Freed v. Geisinger Medical Center

Summary

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, on reargument, reaffirmed its prior decision overruling Flanagan v. Labe. The court held that an otherwise qualified nurse is not categorically barred from offering expert testimony concerning medical causation under the Professional Nursing Law, and that qualification is governed by applicable evidentiary standards and, where applicable, the MCARE Act. The court rejected the appellants’ arguments concerning waiver, sua sponte reconsideration of precedent, and retroactivity, and remanded the matter consistent with its original opinion.

Holdings

1. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has authority to sua sponte reconsider precedent when the precedent is clearly implicated by the case before it; there is no absolute jurisprudential bar to doing so, particularly where the parties are afforded an opportunity for briefing and argument.
2. An otherwise competent and properly qualified nurse is not prohibited by the Professional Nursing Law from offering expert testimony at trial regarding medical causation.
3. Flanagan v. Labe, which categorically precluded a nurse from offering expert opinion testimony concerning medical causation on the basis of the Professional Nursing Law, was wrongly decided and is overruled.
4. The Court's rule permitting a properly qualified nurse to testify regarding medical causation applies retroactively to the parties in this case.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania may sua sponte reconsider and overrule precedent when the precedent is antecedent to and implicated by an issue properly before the Court.
2. Whether traditional waiver principles barred consideration of the continued viability of Flanagan v. Labe.
3. Whether an otherwise competent and properly qualified nurse may testify regarding medical causation in a negligence or medical-liability action.
4. Whether the Court's rule permitting such testimony applied retroactively to the parties.

Disposition

remanded