Imschweiler R. and J. v. Weizer, I. ( 2014 )


Menu:
  • J-A18009-14
    NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
    RACHEL IMSCHWEILER AND JARED                  :         IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    IMSCHWEILER,                                  :               PENNSYLVANIA
    :
    Appellants                :
    :
    v.                               :
    :
    ILENE KATZ WEIZER, M.D., JAMES                :
    XENOPHON, M.D. AND A WOMAN S                  :
    CARE OB-GYN, P.C.,                            :
    :
    Appellees                 :            No. 1680 MDA 2013
    Appeal from the Order entered on August 27, 2013
    in the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County,
    Civil Division, No. S-218-2010
    BEFORE: LAZARUS, WECHT and MUSMANNO, JJ.
    MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.:                         FILED SEPTEMBER 16, 2014
    Rachel      Imschweiler    ( Rachel )       and   Jared   Imschweiler   ( the
    Imschweilers ) appeal from the Order1 denying their Post-Trial Motion in
    their negligence case against Ilene Katz Weizer, M.D. ( Dr. Katz Weizer ),
    James Xenophon, M.D. ( Dr. Xenophon ), and A Woman s Care Ob-Gyn, P.C.
    ( the Practice ) (collectively, Defendants ). We reverse and remand for a
    new trial.
    1
    Generally, an appeal will only be permitted from a final order unless
    otherwise permitted by statute or rule of court. Johnston the Florist, Inc.
    v. TEDCO Constr. Corp., 
    657 A.2d 511
    , 514 (Pa. Super. 1995). An appeal
    from an order denying post-trial motions is interlocutory. 
    Id.
     However, in
    Johnston the Florist, this Court, regarding as done that which ought to
    have been done, considered the merits of the appeal. 
    Id. at 514-15
    .
    Although the Imschweilers purportedly appeal from the Order denying their
    Post-Trial Motion, pursuant to Johnston the Florist, we will consider the
    appeal as being properly before this Court.
    J-A18009-14
    The trial court summarized the relevant history underlying the instant
    appeal as follows:
    On August 14, 2009, [Rachel] gave birth to a healthy 9
    pound 4 ounce boy.       After a lengthy labor, the baby was
    delivered through a C-Section at 11:25 p.m. by Dr.
    Katz[]Weizer.   The [Imschweilers] found no fault with Dr.
    Katz[]Weizer s prenatal care or her care of [Rachel] during the
    delivery.
    Following the birth, [Rachel] was taken to the hospital s
    intensive care unit (ICU), which doubles as a recovery room on
    weekends.     Initially, [Rachel] did well post-operatively, but
    shortly before 1:00 a.m. on August 15, 2009, her blood pressure
    began to drop.
    [All    parties]   agreed    that   [Rachel]   had   developed    a
    when a woman s uterus loses tone and fails to properly contract.
    Normally, the contraction of the uterus after birth serves to slow
    down the flow of blood from the uterine blood vessels, which
    provide copious amounts of blood to the placenta during the
    pregnancy.     When the uterus fails to contract, the blood
    continues to flow and the patient bleeds vaginally.
    A sure way to stop the bleeding would have been for Dr.
    Katz[]Weizer to perform a hysterectomy, removing [Rachel s]
    uterus; but [Rachel] was still young and wanted to preserve her
    ability to have more children if at all possible. Unfortunately, by
    early afternoon that day, her uterus was removed at the Lehigh
    Valley Hospital [( the Hospital ),] where she had been
    transferred at Dr. Katz[]Weizer s request. Her ovaries were left
    intact
    Trial Court Opinion, 8/27/13, at 1-2.
    The    Imschweilers      filed    the   instant   negligence   action   against
    Defendants.       After a one-week trial, the jury found in favor of the
    Defendants. The Imschweilers filed a Motion for judgment notwithstanding
    -2-
    J-A18009-14
    the verdict or a new trial, which the trial court denied.      Thereafter, the
    Imschweilers filed the instant timely appeal.
    The Imschweilers present the following claims for our review:
    A. Whether the trial court erred in ruling that [the Imschweilers ]
    expert testimony did not satisfy the causation element of
    their cause of action with respect to the theories of delay in
    returning to surgery, delay in transfer to a tertiary care
    center, or delay in obtaining interventional radiology services
    by [] Dr. Katz Weizer[?]
    B. Whether the trial court erred in removing disputed facts on
    the issue of causation from the jury s consideration[?]
