Pennsylvania Superior Court
551 A.2d 1059 (1988)
Lucille Corbett (plaintiff), an elderly woman with a history of medical issues, particular with her legs, underwent surgery on her left knee, performed by Dr. Jamilio DeMoura, M.D. (defendant). Following the surgery, Corbett came under the care of Dr. David Weisband, D.O. (defendant), who began treating her for a post-operative knee infection. During that time, Dr. Weisband performed a left-knee fusion on Corbett at Metropolitan Hospital (defendant). The fusion proved unsuccessful. Corbett was then seen and treated by Dr. Greene, who performed a total left-knee replacement. Approximately 11 months later, Corbett was hospitalized again for nine months, after she broke her left leg as she was climbing out of bed. During that time, Corbett’s knee implant was removed because it had become infected. When the infection failed to clear, Corbett’s leg was amputated above the knee. Corbett filed a number of separate negligence lawsuits against the defendants that were later consolidated. A suit against Dr. Greene was not consolidated. The trial was bifurcated in terms of liability and damages. At trial, Corbett provided extensive medical testimony that Dr. Greene’s action of performing a total knee replacement feel below the appropriate standard of care. At the close of the liability trial, the court entered a compulsory nonsuit in favor of Dr. DeMoura. At the end of the trial against Dr. Weisband and the Regional Orthopedic Professional Association (ROPA) (defendant), a group of physicians with which Dr. Weisband was associated, the defendants argued that Dr. Greene’s intervening conduct was “highly extraordinary,” and thus a superseding cause of Corbett’s injuries. The jury held in favor of Corbett and awarded her $150,000 in damages. The trial court denied the defendants’ motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The defendants appealed. Corbett appealed the trial court’s decision in granting the nonsuit to Dr. DeMoura and claimed that due to several erroneous trial rulings, the verdict in her favor was inadequate.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Rowley, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 220,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.