Trial Court Rules that Plaintiff's Medical Malpractice Experts are Competent to Testify on Causation

In the case of Kenny v. Lackawanna Health and Rehab Center, No. 2021-CV-1360 (C.P. Lacka. Co. May 28, 2026 Nealon, J.), Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas addressed various Motions in Limine filed by a Defendant in a medical malpractice case.

The Defendants filed a Motion In Limine seeking to bar the decedent’s treating orthopedic surgeon and the Plaintiff’s skilled nursing care and nursing home administration expert from expressing opinions regarding the cause of the Defendant’s hip fracture.

The Defendant more specifically asserted that the decedent’s treating orthopedic surgeon failed to state his medical causation opinion with the requisite degree of medical certainty in his pre-trial reports. 

After reviewing the record before him, the court ruled that a review of all of the reports issued by the orthopedic surgeon confirmed that the doctor had articulated his medical causation opinion with the requisite degree of medical certainty. The court noted that any objection regarding the particular terminology used by the expert in his reports went to the weight of the evidence rather than the admissibility of the expert testimony. As such, this Motion In Limine was denied.

With regards to the Plaintiff’s nursing expert and the defense argument that this expert should be precluded from testifying regarding causation on the grounds that the expert lacked the required education, training or experience in orthopedics, the court noted that the most recent law in Pennsylvania is that a registered nurse is competent to testify concerning the relevant nursing standard of care as well as on the issue of medical causation. Accordingly, the court overruled the Defendant’s argument that the nursing expert is incompetent to testify as to causation.

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

Premises Liability Plaintiff Tripped Up By Lack of Medical Expert

In the case of Montanez-Fontanez v. Lehigh Valley Health Network, No. 2023-C-0880 (C.P. Lehigh Co. Oct. 16, 2025 Reichley, J.), the court granted summary judgment due to a Plaintiff’s failure to produce expert evidence on the issue of causation with respect to the Plaintiff’s injuries that resulted from a fall down event.

In this matter, the Plaintiff was attending a physical therapy appointment to undergo therapy for her knee which had undergone a replacement surgery a month before.  As the Plaintiff was leaving the facility, she fell.

During the course of the matter, the defense filed a motion in limine and secured a Court Order holding that the Plaintiff's treating medical providers would be limited to the opinions noted in their office notes and were precluded from offering any opinions on causation.

The defense then followed up with a Motion for Summary Judgment on the grounds that the Plaintiff had not secured and produced an expert opinion on the causation of her alleged injuries.   

The Court noted that, while the Plaintiff’s injuries were immediate and of the type that could be expected to result from the nature of the alleged accident, the Plaintiff’s failure to produce expert causation evidence was still fatal. The Court ruled that, in this matter, unlike other cases that hold that causation may be sufficiently obvious such that no expert testimony is necessary, this Plaintiff was not in good health and had prior medical issues with regards to the same parts of her body before the subject incident.

As such, the Court noted that the facts in this matter that surrounded the Plaintiff’s injuries were not so apparent that a lay person on a jury could diagnose the cause of those injuries as being solely from the Plaintiff’s alleged incident.

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

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

Source of imaging: Photo by Online Marketing on www.unsplash.com.

Trial Court Denies Various Motions For Summary Judgment in a Medical Malpractice Case

In the case of Leber v. Frattali, No. 2023-CV-1442 (C.P. Lacka. Co. 2025 Powell, J.), the court addressed fifteen (15) pre-trial motions presented by the defense, which included fourteen (14) Motions for Partial Summary Judgment and one (1) Motion for Summary Judgment in a wrongful death and survival action arising out of a medical malpractice claim.

Overall, the court found that genuine issues of material fact prevented the court from entering any judgments.

In particular, the court rejected the defense claims that the Plaintiff’s expert reports were insufficient to establish negligence. The court stressed that issues of the credibility of the experts and the differing interpretations of risk models were for the jury to resolve, not the court on summary judgment.