    C. Whether the trial court erred in ruling that [the Imschweilers]
    were precluded from arguing the increased risk of harm
    causation theory in closing argument, based solely on
    comments during closing argument and without objection by
    defense counsel[?]
    D. Whether the trial court erred in ruling that Defendant[s ]
    medical expert satisfied the requirements [of] 40 Pa.C.S.[A.]
    § 1303.512, in finding that Defendant[s ] medical expert was
    qualified to testify on standard of care issues[?]
    Brief of Appellants at 5.
    The Imschweilers first two claims challenge the trial court s entry of
    nonsuit as to their negligence claim based on Dr. Katz Weizer s unreasonable
    delays in returning Rachel to surgery, transferring Rachel to a tertiary care
    facility, and seeking interventional radiology services, thereby increasing the
    risk that Rachel would lose her uterus.         Id. at 15.    Specifically, the
    Imschweilers challenge the trial court s determination that the testimony of
    their expert witness was speculative.    Id.    According to the Imschweilers,
    they presented expert testimony sufficient to establish that Dr. Katz Weizer
    -3-
    J-A18009-14
    increased the risk of harm by not returning Rachel to surgery by 3:30 a.m.
    Id. The Imschweilers argue that the evidence established that the delay in
    returning Rachel to surgery and the subsequent delay in transferring her to
    a tertiary care facility   took away any opportunities for the physicians at
    Lehigh Valley Hospital to salvage her uterus, thus increasing the risk of
    harm.     Id. According to the Imschweilers, the trial court s ruling improperly
    granted nonsuit as to their claim of negligence based upon the alleged
    delays. Id. at 16.
    A trial court may enter a compulsory nonsuit on any and all causes of
    action if, at the close of the plaintiff s case against all defendants on liability,
    the court finds that the plaintiff has failed to establish a right to relief.
    Scampone v. Highland Park Care Ctr., LLC, 
    57 A.3d 582
    , 595 (Pa. 2012).
    Whether in a particular case that standard [plaintiff s burden of
    preponderance of the evidence] has been met with respect to
    the element of causation is normally a question of fact for the
    jury; the question is to be removed from the jury s consideration
    only where it is clear that reasonable minds could not differ on
    the issue. In establishing a [prima facie] case, the plaintiff need
    not exclude every possible explanation       ; it is enough that
    reasonable minds are able to conclude that the preponderance of
    the evidence shows defendant s conduct to have been a
    substantial cause of the harm to plaintiff.
    Hamil v. Bashline, 
    392 A.2d 1280
    , 1284-85 (Pa. 1978); accord Summers
    v. Certainteed Corp., 
    997 A.2d 1152
    , 1163 (Pa. 2010).
    Because medical malpractice is a form of negligence, to state a prima
    facie cause of action, a plaintiff must demonstrate
    -4-
    J-A18009-14
    a duty owed by the physician to the patient, a breach of that
    duty by the physician, that the breach was the proximate cause
    of the harm suffered, and the damages suffered were a direct
    result of harm. With all but the most self-evident medical
    malpractice actions there is also the added requirement that the
    plaintiff must provide a medical expert who will testify as to the
    elements of duty, breach, and causation.
    Griffin v. Univ. of Pittsburgh Med. Center-Braddock Hosp., 
    950 A.2d 996
    , 999-1000 (Pa. Super. 2008). The plaintiff proves the duty and breach
    elements by showing that the defendant s act or omission fell below the
    standard of care and, therefore, increased the risk of harm to the plaintiff.
    Thierfelder v. Wolfert, 
    52 A.3d 1251
    , 1264 (Pa. 2012).
    Regarding expert testimony, we observe that
    [a]n expert witness proffered by a plaintiff in a medical
    malpractice action is required to testify[,] to a reasonable degree
    of medical certainty, that the acts of the physician deviated from
    good and acceptable medical standards, and that such deviation
    was the proximate cause of the harm suffered. However, expert
    witnesses are not required to use             magic words     when
    expressing their opinions; rather, the substance of their
    testimony must be examined to determine whether the expert
    has met the requisite standard. Moreover, in establishing a
    prima facie case, the plaintiff [in a medical malpractice case]
    need not exclude every possible explanation of the accident; it is
    enough that reasonable minds are able to conclude that the
    preponderance of the evidence shows the defendant s conduct to
    have been a substantial cause of the harm to [the] plaintiff.
