This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P, underwent orthopedic surgery on his leg performed by D. In order to create a bloodless field D employed a tourniquet which was elevated and released at various intervals. Because of subsequent problems with the leg, P was referred to a neurosurgeon who determined that P had suffered a nerve injury to the leg. Additional examinations by other doctors confirmed that the nerve injury had resulted in a condition known as 'drop foot.' At trial, P complained, that his nerve injury was the result of D's use of the tourniquet. Both sides presented testimony by medical experts supporting their positions. D's experts told the court and jury that his technique was acceptable medically in this particular case, and Ps' experts insisted that it constituted unacceptable practice. The court gave the following instruction to the jury: Thus, under the two schools of thought doctrine, a physician in the position of D will not be held liable to Ps merely for exercising his judgment in applying the course of treatment supported by a reputable and respected body of medical experts, even if another body of medical experts' opinion would favor a different course of treatment. Those are the two schools of thought, and that is the two schools of thought doctrine. D got the verdict and P filed a post-trial motion alleging that he was entitled to a new trial because the court's instruction to the jury on the two schools of thought doctrine was reversible error. At trial and on appeal, P argued that under Pennsylvania law, the test for the doctrine is 'considerable number' rather than 'reputable and respected' as the court had charged the jury. The court affirmed and P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.