Did the Trial Court Err by Permitting Evidence of Subsequent Angiograms?
Stalsitz also contended that the trial court should have excluded evidence that he received additional lytic therapy and angioplasty at LVH in 1997, because that evidence was irrelevant. As noted in the trial testimony above, Stalsitz’ subsequent therapy revealed that the original treatment had a patency of more than 5 years. The Superior Court held that evidence of the 1997 lytic therapy and angioplasty on Stalsitz’s leg was relevant because it supported the defendants’ contention that the 1992 angioplasty was an appropriate method of treating the stenosis and did not represent a deviation from the standard of care. POST-APPELLATE HISTORY Last month, Stalsitz filed a Petition for Allocatur20 to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court grants allocatur, the state’s highest court will decide these issues. ANALYSIS The facts and holding in Stalsitz are of interest to endovascular specialists as a snapshot of one case involving endovascular procedures, limb ischemia, and infor
Related Questions
- Did the trial court err by restricting Husband from traveling outside of the United States with the children?
- Did Trial Court Err by Refusing to Instruct Jury on Loss of Chance Theory in Medical Malpractice Case?
- Did the trial court reversibly err by failing to file findings of fact and conclusions of law?