    Stimmler v. Chestnut Hill Hosp., 
    981 A.2d 145
    , 155 (Pa. 2009) (citations
    and some internal quotation marks omitted).
    Regarding the Imschweilers theory of liability based upon increased
    risk of harm, this Court has observed that direct causation and increased
    risk of harm are not mutually exclusive, but simply alternative theories of
    -5-
    J-A18009-14
    recovery which, depending on the facts and the expert testimony, may both
    apply in a given case.    Klein v. Aronchick, 
    85 A.3d 487
    , 494 (Pa. Super.
    2014).    A plaintiff is entitled to an instruction on increased risk where there
    is competent medical testimony that a defendant s conduct at least
    increased the risk that the harm sustained by the plaintiff would occur.     
    Id. at 495
    .
    Our review of the record discloses that at trial, the Imschweilers
    presented the expert testimony of                            Dr. Borden . Dr.
    Borden testified that the first problem arose, after the C-section delivery of
    Rachel s child, around 1:00 a.m. N.T., 5/15/13, at 524. Dr. Borden testified
    that in trying to remove blood and clots from Rachel s uterus, Dr. Katz
    Weizer first tried fundal massage.     
    Id. at 527
    .   Dr. Borden described the
    procedure and its purpose as follows:
    [W]hat you re trying to do is you re trying to get that uterus to
    clamp down, to cramp down. When it s got things inside, it s
    less likely to do that. So if there                         clots,
    the clots stay there. So if you ve got lots of clots within the
    cavity of the uterus, it s even less likely to clamp down. And so
    you want to evacuate those clots. You want to massage, we call
    it fundal massage the uterus from the abdomen. And you re
    massaging the uterus, getting out as much of the blood as you
    can because what you want is you want that uterus to clamp
    down and stay clamped down.
    
    Id. at 526
    .   Dr. Borden confirmed that from 2:20 a.m. to 3:30 a.m., the
    procedure was done three times, and by 6:00 a.m., the procedure had been
    done six times. 
    Id. at 526-27
    . According to Dr. Borden,
    -6-
    J-A18009-14
    if it s not working after two or three times, it s not going to work
    for you to continue just to do that. And also, every time you re
    doing this, the patient s awake. You
    patient. And it
    the vagina trying to get those clots all the way up from as high
    up, very uncomfortable, very painful. And if it s not working
    within two to three times, it s not going to work to continue to
    do it. You have to do something else.
    
    Id. at 527
    . Dr. Borden opined that by 3:30 a.m.,
    the decision should have been made that [Dr. Katz Weizer] had
    to go in and do the surgery that she did, you know, two and a
    half hours or so later. That would have prevented less blood loss
    to continue and hopefully would have ended the situation had it
    been done without a laceration occurring. Again, as I say, the
    laceration is a risk of that procedure. But it should have been
    noted and should have been identified at that time and repaired.
    But that procedure that she ultimately did at around 6:00
    in the morning should have been done around 3:30 to
    4:00 in the morning.
    
    Id. at 527-28
     (emphasis added).
    Dr. Borden further testified as follows:
    Q. [The Imschweilers counsel]: Doctor, did the delays as you
    describe by Dr. Katz[]Weizer in taking Rachel [] back to surgery,
    did those delays affect the chances of saving her uterus?
    A. [Dr. Borden]: Yes.
    Q. And how so?
    A. Just add the time, time I mean, so much time is lost in
    terms of doing what was done after the initial diagnosis of
    postpartum hemorrhage was made. Ultimately, by the time she
    left Schuylkill to get to another institution that could more likely
    than not be a better place to help her, it was too late for them to
    do anything but to remove her uterus. Had the procedure
    been done sooner, had there been the identification of the
    laceration, I think the problem would have been ended by
    the B-Lynch and no further issues as far as bleeding from
    a laceration. But if she continued bleeding, she needed to
    -7-
    J-A18009-14
    be gotten out of here much sooner to a tertiary care
    center where they would have had the ability to do more
    and potentially save her uterus.
    Q. You told us earlier that at the point in time that [Orion A.
    Rust, M.D. ( Dr. Rust ),] took over the care of this patient, I
    believe your words were he was essentially out of time. Why
    was he out of time at that point?
    A. This patient had been hemodynamically unstable for hours.
    She had just been airlifted after multiple hours in an institution
    here where the postpartum hemorrhage could not be treated
    and solved. I think, as I mentioned before, she had twice the
    volume of a human being s blood volume transfused. By so
    much blood loss, by so much blood replacement, there was no
    time for Dr. Rust to do anything.
