Freed v. Geisinger Medical Center

Summary

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that an otherwise competent and properly qualified registered nurse may give expert opinion testimony regarding medical causation in a negligence or medical malpractice action. The court overruled Flanagan v. Labe to the extent it barred such testimony based on the Professional Nursing Law and applied the new rule retroactively to affirm the Superior Court's reversal of a compulsory nonsuit. The case was remanded for trial, with expert competency to be assessed under applicable Pennsylvania standards, including the MCARE Act where relevant.

Holdings

1. An otherwise competent and properly qualified nurse is not barred from giving expert opinion testimony regarding medical causation merely because the Professional Nursing Law prohibits nurses from making medical diagnoses in the practice of nursing.
2. Flanagan v. Labe is overruled to the extent it prohibits an otherwise competent and properly qualified nurse from giving expert opinion testimony regarding medical causation.
3. The rule overruling Flanagan applies retroactively to Freed's case.
4. Defendants were not entitled to relief; the Superior Court correctly reversed the compulsory nonsuit and remanded for trial.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Professional Nursing Law barred an otherwise competent and properly qualified registered nurse from offering expert testimony concerning medical causation in a negligence or medical-malpractice action.
2. Whether the Supreme Court should overrule Flanagan v. Labe to the extent it imposed that bar.
3. Whether the new rule overruling Flanagan should apply retroactively to Freed's case.
4. Whether defendants were entitled to relief from the Superior Court's reversal of the compulsory nonsuit.

Disposition

affirmed