Gbur v. Golio

OPINION ANNOUNCING THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

We allowed appeal to address the MCARE Act’s samesubspecialty requirement pertaining to the admission of expert testimony to establish the standard of care in a medical malpractice action. Although the Court is unanimous as to the result, it is equally divided concerning the appropriate reasoning. This opinion, supported by three of six participating Justices, turns on issue preservation.

Appellant is a physician specializing in the field of urology. He is certified by the American Board of Urology. In 2001 through 2002, Appellant treated Appellee’s decedent, Joseph Gbur, for prostate cancer. In March 2003, Mr. and Mrs. Gbur commenced a medical malpractice action against Appellant. Their theory of the case centered upon Appellant’s receipt, in March 2001, of the results of a radiological bone scan, in which the radiologist reported as follows:

*60There are multiple foci of abnormal activity involving the right and left sides of the pelvis, the lower thoracic spine, right ribs, right mandible. The pattern is consistent with osseous metastatic disease. There are some areas of increased activity at the knees and in the cervical spine which may be degenerative in nature.

IMPRESSION

THERE ARE ABNORMAL AREAS OF ACTIVITY IDENTIFIED IN THE RIGHT MANDIBLE, RIGHT RIBS, LOWER THORACIC SPINE AND MULTIPLE FOCI IN THE PELVIS CONSISTENT WITH OSSEOUS METASTATIC DISEASE.

According to the Gburs, Appellant: discounted the scan and report without consulting the radiologist; did not advise Mr. Gbur of the results; and proceeded to embark upon an unnecessary course of treatment, including implantation of radioactive seeds in Mr. Gbur’s prostate (brachytherapy), which would have been appropriate only for non-metastasized prostate cancer. In the meanwhile, the Gburs contended, Mr. Gbur reasonably did not understand that the severe pain he suffered in his jaw was due to the metastasis, since he was unaware of the results of the bone scan. Thus, the plaintiffs alleged, Mr. Gbur underwent an unnecessary course of dental procedures (including multiple root canals) and suffered needless pain, when his symptoms would have been appropriately addressed (and ultimately were addressed) by irradiation, had Mr. Gbur apprehended earlier that he suffered from metastasis.

In discovery, the Gburs produced the expert report of Shelby P. Sanford, M.D., a board-certified radiation oncologist, who opined that Appellant breached the governing medical standard of care by failing to evaluate the bone scan findings more thoroughly, discuss the findings with Mr. Gbur, and report the results to other treating physicians. Although Appellant could not have prevented Mr. Gbur’s ultimate death (which occurred during the course of the legal proceedings), according to the report, Appellant’s asserted failures resulted *61in many unnecessary, aggressive surgical interventions and delayed appropriate palliative treatment.

Prior to trial, Appellant filed a motion to dismiss and a motion in limine challenging, among other things, Dr. Sanford’s competence to express an opinion concerning the standard of care applicable in the practice of urology. Appellant generally invoked Section 512 of the MCARE Act, which, among other things, requires that an expert testifying as to a physician’s standard of care must:

(1) Be substantially familiar with the applicable standard of care for the specific care at issue as of the time of the alleged breach of the standard of care.

(2) Practice in the same subspecialty as the defendant physician or in a subspecialty which has a substantially similar standard of care for the specific care at issue, except as provided in subsection (d) or (e).

(3) In the event the defendant physician is certified by an appropriate board, be board certified by the same or a similar approved board, except as provided in subsection (e).

40 P.S. § 1303.512(c). Appellant opened his lead argument with the assertion that, as a radiation oncologist, Dr. Sanford was not qualified to testify against a urologist, thus implicating Section 512(c)(2). The argument proceeded as follows:

Plaintiff secured the opinions of Shelby P. Sanford, M.D. To support her claims of negligence against Dr. Golio. Dr. Sanford is a radiation oncologist! He has no specialized education, training or experience in the field of urology. In retrospect, Dr. Sanford is critical of Dr. Golio for failing to perform additional testing, by way of x-ray or CT to rule out metastasis. He is critical of Dr. Golio for not supplying the bone scan report to Dr. Onufrey[, a radiation oncologist to whom Appellant referred Mr. Gbur in connection with the brachytherapy procedure].

Dr. Sanford issued an affidavit to show that he is very familiar with bone scans and brachytherapy. He affirms that he routinely orders and reviews bone scans. The audacity of all of this is that he is not critical of radiation *62oncologist, Dr. Onufrey, who was the primary physician concerning the brachytherapy. By his own admission, Dr. Onufrey never looked at the bone scan/MRE reports. He never asked for them. He never looked at the actual films. He never bothered to explore why he was missing Pages one (1) through (6) of Dr. Golio’s fax.[1] He simply was lazy and he elected to allow other specialists, i.e. [a medical oncologist] and Golio to do his work for him. The coup de grate [sic] is when he cannot produce pages one (1) through six (6) of the fax, but rather, replaces the six pages with a self-serving note. Why did Dr. Onufrey fail to chart in May 2002 what he charted in March 2003, when he discussed these matters with his patient? Why is Dr. Sanford silent about all of this?