    Fearful of disseminated intravascular coagulopathy would
    have been foremost on his mind or should have been foremost
    on his mind as well besides the fact that she was
    hemodynamically, had been hemodynamically unstable for such
    a period of time.
    Q.   Doctor, the failure to detect the laceration during the
    laparotomy procedure at 6:00 a.m., did that have an effect on
    whether Rachel    uterus could be saved?
    A. Yes.
    Q. And how so?
    A. It allowed for continued bleeding to occur. And until that
    laceration was either repaired or until the uterus was removed,
    she would have continued bleeding.
    Q. In other words
    A. Nothing else would have worked at that point in time.
    -8-
    J-A18009-14
    Q.     Did the delay between the exploratory laparotomy
    and Dr. Rust taking this patient to surgery and the delay
    in getting Rachel [] back to surgery at Schuylkill Medical
    Center as you discussed, did that delay increase the risk
    that her uterus would be lost?
    [A.] Yes.
    Q. And how so?
    A. The delay ultimately gave Dr. Rust no other option but
    to remove her uterus. All of that length of time that had gone
    by had, as I said, [sic] so much blood loss, so much
    manipulation to the uterus, all of that, by the time he got her at
    Lehigh Valley, his concern was basically to save her life. And the
    only way     that he could do that for certain to stop the bleeding,
    that it wouldn t continue regardless of what would have been to
    remove her uterus, which was where the bleeding was coming
    from. There was no other option he had by the time he took
    control of [Rachel s] life.
    Q. Now, had Dr. Rust gotten this patient sooner than he did,
    sooner than 1:00 p.m., approximately the next day, what could
    he have done? What would have been done for [her] at a
    tertiary care center?
    [A.] Again, with her arriving at Lehigh hours earlier, he
    could have, when he opened her, had much greater time
    to identify, to look at all of the contents of the pelvis and
    to define this laceration and then repair it and see what
    happened[,] to see whether the bleeding stopped at that
    point in time. That s all that it might have taken.
    I think without identification of that laceration, I don t
    think that an interventional radiologist at Lehigh Valley would
    have been successful in stopping the bleeding. I think the
    bleeding would have continued because of the laceration. So the
    only thing would have been for him to reopen her and take his
    -9-
    J-A18009-14
    time and effort to check everything out at that time before
    removing the uterus had she not had all those blood
    transfusions, had she not had all of those hours spent bleeding.
    
    Id. at 540-42, 554-56
     (emphasis added). Dr. Borden further opined that
    Dr. Katz[]Weizer initially handled the beginning of the
    postpartum hemorrhage within a standard of care. But within an
    hour or so with no control, with continued postpartum care, [sic]
    delayed accepted medical treatment allowed a situation to
    progress and develop and worsen.
    Ultimately, Dr. Katz[]Weizer decided she needed to
    operate on [Rachel] again. That decision should have been
    made several hours earlier than it was.               During the
    procedure, I believe a laceration occurred that was not
    recognized at the time by both Dr. Katz[]Weizer and Dr.
    Xenophon that should have been. And, also, I believe there was
    a prolonged delay in transferring the patient --- [.]
    
    Id. at 510
     (emphasis added).
    Dr. Borden also testified as follows regarding the delay in transferring
    Rachel to a tertiary care facility:
    This patient continued bleeding from somewhere around 1
    o clock the morning on and on and on. And nothing that was
    done to try to stop the bleeding was successful. And this patient
    should have been transferred much earlier than she was from
    Schuylkill Medical Center to a receiving hospital that was more
    capable in taking care of that problem at that point in time. The
    longer the delay, the more risk to the patient and ultimately
    what I think was the loss of her uterus that could have been
    avoided had she been transferred out sooner.
    
    Id. at 515-16
    . Dr. Borden opined that,
    because of the continued delay both in the initial exploration to
    try to stop the bleeding because of the failure to recognize the
    laceration and repair it, the hemorrhage continued. The patient
    lost more than twice the volume of her blood, her total blood.
    More than twice of that was lost because that s at least what
    they replaced. So her situation was extremely critical.