The court additionally noted that alleged systemic negligence, including lack of training, inadequate policies, and supervisory failures, could all serve to support claims of corporate negligence and constructive notice.

In the end, the court reiterated that there were issues of fact that prevented the entry of summary judgment on the claims presented. Accordingly, all defense Motions for Summary Judgment and Partial Summary Judgment were denied.

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

Plaintiff Wins Denial of Summary Judgment Motion Without Even Filing a Response

 

In the case of Dunkel v. Dallago, No. S-1335-CV-2022 (C.P. Schuly. Co. Sept. 5, 2025 Burke, J.), the court denied a Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment in a motor vehicle accident case in which the Defendant asserted that it should be granted summary judgment in light of the Plaintiff’s failure to produce any expert medical testimony on the issues of causation.  

The Plaintiff, who was represented by counsel, failed to file any response whatsoever to the Motion for Summary Judgment. The court still denied the Motion for Summary Judgment after finding that it had the discretion to excuse this failure and otherwise rule upon the Motion.

According to the Opinion, this matter arose out of a motor vehicle accident as a result of which the Plaintiff alleged personal injuries.

Relative to the defense argument that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law given the Plaintiff’s failure to produce expert medical testimony to support the Plaintiff’s burden of proof on causation, the court referenced the exception to the law generally requiring such expert testimony. The court noted that, under that exception, where there is an obvious causal relationship between an accident and an injury, the requirement of expert testimony may be excused. The court noted that an obvious causal relationship can be found to exist where the injuries are either an “immediate and direct” or the “natural and probable” of the alleged negligent act.

The court found that there remained factual issues in this regard supported the court's denial of the request for the entry of summary judgment.

Although the Plaintiff never filed a Response to the Motion, the court also went on to note that there were other genuine issues of material fact presented in the case.  The court noted that the Plaintiff claimed that the Defendant was negligent and the Defendant not only denied negligence in its pleadings but also asserted contributory negligence against the Plaintiff. The court also noted sua sponte that there were other issues likely to be raised at the time of trial, including the speed of the Defendant’s vehicle, whether the Defendant was distracted at the time of the accident, and whether the Defendant pled guilty to any criminal charges in connection with the accident.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of the Court’s Opinion granting summary judgment in favor of a Plaintiff who did not file any Response to the Motion may click this LINK.

Source of image:  www.urbandictionary.com.

Who Bears the Burden of Proving a Plaintiff is Covered by the Limited Tort Option?

In the case of Rogers v. Blair, No. 2:24-CV-01534-ETH (E.D. Pa. July 28, 2025 Hey, M.J.), a federal magistrate judge addressed the issue of how to resolve a dispute over whether or not a motor vehicle accident Plaintiff was covered under the limited tort option.

In this matter, on the issue of whether the Plaintiff was covered under the limited tort option or the full tort option, the record revealed that the only evidence in the case was that the Plaintiff testified at his deposition that he was unsure as to which coverage he selected.

The court ruled that, because the issue of the limited tort defense is considered an affirmative defense, Defendants bear the burden of proving a limited tort election. In this regard, the court cited to the case of Sanderson v. Cruz, U.S., 88 F. Supp. 2d 388, 392 (E.D. Pa. 2000). The court also noted that a Plaintiff’s uncertainty as to which coverage he or she may have selected is not determinative on the issue. In this regard, the court cited with a “see” signal Vaughan v. Williams, 725 EDA 2023, 2024 WL 1231352, at *3-5 (Pa. Super. 2024) (affirming trial court’s decision finding that Plaintiff elected limited tort as a matter of law, focusing its analysis on the signed tort election form and associated policy documents, as opposed to phone call transcripts and oral statements).

In this Opinion, the court noted that the Plaintiff’s decision to raise this limited tort election issue through a Motion In Limine rather than through an earlier a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, combined with the absence of the relevant insurance documents, rendered the resolution of this matter ill-time given that it was presented on the eve of trial. 