Dr. Golio is not the consultant. He is the referring physician. Dr. Onufrey is the expert. When did it become standard of care for the referring physician to tell the consultant how to do his job? Dr. Golio sends to the consultant, precisely what the consultant requests. How is Dr. Golio supposed to know what is important to the consultant, if the consultant did not ask for it. It will prove to be a grave injustice to Dr. Golio, if Dr. Sanford is permitted to criticize his care of the decedent in this case.

Gbur v. Golio, No. GD03-005415, Motion in Limine (September 9, 2005).

Appellee’s responses, included references to Dr. Sanford’s affidavit, indicating, among other things, that:

He trained in brachytherapy procedures involving radioactive seed implantations into the prostate at The University of Alabama, Birmingham, as well as at The University of Washington, Seattle in 1995. He has personally performed approximately fifty brachytherapy procedures, each time working with the urologist, as is standard practice. The standard of care for brachytherapy is a national standard. *63As a part of the treatment protocol for prostate cancer patients, he regularly orders and reviews bone scan tests and, either directly or in conversation with the patients’ other treating physicians, determine^] how the results of the bone scan testing will impact the patient’s treatment protocol. The standard for physicians reviewing bone scans and the impact that the results of the same have upon treatment of prostate cancer is also a national standard.

Appellee also invoked waiver provisions associated with the same-specialty requirement set forth in Section 512(d) and (e) of the MCARE Act, as follows:

(d) Care outside specialty. — A court may waive the same subspecialty requirement for an expert testifying on the standard of care for the diagnosis or treatment of a condition if the court determines that:

(1) the expert is trained in the diagnosis or treatment of the condition, as applicable; and

(2) the defendant physician provided care for that condition and such care was not within the physician’s specialty or competence.

(e) Otherwise adequate training, experience and knowledge. — A court may waive the same specialty and board certification requirements for an expert testifying as to a standard of care if the court determines that the expert possesses sufficient training, experience and knowledge to provide the testimony as a result of active involvement or full-time teaching of medicine in the applicable subspecialty or a related field of medicine within the previous five-year time period.

40 P.S. § 1303.512(d), (e).

The motions were denied on a pre-trial basis.

At trial, Appellant’s counsel orally renewed his motion in limine, again arguing that:

Dr. Sanford is a radiation oncologist. Dr. Golio is a urologist. Dr. Sanford has never spent one day practicing as urologist. While he might have some knowledge of certain areas of treatment like brachytherapy, which is involved in *64this case, he works on it and analyzes the case from the prospective [sic] of a radiation oncologist and not a urologist.

So we feel that he is unable to offer opinions in that regard. He does not satisfy the elements of MCARE. That’s essentially the gist of the first issue, Your Honor.

N.T., September 16, 2005, at 4-5. Appellant also renewed his effort to shift any responsibility to Dr. Onufrey for inappropriately failing to address the bone scan prior to participating in the brachytherapy procedure. See id. at 16-17. Appellee’s responses included development of the position that the MCARE Act’s same-subspecialty requirement is not as rigid as Appellant represented, but that it requires only practice in a subspecialty which has a substantially similar standard of care for the care at issue. See id. at 7. Further, Appellee again invoked Section 512’s various waiver provisions. As to Dr. Onufrey, Appellant noted that his conduct was not at issue in the case, and that Appellant was free to seek contribution if appropriate. See id. at 17. Consistent with the prior rulings, the trial court denied the oral motion in limine.

On voir dire examination, Dr. Sanford explained that radiation oncology is the discipline of evaluating patients who may or do have cancer, deciding how they need to be treated, and administering radiation treatment. In this connection, he explained that radiation oncologists regularly read radiographic films and reports. Further, he indicated that he has special education and training in brachytherapy. Dr. Sanford also indicated that ten to twenty percent of his patients have prostate cancer. In response to a question concerning whether the standards for the staging and treatment of prostate cancer are national in character, Dr. Sanford replied, “I would say that is a national standard. I know of no regional standards.” N.T., September 19, 2005, at 122. On cross-examination concerning his qualifications, Dr. Sanford conceded that he had no formal education, training, or expertise in the discipline of urology, other than by way of a two-month residency rotation. See id. at 124. The trial court accepted *65Dr. Sanford as an expert, and Appellant indicated that he was preserving his prior objections.

