The Hutchinsons sued the Eye Clinic for medical malpractice, based on vicarious liablity and corporate negligence. They rooted that claim in the testimony of Jessica Page, self-described “expert in Health Information Technology (HIT) and Operations. We hold that the adoption of the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence in May of 1998, seven years after Cohen, abrogated the statement that “the unjustified exclusion of relevant evidence, otherwise admissible, is an abuse of discretion. Moreover, when claiming an abuse of discretion, it is insufficient to convince us that “the lower tribunal reached decision contrary to the decision that the appellate court would have reached. no evidence exists that anyone altered the record that helped the [Eye Clinic] or to divert the [Hutchinsons’] attention
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE-ALTERED MEDICAL RECORDS – Pennsylvania Injury Lawyers
https://www.riederstravis.com/medical-malpractice-…
…