    - 10 -
    J-A18009-14
    I think by the time she was transferred to Lehigh Valley, there
    was nothing else that could have been done to save her life
    other than to remove the uterus. I think Dr. Rust quickly, as
    quickly as possible, explored the patient and removed her uterus
    
    Id. at 517-18
    . Dr. Borden rendered his opinion within a reasonable degree
    of medical certainty. 
    Id. at 557
    .
    Carol Miller-Schaeffer, M.D. ( Dr. Schaeffer ), testified that she was
    contacted for a consult as to Rachel s condition. N.T., 5/14/13, at 370. Dr.
    Schaeffer stated that upon arriving at the ICU at Schuylkill Hospital,
    sometime after 10:00 a.m., the morning after Rachel s C-Section, she
    observed that Rachel was still bleeding.      Id. at 374.    According to Dr.
    Schaeffer,   blood was pretty much running out [of Rachel] as fast as we
    could put it in.    Id. at 375.   At the time that Dr. Schaeffer saw Rachel,
    Rachel had received 11 units of blood, two units of frozen plasma, and 10
    plus liters of IV fluid.    Id. at 379-80.   Dr. Schaeffer testified as to her
    concern that Rachel could develop a coagulopathy. Id. at 387. Ultimately,
    Dr. Schaeffer recommended to Dr. Katz Weizer that Rachel be transferred to
    a tertiary care facility:
    It was my opinion at that point that the patient was bleeding.
    The fact that her blood counts were dropping, her platelet count
    was dropping, her coagulation studies were getting worse, that
    her condition could continue to deteriorate. I did not feel that I
    nor the hospital was equipped to care for her any further. There
    are not experts at the hospital available at all times to care for
    somebody whose condition continues to deteriorate and,
    therefore, it was my recommendation that she went to a tertiary
    - 11 -
    J-A18009-14
    care center where there were more specialists available to deal
    with problems should they worsen.
    Id. at 392.    Dr. Schaeffer further stated that,     I think at that point the
    situation had deteriorated further that even if it was a hysterectomy, that s
    what was needed to be done to save [Rachel s] life.     Id. at 395.
    Dr. Rust, the surgeon who ultimately performed a hysterectomy on
    Rachel, testified that upon Rachel s arrival at Lehigh Valley Hospital, he
    discussed with her the treatment options available:
    The options that we talked about and when she first came in is
    that first we discussed her condition, that she was in a serious
    but stable condition and if she continued to bleed, that a
    hysterectomy would most likely be indicated. And the reason for
    that is invasive radiology procedures can only be done if you
    have two main things: The time to do them and the people to
    do them.
    And at that particular time, I was uncertain about both as far as
    the time because if she continued to bleed, then there wouldn t
    be time. And if there was and I had to see if our invasive
    people this is a Saturday morning. Usually they re around, but
    that they don t have another
    patient that they re working on. Or if they did, then to see if
    another crew was available I needed to check on the time and
    the personnel.
    N.T. 5/16/13, at 821. According to Dr. Rust, he discussed with Rachel his
    intention to save her uterus, if possible:
    That would have been ideal, if possible. And the key to that is
    how much more bleeding she was going to be doing. Right now,
    she was serious but stable. But in cases of uterine atony or
    prolonged vaginal bleeding, that there can be more
    bleeding and we were already in serious condition.
    - 12 -
    J-A18009-14
    Id. at 822 (emphasis added). However, Dr. Rust testified that he made the
    decision to conduct a hysterectomy very shortly thereafter:
    It actually was a pretty short time because I met her in the
    emergency room, did the physical exam, went over the case with
    Dr. Galic, who was my assistant that day. And literally, before
    we finished her discussion, [Rachel] started to bleed significantly
    again.
    Id. Dr. Rust explained to Rachel that
    I was concerned that if we waited any longer or if we tried to do
    any other procedures, that her health and status at that time
    could deteriorate and that she was in danger of serious harm or
    death.
    Id. at 822-23.
    We note that Dr. Rust also testified that the laceration could not have
    been seen without conducting a hysterectomy.       Id. at 832.   However, Dr.
    Borden testified that the laceration was an extension of the C-Section
    incision. N.T., 5/15/13, at 534. Dr. Borden opined that the laceration was
    in an area that could have been detected during the exploratory laparotomy.
    Id. at 535. Dr. Borden testified that the ligament would not have obstructed
    the ability to detect the laceration:
    Not throughout the entire length of this laceration because it
    emanated from where the Cesarean scar I shouldn t say scar
    the Cesarean incision was done. That s not covered by the
    broad ligament. The area right continuing from that is not
    covered by the broad ligament.