Upon direct examination, Dr. Sanford proceeded to reiterate and expound upon the conclusions previously set forth in his report. In particular, Dr. Sanford described the bone scan film for Mr. Gbur as “flagrantly positive” for metastasis and indicated that the radiologist interpreting the scan had used the strongest terms in conveying the positive result. See N.T., September 19, 2005, at 189, 223. Dr. Sanford noted that Appellant nevertheless had noted in Mr. Gbur’s medical records that the “bone scan [was] negative,” which Dr. Sanford found absolutely to contradict the report. According to Dr. Sanford, “no urologist, radiation oncologist or anybody on just reviewing the family record would supersede the opinion of a board certified radiologist on that point.” Id. at 209. On the medical records, Dr. Sanford found “no acknowledgement [on Appellant’s part] of the metastasized disease, and no treatment plan to further diagnose, delineate or treat it.” Id. at 214. Consistent with his report, Dr. Sanford opined that it was a breach of the applicable medical standard of care to conduct the brachytherapy procedure without alerting Mr. Gbur concerning his widely metastasized disease. See N.T., September 20, 2005, at 318. Appellee also presented the videotape deposition of Mr. Gbur, who by the time of trial had died, in which Mr. Gbur testified that Appellant did not discuss the bone scan or report with him and indicated that, had he known of the metastasized cancer, he would have consulted an oncologist as opposed to a series of dentists for his jaw pain.

Appellant countered with testimony from a board certified urologist and a radiation oncologist, both of whom indicated that Appellant met the applicable standard of care in his treatment of Mr. Gbur. See N.T., September 22, 2205, at 691; N.T., September 21, 2005, at 609, 613-614.2 A particular focus of the experts was upon Appellant’s receipt, several days after receiving the results of the bone scan, of an MRI scan and *66report which did not disclose any local spread of cancer in Mr. Gbur’s pelvic region. The defense experts characterized the circumstances presented to Appellant as a “diagnostic dilemma” and opined that he reasonably erred on the side of recommending curative, as opposed to palliative, treatment. See, e.g., N.T., September 22, 2005, at 685-686 (indicting that there was a “ten to maybe a fifty percent chance in this patient’s case that these are not metastases” and “[y]ou would hate to miss [the] opportunity to cure him.”). They testified that they believed that Appellant’s treatment plan was made in consultation with a radiologist, was reasonable under the circumstances, and was within the appropriate standard of medical care, particularly as metastasis to the mandible is a relatively rare occurrence. See, e.g., id. at 672. Further, the defense contended that Mr. Gbur’s conduct contributed to his own suffering, since in November 2001 he had taken it upon himself to leave a hospital emergency room against medical advice. See N.T., September 21, 2005, at 532-534.

The jury rendered a verdict awarding monetary damages in favor of Appellee,3 and Appellant filed motion for post-trial relief challenging, inter alia, the admission of Dr. Sanford’s testimony concerning the applicable, medical standard of care. The trial court denied relief, explaining in general terms, that the MCARE Act recognizes that overlap can occur between and among medical specialties. The trial court referenced Section 512(c)(1) of the MCARE Act, 40 P.S. § 1303.512(c)(1), which requires that a plaintiffs expert be substantially familiar with the applicable standard of care at issue as of the time of the alleged breach (but which does not address the separate, same-subspecialty requirement raised by Appellant). The court observed that, in his practice, Dr. Sanford examines patients like Mr. Gbur on a regular basis and is knowledgeable as to their diagnosis, treatment, and care. Additionally, the trial court indicated that, under the MCARE Act, it had discretion in assessing qualifications for expert medical opinions and noted that it had found that Dr. Sanford met those requirements as a result of his treatment of cancer patients.

*67On appeal, the Superior Court affirmed in a published opinion. See Gbur v. Golio, 932 A.2d 203 (Pa.Super.2007). The court developed Dr. Sanford’s qualifications in detail, concluding that the radiation oncologist was eminently qualified to testify concerning the standard of care applying to a urologist in the factual circumstances presented. With regard to the MCAR.E Act’s requirements, the Superior Court initially indicated that Appellant relied primarily upon Section 512(d), the care-outside-subspecialty waiver provision attaching to the same-subspecialty requirement. Upon its review of Dr. Sanford’s qualifications, the court highlighted that he “had significant contact with urologists and, more importantly, [he had] actually treated patients with prostate cancer.” Gbur, 932 A.2d at 210. Further, the Superior Court explained that:

the thrust of Dr. Sanford’s testimony did not relate to the substantive field of urology as such, but rather to Appellant’s failure to consider and, basically, to ignore the results of the all-important bone scan report’s findings, his failure to discuss these findings with the attending radiologist who performed these studies, his failure to communicate those bone scan results and findings to other treating physicians of [Mr. Gbur], and his failure to relate those results and findings to the patient himself and/or to the patient’s family. Dr. Sanford, thus, concluded that such failures permitted the prostate cancer to further metastasize to the mandible, delayed the appropriate palliative treatment, subjected [Mr. Gbur] to futile Brachytherapy surgery, caused unnecessary and painful dental treatment and led to [Mr. Gbur’s] painful and most unfortunate demise. Since much of his testimony had nothing whatsoever to do with the substantive field of urology, and since Dr. Sanford is eminently qualified to render the opinions that he did, the trial court below was correct in exercising its discretion and in allowing Dr. Sanford to testify as an expert witness.

