Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Gerald J. Schuler, Administrator of the Estate of Betty Mae Carlier, Deceased v. Melvin M. Berger, M. D.

Gerald J. Schuler, Adm’r, Adm’x of the Est. of Betty Mae Carlier, Deceased v. Melvin M. Berger, M. D., 395 F.2d 212 (3d Cir. 1968)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1968-05-29
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • Construing Pennsylvania law to be in accord with the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Hicks v. United States, supra

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Gerald J. Schuler, Administrator of the Estate of Betty Mae Carlier, Deceased v. Melvin M. Berger, M. D.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
11 opinions
SCHULER v. BERGER,395 F.2d 212(3rd Cir. 1968)
Gerald J. SCHULER, Administrator of the Estate of Betty Mae Carlier,
Deceased, v. Melvin M. BERGER, M.D., Appellant.
No. 17008.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Argued April 18, 1968.
Decided May 29, 1968.
Page 213
Francis E. Shields, Pepper, Hamilton Scheetz, Philadelphia, Pa. (A.W. Cortese, Jr., Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellant.

William C. Hewson, Beasley, Albert, Hewson Casey, Philadelphia, Pa. (James E. Beasley, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.
Before McLAUGHLIN, FREEDMAN and SEITZ, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The jury found for the plaintiff in this medical malpractice death case. The defendant appeals the district court's denial of his motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial. Schuler v. Berger,275 F. Supp. 120(E.D.Pa. 1967).

Defendant's principal contention is that its motion for judgment n.o.v. should have been granted because plaintiff failed to sustain his burden under Pennsylvania law of producing competent evidence that defendant's conduct was the proximate cause of death. This contention is based on defendant's tendered analysis of the Pennsylvania law and the evidence. We conclude from our evaluation of the record that the district court's opinion reasonably meets and correctly disposes of defendant's significant contentions under this head of the case. The defendant insists that the district court, by relying on the Fourth Circuit case of Hicks v. United States,368 F.2d 626(1966), applied "federal" law rather than the controlling Pennsylvania law. Parenthetically, the Hicks court was finding "Virginia" law. In any event, a reading of the opinion below shows that the trial judge assumed that the entirely reasonable analysis quoted from the Hicks case would be accepted as "good" law by the Pennsylvania courts. We think that assumption was justified and thus did not, in the circumstances, result in the adoption of a legal principle which was contrary to either the letter or the spirit of the Pennsylvania case law.

The other contentions made by defendant are fully treated and properly decided in the lucid opinion of the district court.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.