Superior Court Reverses Limited Tort Summary Judgment in Non-Precedential Opinion

The Pennsylvania Superior Court recently issued a "non-precedential" Opinion in the limited tort case of Cadena v. Latch, No. 1891 MDA 2012 (Pa. Super.  Sept. 13, 2013 Gantman, J., Allen, J., and Mundy, J.) (mem. by Mundy, J.).

In Cadena, the Superior Court panel reversed the trial court and ruled that the trial court abused its discretion in granting Summary Judgment for the Defendant on the issue of whether the plaintiff's injuries breached the serious injury threshold of the limited tort option. 

According to the opinion, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with eight ailments related to the collision all of which allegedly changed her life.  The record before the court revealed evidence that the plaintiff continued to experience pain in neck, back, legs, along with headaches, could no longer drive, could no longer sit or stand for long periods, missed her children's' activities, and that she had decreased sexual activities. 

The Superior Court also noted that, although medical treatment discontinued years ago, it was allegedly due to lack of insurance. 

Applying the precedent of limited tort cases to the facts of the case before it, the Pennsylvania Superior Court concluded that  reasonable minds could differ as to whether plaintiff sustained a  "serious injury" and, as such, the trial court's entry of summary judgment was reversed.

Anyone wishing to review this "non-precedential" Opinion by the Superior Court in Cadena, may click this LINK.

I send thanks to Attorney Paul Oven of the Moosic, PA law office of Dougherty, Leventhal & Price, as well as Scott Cooper, Esq. of the Harrisburg, PA law office of Schmidt Kramer, for bringing this case to my attention.  I note that Attorney Cooper cited Bill Mabius of the Pennsylvania Association for Justice for publicizing this case as well.