Id. at 210 (footnote omitted).

For these reasons, the Superior Court concluded that “Dr. Sanford did in fact meet the standard required to testify to *68care outside his own particular specialty under section [512](d) of the MCARE Act.” Id. Finally, the court indicated that Section 512(c)(2)’s same-subspecialty requirement may be waived where the testifying physician has expertise in a subspecialty “which has a substantially similar standard of care for the specific care in issue.” Id. at 211 (citing Herbert v. Parkview Hosp., 854 A.2d 1285, 1292 (Pa.Super.2004)). The Superior Court also noted that, in the Herbert case, another panel had indicated that its “reading [of this section of the MCARE Act] comports with Pennsylvania courts’ historical deference to trial courts’ discretion in deciding whether to admit evidence at trial and is consistent with the plain language of the statute itself.” Id. at 211 n. 5.

In allowing the appeal, we framed the question presented as follows:

Whether the MCARE Act foreclosed a plaintiff in a medical malpractice action against a urologist from offering expert testimony from a radiation oncologist to develop the applicable standard of care for the treatment of a cancer patient, upon the urologist’s review of a bone density study indicating “multiple foci of abnormal activity involving the right and left sides of the pelvis, the lower thoracic spine, right ribs, right mandible ... consistent with osseous metastatic disease.”

Gbur v. Golio, 596 Pa. 619, 947 A.2d 1239 (2008) (per curiam). The appropriate interpretation of the MCARE Act poses legal questions, over which our review is plenary.

Presently, Appellant argues that, when the General Assembly enacted the MCARE Act, it overhauled the standards for qualifying expert witnesses in medical malpractice cases with the objective of curtailing frivolous lawsuits, which the Assembly regarded as contributing to skyrocketing insurance premiums and a flight of capable physicians from Pennsylvania to states with friendlier legal climates. To further this objective, Appellant asserts, the Legislature supplemented the former, liberal common law standard governing the qualification of expert witnesses with a substantially stricter regimen, including the same-subspecialty and board-certification require*69ments. According to Appellant and his amici, the Pennsylvania Medical Society and the Pennsylvania Defense Institute, the trial and intermediate appellate courts have failed to enforce these enhanced standards, but rather, in substance and effect, have continued to apply the common-law approach. Appellant and his amici strongly urge that we apply the MCARE requirements strictly, in furtherance of the salutary legislative aims.

For example, in the present case, Appellant criticizes the trial court’s analysis as superficial and faults the court for failing to acknowledge, comment upon, or make findings of fact regarding the Section 512(c)(2) and (c)(3) requirements. Along the same lines, Appellant challenges the Superior Court for failing to meaningfully address these requirements and for proceeding directly to the waiver provision of Section 512(d). See Brief for Appellant at 19 (“In rejecting a straw man argument under subsection 512(d) that Dr. Golio had not pursued, the court failed to conduct the rigorous inquiry required by subsection 512(c).”). Appellant also stresses that, by the terms of the statute, 512(d)’s care-outside-subspecialty waiver provision operates only in relation to the same-subspecialty requirement, and not the board-certification requirement. Thus, Appellant complains that the Superior Court’s reasoning wholly fails to address one of his arguments on appeal.

According to Appellant, the record in this case is substantially inadequate to support a qualification on Dr. Sanford’s part to render an opinion concerning the standard of care applicable to a urologist. Appellant stresses that, during voir dire, Dr. Sanford never stated that he was familiar with the standard of care applying to a urologist treating a patient in Mr. Gbur’s circumstances. Moreover, Appellant highlights that Dr. Sanford also never testified that a substantially similar standard of care pertained across the disciplines of radiation oncology and urology for the care of patients suffering from prostate cancer. As a result, Appellant argues that the trial court’s and Superior Court’s determinations are grounded only on pure speculation, including the unsupported *70assumption that a universal standard of care applied in the circumstances. Appellant also urges that this Court’s review of the record should center on the qualifications voir dire preceding the trial court’s ruling admitting Dr. Sanford’s testimony, as this was the only predicate upon which the trial court could have relied in making that decision. Appellant seeks a holding that a party claiming her expert satisfies the strictures of subsection 512(c)(2) must place specific evidence to this effect on the record, noting that other jurisdictions with similar statutes require a clear evidentiary showing.4

In addition, Appellant criticizes the Superior Court’s conclusion that Appellee was entitled to a Section 512(d) waiver, where there was no evidence that the care given by Appellant was outside his specialty or competence, and where it was undisputed that brachytherapy is part of the treatment overseen by urologists. According to Appellant, the Superior Court’s holding that Section 512(d) was satisfied without any discussion concerning care outside subspecialty will create more confusion, controversy, and dilution of the express legislative intent.