As such, the judge denied the Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to have the Plaintiff deemed to be full tort as a matter of law.  Presumably, the defense was going to be permitted to present evidence a trial through an insurance representative as to the Plaintiff’s election of a limited tort choice.

In another decision of note in this Opinion, the court barred a Defendant in a rear-end motor vehicle accident from arguing at trial that the Plaintiff was not injured in the accident given that both parties had acknowledged, through expert testimony, that the Plaintiff had indeed sustained some form of injury.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.


Source: “Article – “Defendant Can’t Argue Rear-End Crash Didn’t Result In Injuries, Pa. Fed. Court Rules Citing Defense Expert Report” By Riley Brennan The Legal Intelligencer (July 30, 2025).

Source of image:  Photo by Niki Nikitaxnikin on www.pexels.com.

Summary Judgment Granted In Favor of Restaurant in Foodborne Illness Claim Due to Lack of Expert for Plaintiff

In the case of Lawrence v. Texas Roadhouse Holdings, LLC, No. CI-23-00720 (C.P. Lanc. Co. May 22, 2025 Brown, P.J.), the court granted the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment in a case where the Plaintiff alleged that he contracted a foodborne illness after eating at a Texas Roadhouse restaurant in Lancaster County.

The court noted that, while medical tests completed on the Plaintiff after his visit to the restaurant raised the possibility of E. coli colitis, the record revealed that the Plaintiff was never definitively diagnosed with E. coli. The court also noted that the Plaintiff’s discharge diagnosis from his initial medical visit was for acute gastroenteritis, rather than any specific foodborne illness. It was also indicated that no stool sample was taken that could have been analyzed to definitively identify any foodborne illness.

In granting summary judgment in this matter, the court emphasized that the Plaintiff did not present any competent expert medical evidence to establish a causal link between the Plaintiff's consumption of food at the restaurant and his alleged illness.

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

I send thanks to Attorney Jennifer G. Shorr of the Philadelphia office of the Weber Gallagher law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

Court Rules That Expert Testimony Not Required To Establish Defendant's Duty to Provide a Safe Workplace

In the case of Chirdon v. 3M Company, Inc., No. G.D. 22-16244 (C.P. Allegh. Co. March 24, 2025 Kline, J.), the trial court denied the Defendant’s post-trial motions in an alleged unsafe workplace trial involving allegations of asbestos exposure to a boilermaker.

According to the Opinion, the jury awarded $2.3 million dollars in compensatory damages and $1.5 million dollars in punitive damages against the Defendant employer.

In this Rule 1925 Opinion, by the trial court, the court addressed defenses raised with regard to statute of repose, the method in which the concept of outrageous conduct may be admitted into evidence at trial, issues regarding the bifurcation of the liability and punitive damages phases of the trial and challenges by the defense to the Plaintiff’s failure to utilize an expert to explain OSHA violations.

Notably the trial court rule that expert testimony was not required to establish the Defendant's duty to provide a safe workplace.  Rather, the court ruled that the duty to provide a safe workplace, as well as the applicable OSHA regulations were within the understanding of ordinary jurors.

Overall, the trial court ruled that the Defendant failed to meet the standard of review for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial.  As such, the Defendant's post-trial motions were denied.

Anyone wishing to review this decision may click this LINK.

I send thanks to Attorney Ken Behrend of the Behrend Law Group, LLC located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania for bringing this case to my attention.

Source of image:  Photo by Sylvia Brazzoduro from www.unsplash.com.

Court Addresses Admissibility of Expert Testimony Under the Federal Employer's Liability Act

In the case of Lindsay v. Delaware and Hudson Railway Co., Inc., No. 2019-CV-3949 (C.P. Lacka. Co. March 3, 2025 Nealon, J.), the court addressed a pre-trial Motion In Limine filed by the Defendants seeking to preclude the opinions of a Plaintiff’s medical expert in a personal injury claim arising out of the Federal Employer’s Liability Act. The Defendants contended that the Plaintiff’s medical expert’s causation opinions were inadmissible since they were based upon methodologies that were not generally accepted in the relevant scientific community.

