Kevin M. Majernik, Medical Malpractice Attorney in King Of Prussia, Pennsylvania

As an associate in the Health Care Department, Kevin's practice is devoted to representing physicians, physician assistants, hospitals, dentists and other health care providers in liability matters.

Kevin earned his B.A. in Psychology from the University of Kentucky and J.D. from Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law. During law school, Kevin completed a judicial externship for the Honorable Judge Steven C. Tolliver Sr. in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas. He also participated in Villanova's Clinic for Law and Entrepreneurship as a student attorney providing pro bono legal assistance to local under-resourced businesses.

After law school graduation, Kevin returned to the chambers of the Honorable Judge Steven C. Tolliver Sr., serving as his law clerk. During this time, Kevin developed a strong understanding of litigation by writing opinions and memoranda, assisting in ruling on motions, and aiding in the disposition of multiple trials.

Outside of work, Kevin enjoys watching football and cycling.

Results

Defense Verdict Secured in Medical Malpractice Case

We received a defense verdict for an emergency room physician in a medical malpractice case after a six-day trial. The plaintiffs alleged the physician failed to diagnose and treat a transient ischemic attack in the emergency department and that this failure caused the plaintiff’s ischemic stroke 48 hours later. Following an hour and a half of deliberations, the jury found the emergency room physician did not violate the standard of care.

Received a Defense Verdict for an Emergency Room Physician in a Medical Malpractice Case

We received a defense verdict for an emergency room physician in a medical malpractice case after a six-day trial. The plaintiffs alleged that the physician failed to diagnose and treat a transient ischemic attack in the emergency department and that this failure caused the plaintiff’s ischemic stroke 48 hours later. The plaintiff at the time was 44 years old. Following an hour and a half of deliberations, the jury found that the emergency room physician did not violate the standard of care.

Thought Leadership

The Quarterly Dose

LEGAL ROUNDUP - Pennsylvania

November 1, 2024

PA Superior Court Reaffirms Need for Expert Testimony in Support of Claim for Corporate Negligence and Provides Further Clarity as to ‘Obvious NegligenceWandell v. Robert Packer Hosp., 1532 MDA 2023, 2024 WL 3697497 (Pa. Super. Ct. Aug. 7, 2024)The Superior Court of Pennsylvania found that expert testimony was still required in a matter involving an alleged defective toilet provided to a patient post surgery that broke and resulted in a fall and injuries to the patient. The court specifically stated that this was not a case in which negligence was so obvious that expert testimony was not required and, in turn, granted summary judgment for failure to produce expert reports supporting the claims. The court was not compelled by the patient’s argument-a claim for corporate negligence based on the provision of a defective toilet to a post-surgical patient which broke and resulted in a fall-does not require expert testimony. The court outlined that questions which required expert testimony regarding adequate and appropriate supervision, reasonable care to maintain facilities and equipment, and adequate training, among others, still existed. As such, summary judgment was proper for failing to produce experts in support of the patient’s claim. PA Superior Court Reverses Grant of Summary Judgment Based on Gross Negligence Where Expert Opinions Are Sufficiently Supported by the RecordAzaravich v. Wilkes-Barre Hosp. Co., LLC, 2024 PA Super 116, 318 A.3d 876 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2024), reargument denied (Aug. 12, 2024)The Superior Court of Pennsylvania found that a grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant-hospital was improper where the medical records, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, created genuine issues of material fact regarding whether there was a gross deviation from the standard of care. In vacating the trial court’s order, the Superior Court disagreed with the trail court insofar that the plaintiff’s experts failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their conclusions regarding gross negligence. Further, in determining there was sufficient evidence for the opinions of the plaintiff’s experts, the Superior Court restated that where an expert’s conclusions are supported by the record, a trial court may not sua sponte criticize the expert’s opinions in an order or on summary judgment as that is a question of fact and credibility for the fact finder to determine. The Quarterly Dose - November 2024, has been prepared for our readers by Marshall Dennehey. It is solely intended to provide information on recent legal developments and is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We welcome the opportunity to provide such legal assistance as you require on this and other subjects. If you receive the alerts in error, please send a note to tamontemuro@mdwcg.com. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. 2024 Marshall Dennehey. All Rights Reserved.

Case Law Alerts

PA Superior Court Reverses Grant of Summary Judgment Based on Gross Negligence Where Expert Opinions Are Sufficiently Supported by the Record.

October 1, 2024

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania found that a grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant-hospital was improper where the medical records, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, created genuine issues of material fact regarding whether there was a gross deviation from the standard of care. In vacating the trial court’s order, the Superior Court disagreed with the trail court insofar that the plaintiff’s experts failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their conclusions regarding gross negligence. Further, in determining there was sufficient evidence for the opinions of the plaintiff’s experts, the Superior Court restated that where an expert’s conclusions are supported by the record, a trial court may not sua sponte criticize the expert’s opinions in an order or on summary judgment as that is a question of fact and credibility for the fact finder to determine. Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter, October 2024 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.