Appellant also argues that Appellee failed to demonstrate that board certification in radiation oncology is the same as, or similar to, board certification in urology, as he asserts is required by subsection 512(c)(3). Appellant stresses that neither the trial court nor the Superior Court even considered whether Dr. Sanford was able to satisfy this provision. Finally, Appellant also argues, at length, that Appellee was not entitled to a waiver of Section 512(c) requirements under Section 512(e).

*71In response, Appellee agrees that the trial court’s opinion is vague and does not specify whether it found radiation oncology to have a substantially similar standard of care for the specific care at issue as urology, or if the trial court found an applicable waiver. Appellee, however, faults Appellant for failing to request a factual hearing on his motion in limine or to ground his complaints more specifically on Section 512’s specific terms, as he does now. Appellee notes that Appellant merely contended before the trial court that a radiation oncologist could never testify against a urologist under the MCARE Act, a position which is facially erroneous in light of latitude under Section 512(c)(2) pertaining to subspecialties governed by substantially similar standards of care and Section 512(d) and (e)’s waiver provisions. According to Appellee, Dr. Sanford’s qualifications to testify under Section 512 were further established at trial by his testimony, as well as that of Appellant and his own experts. Appellee contends that such testimony confirmed the similarity of radiation-oncologist- and urologist-directed metastasized-prostate-cancer care; the identity of those subspecialties’ standards of care for the specific care at issue; and the similarity and relatedness of the two subspecialties.

Appellee emphasizes that Dr. Sanford offered no criticism of Appellant’s performance of traditional, strictly urologic functions. According to Appellee, all of the care at issue is the type of care — entailing the diagnosis, staging, and treatment of metastatic cancer — provided in the same fashion by radiation oncologists, medical oncologists, and urologists. Appellee contends that the record unequivocally establishes that her expert radiation oncologist was substantially familiar with the applicable standard of care for the specific care at issue, reading bone scans, recommending treatment based on those results, and communicating those results to the patient and other providers. See Brief for Appellee at 27 (asserting that “[t]he record is undisputed that, whether a physician is a radiation oncologist or urologist engaged in metastasized prostate cancer care ..., no physician should attempt to override the opinion of the interpreting radiologist without proof, a *72metastasized prostate cancer patient should not be treated as one whose cancer is non-metastasized, antiluteinizing drugs should never be interrupted in a metastasized prostate care patient, and they should not undergo brachytherapy.” (citations omitted)). Appellant observes that Appellant did not argue, and the record would not support the contention, that there is any specific way a urologist should have interpreted Mr. Gbur’s bone scan or rendered the treatment recommendation in this case.

Appellee also presents an extensive argument concerning the waiver provision at Section 512(e). Further, she observes that this Court may affirm on any proper grounds appearing as of record. See, e.g., E.J. McAleer & Co. v. Iceland Products, Inc., 475 Pa. 610, 613 n. 4, 381 A.2d 441, 443 n. 4 (1977).

At the outset, many of Appellant’s points raised in this appeal are well taken. Certainly Appellant is correct that, although there is some overlap between the common-law and MCARE standards, the MCARE Act imposes specific, additional requirements that should not be overlooked or diluted by the courts without proper justification.5 Indeed, in Wexler, we recognized that the Legislature in Section 512 adopted the expert competency standards proposed by the Pennsylvania Medical Society, see Wexler, 593 Pa. at 132 n. 12, 928 A.2d at 981 n. 12, which were obviously designed to impose stricter standards than prevailed under common law. Accord id. at 135, 928 A.2d at 983 (Castille, J., dissenting) (“With respect to expert testimony, the MCARE Act works a very deliberate revolution, in favor of medical malpractice defendants, adopting a heightened standard for admissibility for medical expert testimony.”).6 We also agree with Appellant and his amici *73that, where material factual controversies are presented, rulings under Section 512 should be made on a developed evidentiary record. In this regard, the trial court may, in its discretion, conduct a pretrial evidentiary hearing in the event the matter is raised before trial.7 Furthermore, to assist in the appellate review, the trial court should make specific, supported findings regarding the particular requirements of Section 512(c) that are in dispute.