After reviewing the expert’s report and noting that the expert had a section of his report entitled “Methodology” in which the doctor described the methodologies he utilized in formulating his general causation and specific causation opinions, the court denied the Defendant’s Motion In Limine.

The court note that the materials submitted for the court’s review confirm that the Plaintiff’s medical expert based his causation opinions upon his knowledge, experience, and training in internal medicine, oncology, and hematology, the review of the Plaintiff’s medical records and deposition testimony, the Defendant’s discovery responses, other expert reports, along with the application of the generally accepted methodologies for general causation and specific causation.

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

Source of image: Photo by Todd Trapani on www.pexels.com.

Link To Decision Corrected for Yesterday's Post: Court Rules that Plaintiff Can't Wing It In Terms of Expert Testimony

The Link to the court decision in yesterday's post has been fixed.  Sorry about that error.  You can view yesterday's Tort Talk post here at this LINK and click the corrected Link to the case therein.

Thanks for reading Tort Talk.

Court Rules That Plaintiff Can't Wing It In Terms of Expert Testimony

In the case of Boruch v. Catty Corner Neighborhood Pub & Pie, 2025 Pa. D. & C. Dec. Lexis 6 (C.P. Leh. Co. Jan. 2, 2025 Reichley, J.), the court granted summary judgment in an alleged food poisoning case involving Buffalo Wings.

In this case, the court noted that the Plaintiff’s expert’s report only addressed the fact of the happening of the alleged food poisoning and did not contain a causation opinion linking the Plaintiff’s illness to the Plaintiff’s consuming the Defendant’s food.

The court recognized that, absent an obvious causal relationship, a personal injury Plaintiff must have expert testimony to establish causation. 

The court generally agreed that such an obvious relationship can arise from an immediate and direct injury or as a natural probable result following alleged negligence.

However, the court found that becoming ill several hours after consuming food is not such a relationship of cause and effect as noted above. Here, the court noted that the causal connection would require guesswork and/or conjecture on the part of a jury.

Given the failures of the Plaintiff’s expert report, summary judgment was granted.

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 by Sergio Arreola on www.pexels.com.

Federal Court Rules Just Because Experts Agree That There Was An Injury Doesn't Automatically Mean That Causation Has Been Established

In the case of Gross v. Villeneuve, No. 2:23-CV-00705-NBF (W.D. Pa. Jan. 22, 2025 Fischer, S.J.), the court granted the Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment with respect to a Defendant’s negligence, which had been conceded, but otherwise denied the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment in a case involving a motor vehicle accident.

While the court granted the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment in terms of the liability issue in this rear-end accident, the court denied the Plaintiff’s argument that, given the Defendant's concession on liability, the Plaintiff was, therefore, entitled to a further concession on the issue of causation relative to the physical injuries and damages alleged by the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff asserted that he was entitled to summary judgment on the “factual cause” question where both parties’ medical experts attributed some degree of injury to the accident. 

Here, citing to Pennsylvania Superior Court precedent, the federal court ruled that a defense expert’s opinion that a Plaintiff suffered an injury, based on the history given to the expert, is not an uncontroverted admission on the issue of causation by a defendant. 

The court confirmed the well-settled rule that a jury was free to render its own decision on the case presented even where the experts of the parties may agree, to some extent, that the Plaintiff sustained an injury as a result of the accident. 

More specifically, the court reasoned that “[a] medical expert report concluding that, based on the evidence provided (including a Plaintiff’s history and subjective complaints), the ‘mechanism of injury’ and clinical findings were ‘consistent with’ some of the allegedly consequent injuries (i.e., some injury could be resultant from the collision), is simply not a concession. To the contrary, it is an insufficient basis on which to usurp a trial jury’s credibility determinations and broader fact-finding role.” See Op. at 5.

As such, the court denied the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment based on the causation issues presented.