    Id. at 537.
    Based upon the foregoing, we conclude that Dr. Rust s testimony, and
    the contradictory testimony of Dr. Borden, do not support the entry of
    - 13 -
    J-A18009-14
    nonsuit as to the issue of delay.     As the trial court stated in its Opinion,
    [c]redibility issues are for the jury, not for an expert to resolve.           Trial
    Court Opinion, 8/27/13, at 23; see Griffin, 
    950 A.2d at 999
     (stating that,
    [c]oncerning questions of credibility and weight accorded the evidence at
    trial, we will not substitute our judgment for that of the finder of fact ).
    Our review discloses that the Imschweilers presented sufficient
    evidence for a jury to evaluate whether Dr. Katz Weizer s delay in returning
    Rachel to surgery and in transferring Rachel to a tertiary care facility
    deviated from the standard of care and increased the risk of a hysterectomy.
    Accordingly, the trial court erred in entering nonsuit as to the Imschweilers
    theory of liability based upon increased risk of harm resulting from these
    delays. Therefore, we reverse the entry of nonsuit, and remand for a new
    trial as to the theories of liability premised upon the delay in returning
    Rachel to surgery and in transferring Rachel to a tertiary care facility.
    The Imschweilers also advanced an increased risk of harm theory of
    liability based upon Dr. Katz Weizer s delay in seeking an interventional
    radiologist. Our review of the record discloses that the Imschweilers failed
    to present prima facie evidence that Dr. Katz Weizer s delay in seeking an
    interventional radiologist increased the risk of harm to Rachel. Dr. Borden,
    the Imschweilers expert, testified regarding this issue as follows:
    I think without the identification of the laceration, I don t think
    that an interventional radiologist at Lehigh Valley would have
    been successful in stopping the bleeding. I think the bleeding
    would have continued because of the laceration. So the only
    - 14 -
    J-A18009-14
    thing would have been for [Dr. Rust] to reopen her and take his
    time and effort to check everything out at that time before
    removing the uterus had she not had all those blood
    transfusions, had she not had all those hours of time spent
    bleeding.
    N.T., 5/15/13, at 556.   Accordingly, as to this theory of liability, the trial
    court s entry of nonsuit was proper.
    The Imschweilers next claim that the trial court erred in removing
    disputed issues of fact from the jury s consideration. Brief of Appellants at
    32. According to the Imschweilers, they presented evidence supporting their
    theories of liability
    that Dr. Katz Weizer negligently delayed in returning [Rachel] to
    a surgery by 3:00 a.m. on August 15[,] and negligently delayed
    transferring [Rachel] to a tertiary care center in view of the
    postpartum hemorrhage and that these delays took away any
    opportunity for the physicians at Lehigh Valley Hospital to
    
    Id.
     This issue implicates the trial court s entry of nonsuit as the theory of
    liability based upon the increased risk of harm caused by Dr. Katz Weizer s
    delays.
    As set forth above, we conclude that the trial court improperly granted
    nonsuit as to the theories of liability premised upon the delays. Accordingly,
    we need not separately address this claim.
    The Imschweilers next claim that the trial court erred in precluding
    them from arguing increased risk of harm during closing arguments. Brief
    of Appellants at 36.     The Imschweilers state that during their closing
    - 15 -
    J-A18009-14
    argument, the trial court interrupted and called for a conference with all
    counsel. 
    Id.
     According to the Imschweilers,
    [t]he [trial c]ourt advised that it was not going to charge the
    jury on the increased risk of harm causation theory as counsel
    had argued to the jury that only the laceration was causing the
    bleeding following the exploratory laparotomy[,] and not a
    combination of atony and the laceration.       The [trial c]ourt
    improperly based its ruling on the content of closing argument,
    not on any new evidence presented by a witness.
    
    Id.
    As set forth above, we are remanding this matter for a new trial on the
    issue of increased risk of harm.     Accordingly, we need not address this
    claim.
    In their next claim, the Imschweilers argue that the trial court erred in
    ruling that defense expert Nancy Roberts, M.D. ( Dr. Roberts ), was
    competent to testify on medical standard of care issues, in violation of the
    Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Act ( MCARE ), 40 P.S.