Appellant is also correct that the present record does not contain a trial-court finding that Dr. Sanford practices in a subspecialty having a standard of care substantially similar to urology for the specific care at issue. Additionally, upon our review, we find the factual record on the subject to be lacking, at least through the time of the trial court’s ruling permitting the testimony. In this regard, admission of Dr. Sanford’s standard-of-care testimony consistent with such provision is not fully justified on the face of the qualifications voir dire, since Dr. Sanford does not practice in the same subspecialty as Appellant, and he did not testify on voir dire that radiation oncology has a substantially similar standard of care to urology for the specific care at issue. See 40 P.S. § 1303.512(c)(2).8

*74We also appreciate Appellant’s and his amici’s substantial critique concerning precision in judicial review. Appellant is correct that the trial court’s opinion reflects a mistaken focus on Section 512(c)(1), which represents only a portion of the MCARE Act embodying the common-law standard for the admission of expert testimony; whereas the enhanced requirements invoked in Appellant’s post-trial motions are set forth elsewhere in the statute. Moreover, Appellant correctly observes that the Superior Court’s analysis finds no factual support on the face of the record of Dr. Sanford’s voir dire,9 nor does the court’s reasoning address Appellant’s argument on appeal concerning Section 512(c)(3)’s board-certification requirement. A Section 512(d) waiver (the primary subject of the Superior Court’s reasoning) on its terms simply does not address this requirement. See 40 P.S. § 1303.512(d) (prescribing that “[a] court may waive the same subspecialty requirement for an expert testifying on the standard of care” on the noted conditions) (emphasis added). Similarly, while the Superior Court made passing reference to Section 512(c)(2)’s same-subspecialty requirement, it did not (and could not) reference any trial-court finding on the subject or point to evidence of record through Dr. Sanford’s voir dire to support the conclusion that that requirement was met.

While we recognize that our courts must strive to maintain a high caliber of performance in the administration of justice, the litigants also bear some responsibility in assisting the courts in achieving the desired sharpness. Here, for example, Appellant’s pretrial motions, and his oral motion in limine asserted at the outset of trial, stand in stark contrast to the focused arguments now presented in Appellant’s brief before this Court. Significantly, in Appellant’s objections asserted before and during trial, he did not mention that *75Appellant is board certified or otherwise develop an argument invoking Section 512(c)(3).10 It is unremarkable, then, that the trial court’s responses did not focus upon Section 512(c)(3). Indeed, we find that, in failing to put the trial court on sufficient notice that he intended to invoke the board-certification requirement of Section 512(c)(3), Appellant failed to preserve such issue for appellate review. See National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh v. Gateway Motels, Inc., 551 Pa. 407, 409, 710 A.2d 1127, 1128 (1998) (“It is axiomatic that in order to preserve a trial objection for review, trial counsel is required to make a timely, specific objection during trial.” (citing Takes v. Metro. Edison Co., 548 Pa. 92, 98, 695 A.2d 397, 400 (1997))).11

Similarly, with regard to the MCARE Act’s samesubspecialty requirement, Appellant’s invocations of Section 512 were framed in fairly categorical terms. See, e.g., Motion in Limine (“Dr. Sanford is a radiation oncologist! He has no *76specialized education, training or experience in the field of urology.” (emphasis in original)). Nowhere in the development of his objections did Appellant acknowledge that Section 512(c)(2), on its terms, may be satisfied where the plaintiffs expert practices in a subspecialty having a substantially similar standard of care for the specific care at issue or address Dr. Sanford’s opinions on such terms. Furthermore, at trial, Appellant also did not complain to the trial court that the evidentiary record was deficient under Section 512(c)(2), as he does now. Indeed, as developed above, each of Appellant’s arguments on the standard-of-care matter devolved into tangents concerning perceived unfairness in the Gburs’ decision to hale him into court, as opposed to other treating physicians. We find these complaints, as framed, insufficient to put the trial court and Appellee on fair notice that Appellant was challenging the sufficiency of the evidentiary record to support substantial similarity of the standards of care pertaining in the subspecialties of radiation oncology and urology and relating to the diagnosis and treatment of metastasis.12

In her concurrence, Justice Greenspan sets out to prove that Appellant lodged an objection to Dr. Sanford’s testimony’s concerning the applicable standard of care. See Concurring Opinion at 84-88, 963 A.2d at 460-62. We have acknowledged the assertion of an objection in this regard. However, we have also addressed Appellant’s actual arguments in considerable detail, because they are qualitatively and materially different from those asserted in this appeal.

It appears to be the position of the concurrence that it was well known before trial that Appellant was challenging Appellee’s ability to prove the disciplines of urology and radiation oncology maintain a substantially similar standard of care for *77the care at issue; and that it was equally well understood that such challenge extended, during and after trial, to Appellee’s actual proofs. See Concurring Opinion at 88, 963 A.2d at 462. Despite such purported knowledge on the part of Appellee’s counsel and the trial court, however, neither addressed the objection on any such terms. For the part of Appellee’s counsel, he never actually created a record on the subject at the voir dire stage,13 and he did not ask to supplement the record when Appellant’s objection was reasserted.14 As for the trial court, despite its supposed understanding that Appellant was rendering a specific substantial-similarity challenge, it never made a finding on the subject.

