Legal Opinion

Barshady v. Schlosser

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided November 21, 1973No. Appeal, 1515PublishedCited by 32 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The six Judges who heard this appeal being equally divided, the order is affirmed.

Opinion by

Hoffman, J.,

Tn Support of Reversal:

This appeal presents the question of whether the statute of limitations may bar an action by a plaintiff who does not learn of a surgical injury until more than two years after the operation.

On April 25, 1961, Dr. Woodrow 13. Schlosser, a noted surgeon specializing in the field of otolaryngology, performed an operation on the appellant’s middle ear. The purpose of the surgery was to attempt a cure of tympanosclerosis which was causing loss of hearing…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Ayers v. MorganSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1959
  2. Nesbitt v. Erie Coach Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1964
  3. Walters v. DitzlerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1967
  4. Cooper v. RobertsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1971
  5. Plazak v. Allegheny Steel CompanySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936

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

3Cited by32 opinions

  1. Burnside v. Abbott LaboratoriesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
  2. Ciccarelli v. Carey Canadian Mines, Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1985
  3. Anthony v. Koppers Co., Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
  4. DeMartino v. Albert Einstein Medical CenterSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
  5. Acker v. PalenaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1978

27 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