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

I send thanks to Attorney Joseph Hudock of the Pittsburgh law office of Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Rauch for bringing this case to my attention.

Source of image:  Photo by Nikita Nikitin on www.pexels.com.

Superior Court Affirms Entry of Nonsuit Where Trial Court Precluded Plaintiff's Liability Expert For Giving a 'More Likely Than Not' Expert Opinion

In the case of Peterson v. Stacy’s Pizza, Inc., 315 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super. Jan. 14, 2025 Dubow, J., Sullivan, J., and Olson, J.) (Op. by Dubow, J.; Olson, J, concurring), the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the entry of a nonsuit entered by the lower court after finding that the Plaintiffs did not meet their burden of proving the case presented.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff was allegedly injured when he was hit by a swinging door while making a delivery.  The Plaintiff retained a liability expert to testify at trial on a opinion on whether the door in question was defective.   

In this decision, the Pennsylvania Superior Court again confirmed that an expert opinion on causation to a reasonable degree of engineering certainty that the condition on the Defendant’s property “more likely than not” caused the Plaintiff’s injury was properly excluded by the trial court as not actually being an expert opinion to a reasonable degree of certainty.

The court noted that the Plaintiff’s expert’s opinion only stated that the Defendant’s improper maintenance was more likely than not the cause of the injury.

The Superior Court noted that, because the Plaintiff in this case had rested his case when it became clear that a fatal expert exclusion would cause a nonsuit, and where the Plaintiff did not thereafter present any evidence of damages, any error possibly committed by the trial court in terms of entering a nonsuit would have been harmless in any event.

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.

Medical Malpractice Plaintiff Must Show Systemic Negligence to Support a Corporate Negligence Claim in a Med Mal Case

In the non-precedential decision in the case of Wandell v. Robert Packer Hospital, No. 1532 MDA 2023 (Pa. Super. Aug. 7, 2024 Stevens, P.J.E., Olson, J., and Kunselman, J.)(Mem. Op. by Stevens, P.J.E.), the court affirmed the entry of summary judgment in favor of a Defendant hospital in a medical malpractice case.

The Superior Court noted that hospital corporate negligence is limited to instances in which a Plaintiff demonstrates systemic negligence.

The court additionally noted that, except in obvious cases that are within a layperson’s general understanding, a Plaintiff must present expert testimony establishing the generally accepted standard of care in a medical malpractice case along with the healthcare provider’s breach of duty.

More specifically with respect to this case, the court agreed with the trial court that the fact that a nurse left a room during the course of treatment did not automatically establish a hospital’s negligence. The court noted that medical issues regarding the standard of care and whether the nursing staff deviated from the standard of care required expert reports. 

In this case, the court noted that the Plaintiff had failed to offer any expert testimony relative to the applicable standard of care. As such, the entry of summary judgment by the trial court was affirmed.

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

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

Summary Judgment Granted in Favor of Porsche Due to Failure of Plaintiff's Expert Testimony

In the case of Riad v. Porsche Cars M.A. Inc., No. 18-5175-KSM (E.D. Pa. July 30, 2024 Marston, J.), the court granted summary judgment to the defense in a products liability action.

The court noted that the Plaintiff failed to prove causation, which is necessary element in a products liability action. The court additionally noted that causation requires expert testimony where the issues are medically complex and such testimony must be to a reasonable degree of medical certainty in order to be admissible.

In this case, the court noted that the Plaintiff’s expert denied having any opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty. The court noted that testimony using phrases like “likely” or referring to “possibilities” do not equate to testimony to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.

Given that the Plaintiff was found to be without admissible causation evidence, the Defendant was granted summary judgment.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.

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

Trial Court Requests Superior Court to Affirm Rulings in Medical Malpractice Action

In the case of Jordan v. Lynde, No. 2021-CV-02616 (C.P. Bucks Co. March 12, 2024 Trauger, J.), the court issued a Rule 1925 Opinion to the Superior Court requesting that the Superior Court affirm the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of the Defendant medical providers in this medical malpractice action.