In our view, the more reasonable conclusion is that neither Appellee’s counsel nor the trial court actually understood Appellant’s objection as encompassing the argument now being asserted on appeal, since the pre-trial and trial objections were never couched in such terms. In short, we believe that the root cause of the material disharmony between the present record and the primary claim asserted on appeal is that such claim was not adequately asserted in the trial court. Rather, Appellant’s challenge was a more abstract one which, accordingly, was answered in a more abstract fashion by both Appellee and the trial court.15

*78In response to Justice Greenspan’s criticism that we are inviting legal malpractice actions, we have no such intention. We mean only to enforce existing procedural rules by limiting the ability of parties to reconstitute their objections on appeal, as we believe that this is the most appropriate way to maintain fundamental fairness in civil litigation. Consistent with our rules, our approach facilitates specific and pertinent responses by the proponent of the evidence and salient findings by the trial court, and appropriately channels proceedings on appeal. Although the concurrence characterizes the subject differently, the MCARE Act’s expert qualifications provisions present technical matters raising novel legal and factual questions involving a sophisticated, multi-dimensional field of higher learning. We do not believe it is too much to ask of trained legal professionals litigating medical malpractice actions at the .trial level to treat the subject matter accordingly.

In summary, whereas we agree with the general proposition that appellate courts should not be overly stringent in their review of the specificity of pre-trial and trial objections, there are also untenable disadvantages in extending broad liberality.

Parenthetically, Appellee is correct that Appellant’s own substantive position on the standard-of-care matter remained somewhat vague throughout trial. Although strongly contesting Dr. Sanford’s competency to render an opinion in general terms, Appellant did little in the proceedings to frame a particularized standard of care different from that which was identified by Dr. Sanford. Certainly the defense experts differed with Dr. Sanford’s ultimate conclusion and his opinion concerning the degree to which the bone scan and associated report confirmed the metastasis — contrary to Dr. Sanford’s beliefs, the defense experts discerned a diagnostic dilemma arising out of the bone scan and MRI reports.16 Nevertheless, *79the defense urologist agreed with the two pillars of Dr. Sanford’s statement of the governing standard of care pertaining to a urologist or other physician treating prostate cancer. In this regard, the defense urologist confirmed that the standard of care required Appellant to consult with a radiologist concerning the bone-scan results prior to discounting them.17 According to the defense urologist, Appellant also should have consulted with Mr. Gbur concerning the results of the bone scan:

In this case I would have said to Mr. Gbur that your bone scan looks like you have a possibility of cancer. Your MRI says no. There is a decent chance that you have metastatic disease, and you will die from your prostate cancer. But there is also a small possibility that these are not metastases, and you could be cured____ Maybe we should think about radiation therapy in your case.

Q: Did you see any evidence — do you recall seeing any evidence in Dr. Golio’s deposition or Mr. Gbur’s deposition that those concepts were communicated to Mr. Gbur in this case?

A: I hadn’t seen that in the transcript.

Q: It is the patient’s choice to make; isn’t it?

A: Ultimately.

Q: Based upon the information available to him as communicated to him by his treating physician?

A: Correct.

N.T., September 22, 2005, at 705-06.

Notably, based on the results of the bone scan and MRI, the defense urologist testified that there was an approximately *80fifty to ninety percent chance that metastasis had occurred. See N.T., September 22, 2005, at 685. However, Appellant’s records reflect his notation “bone scan negative,” and his own descriptions of his conversations with Mr. Gbur strongly suggest that he did not mention to the patient the possibility that the multiple, visible areas of uptake on the bone scan, including the jaw area, reflected metastasis. For example, the following interchange occurred in Appellant’s deposition:

Q Did you give [Mr. Gbur] any explanation as to what you determined the increased uptake [on the bone scan] to represent?

A I mentioned that he had arthritis. And the bone scan can show uptake for many reasons.

Q Did you tell him what those reasons were?

A What do you mean? Every single reason?

Q Or the major ones.

A Major ones, arthritis, inflammation. That is the substance of it.

Deposition of Anthony Golio, M.D., at 49-50 (Jan. 5, 2004) (admitted into evidence, N.T., September 21, 2005, at 492). The following similar exchange occurred on cross-examination at trial:

Q. You didn’t think that it was appropriate for you to advise [Mr. Gbur] of this allegedly equivocal bone scan saying consistent with osseous metastatic disease at all those sites?

A. I didn’t think it was necessary.

N.T., September 23, 2005, at 914.

Dr. Sanford never testified that it would have been a breach of the applicable medical standard of care for Appellant to proceed as he did after full consultation with a radiologist and Mr. Gbur. Appellant’s asserted failures to consult a radiologist and Mr. Gbur were the linchpins to Dr. Sanford’s opinion and Appellee’s liability case.18 As such, there is substantial force *81to Appellee’s position that the central dispute in the case did not pertain to the standard of care per se, but rather, concerned subsidiary facts.

