Motion to Bifurcate Medical Malpractice Case Denied

In the case of Wolking v. Lindner, No. 3:23-CV-806 (M.D. Pa. April 14, 2025 Saporito, J.), the court denied a Motion to Bifurcate in a medical malpractice case.

In addressing the Motion to Bifurcate, Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr. of the Federal Middle District Court of Pennsylvania turned to F.R.C.P. 42(b), which allows a court to order a separate trial of one or more issues presented for convenience, to avoid prejudice, to expedite the case, or to further the interests of judicial economy.

The court in Wolking noted that four factors are to be considered: (1) whether the issues are significantly different from one another, (2) whether the issues require different witnesses, documents, and evidence, (3) whether the nonmoving party would be prejudiced by bifurcation, and (4) whether the moving party would be prejudiced if the request for bifurcation is denied.

Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr.
M.D. Pa.

Judge Saporito noted that bifurcation of trial is a matter of judicial discretion and should be viewed as the exception rather than the rule.

The court noted that a request for bifurcation solely on the basis of judicial economy alone is not sufficient to support an entry of an Order in favor of bifurcation.

Here, the court found that the contested issues of liability and damages were not significantly different, but rather were inherently intertwined. The contested issues in this case both depended upon the harm caused by the prescribed medication, which involved the same types of evidence to be presented to the jury on both the liability and damages issues presented.

As such, the court denied the Motion to Bifurcate the issues of liability and damages.

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


I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

Source of image: Photo from Times Leader story.