Lira v. Albert Einstein Med. Center
559 A.2d 550 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An out-of-court statement of medical opinion by a non-testifying physician is inadmissible hearsay and does not qualify for the excited utterance or present sense impression exceptions because such an opinion is a product of deliberation, not a spontaneous reaction, and the declarant must be available for cross-examination.
Facts:
- In January 1981, Bonnie Lira was hospitalized at Albert Einstein Medical Center (AEMC) for Crohn's disease, during which she was intubated.
- On May 13, 1981, Lira returned to AEMC, where Dr. Gary Pearlstein inserted a nasogastric tube.
- During the insertion, Lira felt the tube get stuck, experienced a jabbing pain, and began spitting up blood.
- Following the procedure, Lira experienced ongoing throat pain and discomfort.
- In early 1982, Lira suffered severe respiratory distress, which required an emergency tracheotomy.
- After the tracheotomy, Lira's husband, Jose, took her for an examination by a non-party physician, Dr. Silberman.
- While examining Bonnie Lira's throat, Dr. Silberman exclaimed, "Who’s the butcher who do this!"
Procedural Posture:
- Bonnie Lira and her husband, Jose, filed a medical malpractice action in a state trial court against Albert Einstein Medical Center (AEMC) and Dr. Pearlstein, among others.
- At trial, the court overruled a defense objection and allowed Jose Lira to testify about Dr. Silberman's 'butcher' statement.
- The jury returned a verdict against AEMC and Dr. Pearlstein.
- The defendants filed post-trial motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (n.o.v.) and for a new trial.
- The trial court denied the motion for judgment n.o.v. but granted the motion for a new trial, concluding its evidentiary ruling admitting the statement was an error.
- The plaintiffs (Liras) appealed to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, challenging the order for a new trial.
- The defendants (AEMC and Pearlstein) filed a cross-appeal, challenging the denial of their motion for judgment n.o.v.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a non-testifying physician's out-of-court statement, which expresses a medical opinion about a patient's condition, qualify for the excited utterance or present sense impression exceptions to the hearsay rule?
Opinions:
Majority - Wieand, Judge
No. A non-testifying physician's extrajudicial statement of medical opinion is inadmissible hearsay and does not fall within the excited utterance or present sense impression exceptions. The statement was an expression of opinion based on medical training, not a spontaneous, unreflective reaction to a shocking event. To be admissible, an expert opinion must be subject to cross-examination, a fundamental component of a fair trial. The court reasoned that the statement was not an 'excited utterance' because a specialist's discovery of a medical abnormality within their field is not a 'shocking occurrence' that would cause an overpowering emotion. Similarly, it was not a 'present sense impression' because it was not an instinctive, reflex product of a sensual impression, but rather a deliberative opinion based on medical training and experience. Admitting such a statement without the ability to cross-examine the declarant would violate both the rule against hearsay and the principles governing expert testimony.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the critical distinction between spontaneous statements of fact and deliberative statements of opinion under hearsay exceptions. It establishes a strong precedent that professional opinions, particularly medical ones, cannot be admitted into evidence through the 'excited utterance' or 'present sense impression' exceptions. The court prioritizes the right to cross-examine expert witnesses to test the reliability of their opinions, preventing parties from introducing potentially prejudicial expert conclusions without affording the opposing party a chance to challenge them. This ruling effectively closes a potential loophole for admitting expert testimony without the expert ever taking the stand.
