-lee-defendant’s motion for a non suit after finding appellant-plaintiffs expert unqualified. We vacate the trial court’s order and remand.

¶ 3 Leon Weiner,…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Kmonk-Sullivan v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
  2. Commonwealth v. Gilmour Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
  3. Fonner v. Shandon, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
  4. Commonwealth v. BigelowSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
  5. Turney Media Fuel, Inc. v. Toll Bros., Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1999

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by38 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. VenturaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2009
  2. Wilson v. Transport Ins. Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
  3. Harvey v. Rouse Chamberlin, Ltd.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
  4. Wexler v. HechtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
  5. Smith v. Paoli Memorial HospitalSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2005

33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API