Tort Law

Brien Roche Law > Tort Law Resources > Tort Case Law > Tort Law Cases – M > Medical Malpractice Panel Proceedings

Medical Malpractice Panel Proceedings

This page within Virginia Tort Case Law is a compilation of cases reported by the Virginia Supreme Court and summarized by Brien Roche dealing with the topic of Medical Malpractice Panel Proceedings. For more information on medical negligence see the other pages on this site and for medical malpractice see the pages on Wikipedia.

Medical Malpractice Panel Proceedings-Statutes

 

See Va. Code § 8.01-581.

Medical Malpractice Panel Proceedings-Cases

2004 Chandler v. Graffeo, 268 Va. 673, 604 S.E.2d 1.

Medical malpractice panel proceedings.Defendant sought to offer favorable panel opinion as evidence. That was improper in this context where the decision was rendered beyond the time frame allowed by statute. In addition, defendant should not have been allowed to call as retained experts two panel members. Although the panel members could have been called to testify as panel members, their being retained as experts violates the rule on their impartiality.

1995 Fairfax Hosp. Sys. v. Curtis, 249 Va. 531, 457 S.E.2d 66.

Medical malpractice panel proceedings opinion not admissible since opinion not rendered timely.

1994 Power v. Kendrick, 247 Va. 59, 439 S.E.2d 345.

Panel chairman struck plaintiff’s notice of claim in medical malpractice panel proceedings because of noncompliance with discovery request. Plaintiff thereafter sought mandamus and injunctive relief. Those were properly denied. Plaintiff has adequate remedy at law to litigate her malpractice claim and if issue of this bar is raised that matter can be litigated as part of that malpractice proceeding.

1992 Turner v. Wexler, 244 Va. 124, 418 S.E.2d 886.

Under pre-1989 law, professional corporation is not health care provider.

1992 Fairfax Hosp. Sys. v. McCarty, 244 Va. 28, 419 S.E.2d 621.

Medical malpractice panel proceedings decision only admissible as to persons who are still parties at time of trial.

1992 Smith v. Richmond Mem. Hosp., 243 Va. 445, 416 S.E.2d 689.

Claim of “patient dumping” under COBRA. Supreme Court determined that cause of action was under COBRA and not under common law medical malpractice and that state notice requirement not applicable.

1989 Speet v. Bacaj, 237 Va. 290, 377 S.E.2d 397.

Admission of medical malpractice panel proceedings opinion into evidence does not impinge on jury’s function of resolving disputed facts. Panel opinion does not establish standard of care.

1989 Edwards v. City of Portsmouth, 237 Va. 167, 375 S.E.2d 747.

Filing suit against hospital three days after filing notice of claim is violation of Va. Code § 8.01-581.2 and therefore is untimely and court lacks jurisdiction.

1988 Grubbs v. Rawls, 235 Va. 607, 369 S.E.2d 683.

In motion for judgment, plaintiff alleged (1) failure to obtain informed consent, (2) negligent surgery, (3) negligent post-operative treatment. Third claim not expressly set forth in notice letter but Supreme Court ruled that language of letter broad enough to give reasonable notice of claim.

1988 Glisson v. Loxley, 235 Va. 62, 366 S.E.2d 68.

Whole malpractice statutory scheme focuses on tort and not breach of contract. Tort is civil wrong or injury; wrongful act not involving breach of contract for which action will lie. Tort is also defined as violation of some duty owing to plaintiff imposed by general law or otherwise. Generally duty arises by operation of law and not by agreement of parties. In this case, court held that plaintiff properly asserted breach of contract claims against doctor which were not covered by malpractice act. Fact that plaintiff sought recovery for pain and suffering does not make this tort action. Question of whether pain and suffering could be recovered in contract action was not decided.

1987 Klarfeld v. Salsbury, 233 Va. 277, 355 S.E.2d 319.

Medical malpractice review panel member may be deposed and interrogated about deliberative process. Dissenting opinion of two justices would hold that medical malpractice review panels are constitutional as Fourth Circuit has decided.

Contact Us For A Free Consultation

Medical Malpractice Panel Proceedings

Contact Us For A Free Consultation

Contact Us For A Free Consultation