    § 1303.512.   Brief of Appellants at 38. According to the Imschweilers, on
    cross-examination, Dr. Roberts testified that she last performed a delivery in
    November 2005, last performed a B-Lynch suturing procedure in 2004, and
    last performed surgery of any kind in 2005. Id. The Imschweilers point out
    Dr. Roberts    testimony that she supervised a small number of medical
    students from a local medical school. Id. Finally, the Imschweilers direct
    our attention to Dr. Roberts     testimony, on cross-examination, that her
    practice has been limited to performing ultrasounds four days a week, and
    - 16 -
    J-A18009-14
    performing administrative duties one day a week.           Id.   Because Dr.
    Roberts s qualifications do not meet the qualifications for expert testimony
    mandated by section 512(b)(2) of MCARE, the Imschweilers claim, the trial
    court erred in deeming Dr. Roberts qualified as a medical expert on standard
    of care and causation. Brief of Appellants at 31.
    Decisions   regarding   admission   of   expert   testimony,   like   other
    evidentiary decisions, are within the sound discretion of the trial court. We
    may reverse only if we find an abuse of discretion or error of law.     Weiner
    v. Fisher, 
    871 A.2d 1283
    , 1285 (Pa. Super. 2005).
    MCARE section 512 provides, in relevant part, that
    [a]n expert testifying on a medical matter, including the
    standard of care, risks and alternatives, causation and the
    nature and extent of the injury, must meet the following
    qualifications:
    (2) Be engaged in or retired within the previous five years
    from active clinical practice or teaching.
    Provided, however, the court may waive the requirements of this
    subsection for an expert on a matter other than standard of care
    if the court determines that the expert is otherwise competent to
    testify about medical or scientific issues by virtue of education,
    training or experience.
    (c) Standard of Care.- In addition to the requirements set forth
    in subsections (a) and (b), an expert testifying as to a
    physician s standard of care must also meet the following
    qualifications:
    (1) Be substantially familiar with the applicable standard
    of care for the specific care at issue as of the time of the
    alleged breach of the standard of care.
    - 17 -
    J-A18009-14
    (2) Practice in the same subspecialty as the defendant
    physician or in a subspecialty which has a substantially
    similar standard of care for the specific care at issue,
    except as provided in subsection (d) or (e).
    (3) In the event the defendant physician is certified by
    an approved board, be board certified by the same or a
    similar approved board, except as provided in subsection
    (e).
    40 P.S. § 1303.512(b), (c).
    In its Opinion, the trial court explained its decision to accept Dr.
    Roberts s qualifications as follows:
    Dr. Roberts had neck surgery[,] which has prevented her from
    delivering babies or performing hysterectomies since 2005, but
    she consults in caring for women with post-partum
    hemorrhages, including within the six months preceding trial and
    numerous cases of uterine atony. She is also actively involved
    in teaching medical students in the area of obstetrics.
    Trial Court Opinion, 8/27/13, at 28.       The trial court s determination is
    supported in the record.
    Dr. Roberts testified that as an inpatient consultant,
    I take care of an unusually large amount of women with
    antepartum hemorrhage; and the reason is that four days a
    week, I do ultrasounds. And women are referred to high risk
    specialists such as I am for ultrasounds because they re having
    vaginal bleeding and they re looking to figure out why it
    happened. And if I make a diagnosis, let s say a placenta
    abnormality, they re looking to find out how to follow the
    patient, what tests need to be done, when to deliver the patient,
    and how to deliver them.
    N.T., 5/15/13, at 658. Dr. Roberts explained that she had cared for many
    patients with uterine atony, and is considered an expert in that condition.
    - 18 -
    J-A18009-14
    Id. at 660. Dr. Roberts testified that she is the chairperson responsible for
    the care of the patients in the Lehigh Valley healthcare system. Id. at 661.
    According to Dr. Roberts,
    I am primarily a clinician.    I mean I see patients four days a
    e is not, is not doing research.
    It s taking care of patients myself, and then, of course, I m
    teaching.
    Id. at 665.     Dr. Roberts testified that she is involved in lecturing medical
    students in obstetrics and gynecology, and sees patients with the residents
    at the high risk clinic.   Id. at 666.     Upon review, we discern no abuse of
    discretion by the trial court in deeming Dr. Roberts qualified as an expert
    under MCARE.
    Order affirmed in part and reversed in part; case remanded for a new
    trial consistent with this Memorandum; Superior Court jurisdiction is
    relinquished.
    Judgment Entered.
    Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
    Prothonotary
    Date: 9/16/2014
    - 19 -