Bruckshaw, T., Aplt. v. The Frankford Hospital (concurring)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[J-19-2012] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT THOMAS BRUCKSHAW, AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF PATRICIA BRUCKSHAW AND THOMAS BRUCKSHAW, IN HIS OWN RIGHT AS HUSBAND OF THE DECEDENT PATRICIA BRUCKSHAW, : : : : : : : Appellant : : : v. : : : THE FRANKFORD HOSPITAL OF THE : CITY OF PHILADELPHIA AND THE : FRANKFORD HOSPITAL OF THE CITY : OF PHILADELPHIA T/A FRANKFORD : HOSPITAL TORRESDALE DIVISION : AND FRANKFORD HOSPITAL : TORRESDALE DIVISION AND : FRANKFORD HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, : INC. AND JEFFERSON HEALTH : SYSTEM, INC. AND BRIAN P. PRIEST, : M.D. AND RANDY METCALF, M.D., : No. 47 EAP 2011 Appeal from the Judgment of the Superior Court, entered 9/17/2010 at No. 2638 EDA 2008, affirming the Judgment entered 9/12/2008 in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Civil Division, at No. 2940 March Term 2005 ARGUED: March 6, 2012 Appellees CONCURRING OPINION MR. CHIEF JUSTICE CASTILLE DECIDED: December 18, 2012 I join Part I of the Majority Opinion, and concur in the result the majority achieves. I would, however, stress the subtle but important point that, in assessing the error or errors of the trial judge here, there is error in the juror substitution only insofar as the court officer s actions here are attributable to the trial court; it is only for that reason that we may properly consider whether the trial court s errors, in the multiple, require a new trial. Majority Slip Op. at 18. Of course, trial jurists are no more omniscient than appellate jurists; it is the trial court s post-verdict reaction to the juror substitution issue, once the fact became known, that is the actually erroneous decision in this case, since the court and the parties apparently were unaware of the court officer s actions until after the verdict was rendered. Moreover, because I believe Part I of the Majority Opinion adequately disposes of the issue before us, I do not join Part II of the opinion. [J-19-2012] - 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