The court concluded that its Order dismissing the case should be affirmed where the Plaintiffs failed to present any expert testimony to establish that the care provided by the Defendants deviated from acceptable medical standards.

The court also found that, in this case where the Plaintiffs filed their lawsuit two (2) years and two (2) months after the event which gave rise to the claim, the Plaintiffs’ claims were barred by the statute of limitations and not saved by any reference to the discovery rule.

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


Source “The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert,” ww.law.com (June 19, 2024).

 

Where Defense Medical Expert Does Not Concede Injury, Causation Remains In Dispute

In the case of Dang v. Geico Secure Ins. Co., No. 23-2311 (E.D. Pa. March 14, 2024 Hey, Mag.J.), the court denied a Motion In Limine in an uninsured motorist benefits case.  The Plaintiff sought a ruling from the Court that the subject accident was a factual cause of the Plaintiff's alleged injuries based upon the expert reports submitted by the parties. 

In so ruling, the court held that, where both parties’ experts agree that the Plaintiff has suffered some form of an injury from the Defendant’s conduct, a jury cannot find a total lack of causation. However, this rule does not apply where no injury is conceded by the defense expert.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.

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

Superior Court Confirms That, At Times, Plaintiff Can Prove Obvious Injuries Without Medical Expert

In a decision marked as "Non-Precedential" in the case of Kent v. Williams, No. 1855 EDA 2023 (Pa. Super. Feb. 13, 2024 Murray, J., Lazarus, J., and Stevens, P.J.E.) (Op. by Murray, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed the entry of a nonsuit by a trial court in a fall down case.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff fell while on a ladder.  The Plaintiff sued the Defendant for not properly securing the ladder and/or providing a defective ladder.    

In this case, the Superior Court noted that a compulsory nonsuit cannot be entered prior to trial but can be treated as an entry of summary judgment by the trial court on appeal.

The appellate court additionally ruled in this case that a medical expert is not necessary to testify as to those types of injuries that may fall within the common experience and understanding of lay people on a jury, such as certain injuries that may result from a fall-down event where, as here, the Plaintiff fell 15 feet down from a ladder and landed on the surface below and allegedly sustained immediate injuries.

The court otherwise ruled that a personal injury Plaintiff is competent to testify as to his or her pain and suffering.

The appellate court additionally found that the trial court had erred in excluding the Plaintiff’s medical records entirely as hearsay. The Superior Court noted that, while some medical records or portions of records may indeed be hearsay, other portions may contain statements made for medical diagnosis which would fall under an exception to the hearsay rule. The trial court was ordered to consider each medical record individually on remand.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this non-precedential 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 by Raphael Brasileiro on www.pexels.com.

Pennsylvania Superior Court Remands Case After Finding that Testimonies of Defense Experts Were Improperly Limited By Trial Court

In the case of Bell v. O’Neill, No. 2393 EDA 2022 (Pa. Super. Nov. 16, 2023 Bowes, J., Stabile, J., Pellegrini, J.) (Op. by Bowes, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court vacated a jury’s $1 million dollar verdict in favor of a Plaintiff in a motor vehicle accident matter after concluding that the defense expert witnesses were improperly precluded from testifying during the trial.

More specifically, the Superior court noted that the trial court should have allowed two (2) of the defense experts, an orthopedic surgeon, and a biomedical engineer, to testify on causation issues.

The court noted that, just as the Plaintiff’s medical expert was permitted offer opinions that the motor vehicle accident caused the Plaintiff’s alleged injuries despite minor damages to the vehicles, the defense expert should have been allowed to rebut the argument that the alleged small force involved in the accident was sufficient to have caused the extent of the injuries the Plaintiff claimed to have suffered.

The Superior Court remanded the case for a new trial on causation and damages.

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


Source: Article – “Court Nixes $1M Rear-End Collision Verdict Over Improperly Excluded Experts,” By Riley Brennan of the Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Nov. 28, 2023).

