Non-Precedential Superior Court Opinion on Fair Scope of Expert Reports (Check Out the Dissent)

In a recent Memorandum Opinion, the Pennsylvania Superior Court addressed the fair scope of expert report rule, as well as issues pertaining to the untimely production of an expert report, in the medical malpractice case of Chiodetti v. Fernandez, No. 63 EDA 2013 (Pa. Super. Feb. 6, 2015 Bowes, Ott, Strassburger, J.J.) (Mem. Op. by Ott, J.)(Bowes, J., Dissenting). 

As this Opinion was issued only as a Memorandum Opinion and has been identified by the Superior Court as a “non-precedential” Opinion was a detailed summary is not provided.  

 

(Why does the Superior Court all-too-often label written Opinions as "non-precedential" when every bit of guidance from the appellate courts on important and recurring issues, such as the fair scope of expert report rule in this case, is helpful to both the bar and the lower courts in addressing the same questions in future cases?)

 

Should you wish to review the Pennsylvania Superior Court’s latest Opinion, albeit non-precedential, on the issue of the fair scope of the expert report rule, please click this LINK. 

Judge Bowes' strongly worded Dissenting Opinion in this case can be viewed HERE.  Although not precedential, this Dissenting Opinion would serve as an excellent guide to formulate a brief supporting an argument that an opposing party's expert had improperly testified beyond the fair scope of his or her report at trial.

Source of Image:  www.logolog.co