Court Chides Parties' Post-Trial Submissions in Medical Malpractice Case

In the case of Melendez v. Mo, Aug. Term 2018, No. 01939 (C.P. Phila. Co. Oct. 2, 2023 Levin, J.), a court addressed post-trial motions in a medical malpractice case.

In its decision, the court noted, at the outset, that it was surprised by the parties’ post-trial submissions in terms of the quality of the same. The court noted that the Defendants’ post-trial motion was a scattershot, stream of consciousness list of complaints with no discernable order or plan. The court also noted that the Defendants’ post-trial brief in support of its post-trial motion appeared disconnected from the post-trial motion itself, never referring to the motion or any of the various arguments. The court noted that some of the Defendant’s arguments from the brief were waived as they were not even mentioned in the motion itself.

With respect to the Plaintiffs’ responsive brief, the court also found this submission to be rambling in failing to address many of the issues raised by the Defendant at any meaningful length, if at all.

The court noted that it was unaware of a sanction that might apply where a non-moving party failed to address the majority of a moving party’s issues in a court ordered brief but that if such a sanction existed, it would have applied in this case. See Op. at 16-19.

In the end, the court found that the issues raised in the Defendants’ post-trial motions in this case involving an $18 million dollar verdict were either waived or without merit.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: “The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert” Law.com (Aug. 22, 2024).