In light of the above, we conclude that Appellant failed to adequately develop and preserve an objection to Dr. Sanford’s testimony pursuant to Section 512(c)(3) of the MCARE Act, as well as his present challenge to an insufficient evidentiary foundation to support Dr. Sanford’s qualification under Section 512(c)(2).

Finally, Justice Greenspan describes the statutory scheme as a simple one and contends it is plain that 512(e), 40 P.S. § 1303.512(e), applies, based on her assessment of Dr. Sanford’s training, experience, and knowledge. See Concurring Opinion at 463-65. In this regard, however, the concurrence does not address the substantial counter-arguments raised by Appellant and his amici.

Appellant and his amici devote lengthy portions of their briefs to urging this Court not to interpret the MCARE Act’s exceptions to the same-subspecialty and board-certification requirements to allow trial courts full discretionary authority to admit expert testimony against a medical professional either expressly, or effectively, on the basis of the common-law criteria standard for admissibility alone. Such discretion, they *82argue, squarely conflicts with the Legislature’s effort to implement meaningful medical malpractice reform by substantially raising the standards for admissibility, thus supplanting the liberal common-law standard. As concerns Section 512(e), Appellant and his amici stress that the exception expressly pertains to “related field[s] of medicine,” 40 P.S. § 512(e), and that, to effectuate the clear legislative intent, such terms must be given meaning beyond some mere overlap among the respective subspecialties. Accord Miville v. Abington Memorial Hosp., 415 F.Supp.2d 500, 500 n. 1 (E.D.Pa.2005). Further, Appellant and his amici argue that courts should not simply assume that two fields of medicine are related; rather, an evidentiary record supporting the proposition should be required to support a specific finding. In this regard, they note that Appellee never introduced any evidence to establish that the fields of radiation oncology and urology are “related fields of medicine,” and the trial court never so found.

As framed by The Pennsylvania Medical Society,

The § 512(e) exception, particularly as applied to the ‘same specialty’ rule, requires particular caution; to implicate it, the expert necessarily practices in neither the same specialty nor in one that has a similar standard of care for the treatment at issue. To testify, the expert must explain how, despite failing these core requirements, s/he is nevertheless familiar with the applicable standard of care in the defendant’s specialty. That is seemingly a very difficult task, and a court should not grant it routinely but only on a proper showing.

Enforcing these criteria is part of a trial court’s gatekeeper function.

What qualifies as a “related field of medicine under § 512(e) should be narrowly construed with the purpose of the “same specialty” requirement in mind. A relevant factor would be whether the specialties shared a residency track through which physicians received education, training, and experience in providing the care at issue. *83It is not sufficient that the expert merely provides the care at issue from time to time in his/her own specialty. That is precisely what the Legislature sought to change when it enacted the “same specialty” and “board certification” requirements. Allowing that to suffice would virtually repeal the “same specialty” requirement. As previously discussed, physicians in different specialties may be confronted with similar medical conditions, but may have different standards of care due to varying degrees of expertise and differing approaches.

Brief for Amicus The Pennsylvania Medical Society at 17-18, 24. Further, Appellant and his amici perceive a disturbing trend in the case law of retreating from the MCARE Act’s elevated qualification standards by improperly invoking a trial court’s liberal common-law discretion, recharacterizing the medical issues, and failing to evaluate all of the MCARE Act’s pertinent provisions based on a proper evidentiary record.

Again, in our view, there are weighty counter-arguments competing with the concurring position. Indeed, we agree with Appellees that the term “related fields of medicine” must mean more than fields of medicine which are “related” in the most generic sense of the word, since Section 512(e) serves as a component of reform legislation designed to meaningfully enhance the standards governing the admissibility of expert testimony in medical professional liability cases. It would not be reasonable, therefore, to conclude that the Legislature intended the Section 512(e) exception merely to operate along the lines of the previously existing common-law standard, thus depriving the enhanced standards of force. See generally 1 Pa.C.S. § 1922 (codifying the presumption that the Legislature did not intend an absurd or unreasonable result).19 Rath*84er, as Appellant and his amicus contend, the statute should be read to require a close enough relation between the overall training, experience, and practices of the expert and that of the defendant-physician to assure the witness’s expertise would necessarily extend to standards of care pertaining in the defendant-physician’s field. Contrary to Justice Greenspan’s perspective, we find the mere fact that two physicians may treat the same condition to be insufficient, in and of itself, to establish such a relation among their fields of medicine. While, in light of our conclusion concerning issue preservation we need not apply Section 512(e) in the present case, we would venture to say those practicing radiation oncology and urology might be surprised to learn of a judicial pronouncement— offered without reference to relevant supporting testimony from those practicing in the respective subspecialties beyond a discussion of a single area of treatment overlap — that their disciplines represent related fields of medicine for purposes of reform legislation.

The order of the Superior Court is affirmed.