Third Circuit Rules that Federal Tort Claims Act Does Not Incorporate Certificate of Merit Requirements

In the case of Wilson v. U.S., No. 22-1940 (3d Cir. Aug. 21 2023 Chagares, C.J., Bibas, J., and Matey, J.) (Op. by Chagares, C.J.), the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a district court erred in granting summary judgment to the government based upon the failure of a pro se prisoner to produce an expert report in a medical malpractice action.

The court ruled that the Federal Tort Claims Act did not incorporate the Certificate of Merit requirement found under Pa. R.C.P. 1042.3.

The appellate court also noted that the pro se prisoner Plaintiff did not otherwise have an adequate opportunity to seek out an expert or to conduct discovery due to his circumstances as an inmate during the COVID-19 pandemic.

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


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Sept. 21, 2023).

Federal Court Addresses Motions In Limine Regarding Accident Reconstruction, Biomechanical, and Medical Experts in a MVA Case

In the case of Chebbani v. U.S. Dept. of Agric., No. 5:21-CV-04298-JMG (E.D. Pa. May 1, 2023 Gallagher, J.), the court addressed cross-Motions In Limine filed by Plaintiffs and Defendants in a motor vehicle case to preclude each party’s expert witnesses in this federal court case.

The Plaintiffs filed a Daubert motion seeking to preclude the opinions of the Defendant’s accident reconstruction expert and biomechanical engineering expert.

The Defendant filed a motion to preclude the testimony of a neurologist and pain management doctor who conducted an examination of the Plaintiff.

Relative to the Plaintiff’s motion to preclude the expert opinion of the accident reconstructionist and the biomechanical engineering expert retained by the defense, it was noted that there was an opinion by the defense expert that the Plaintiff’s vehicle was contacted at 2.5 mph and that the Plaintiff’s alleged injuries were, therefore, not consistent with the mechanism of injury.

The Plaintiff challenged the reliability of the experts’ opinions on the grounds that the experts did not conduct a physical examination of the vehicles.

The court denied the Plaintiff’s motions and noted that, the Defendant’s experts were unable to examine the vehicles because they were no longer available by the time the Complaint was filed. It was otherwise noted that the Defendant’s experts were able to examine at least twenty-one (21) other pieces of evidence, including photographs of the vehicles and an analysis of the software that the experts utilized to render their opinions.

The court also found that the biomechanical expert's opinion was supported by citations to pertinent studies.  The court also noted that the biomechanical expert for the defense had properly relied upon the opinion of the accident reconstruction expert who opined that the accident had occurred at a minimum speed.

As such, the Defendant’s experts’ opinions were found to be reliable. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s motion to preclude those expert opinions was denied.

The Defendant’s motion to preclude the expert opinion of the Plaintiff’s neurologist who had completed an examination of the Plaintiff was granted in part and denied in part.

The court found that the neurologist’s opinions and diagnoses regarding Plaintiff’s alleged injuries were partially admission.

The court confirmed that it would allow the doctor’s opinions that the Plaintiff had suffered post-concussive syndrome and post-traumatic headaches as a result of the accident based upon the doctor’s educational experience, the doctor's review of the records from before and after the accident, the physical examination of the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff’s history.

However, the court stated that the Plaintiff had failed to show that the doctor’s diagnoses of an ocular motor dysfunction and a left shoulder sprain were reliable given that those conditions were merely mentioned in the Plaintiff’s medical records and that no such symptoms were noted to be present during the doctor’s examination of the Plaintiff.

The court also noted that the doctor’s diagnoses of a cervical sprain/strain injury and myofascial pain was not reliable or admissible where the Plaintiff had been treated for neck pain before the accident and the examining doctor did not review those records.

Accordingly, the court found that the doctor failed to thoroughly consider alternative causes for the diagnosis other than the accident.  As such, the defense motion was granted in part and denied in part.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.

Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (May 25, 2023).