Pennsylvania Supreme Court Applies General Verdict Rule to Uphold Verdict In Favor of Plaintiff

In the case of Estate of Cowher v. Kodali, No. 77 MAP 2021 (Pa. Sept. 29, 2022) (Op. by Dougherty, J.), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reviewed waiver issues with respect to an appeal from the entry of a jury verdict.

According to the Opinion, the jury in this medical malpractice case awarded the Plaintiff a lump sum amount of damages under the Pennsylvania Survival Act and did not itemize the amount of pain and suffering damages or other components of its lump sum award.

During the course of the appellate history in this case, the Pennsylvania Superior Court had granted certain Defendants a new trial on the survival damages based upon those Defendants' claims that the admission of the Plaintiff’s expert testimony on the pain suffering issues was erroneous.

The issue before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was whether the Defendants had waived their right to a new trial under the general verdict rule.

According to the Opinion, the general verdict rule applies and mandates a finding of a waiver of issues for appeal when a general verdict rests upon both valid and invalid grounds, and the appellant challenging the verdict failed to request a special verdict slip at trial that would have clarified the basis of the verdict.

In this case, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court concluded that those circumstances existed in this case and, as such, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held, under the general verdict rule, that the Defendants had waived their request for a new trial. As such, the Superior Court’s Order for a new trial was reversed.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by Justice Mundy can be viewed HERE.


Source: “Daily Opinion Summaries” from www.justia.com

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Reaffirms General-Verdict Rule For Personal Injury Matters on Appeal

In the case of Shiflett v. Lehigh Valley Health, No. 43 MAP 2018 (Pa. Sept. 26, 2019) (Op. by Donohue, J.), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that the Superior court erred in remanding a medical malpractice case for a new trial on damages when that decision by the Superior Court went against the “general-verdict rule” previously adopted by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiffs pursued this medical malpractice action in connection with injuries the Plaintiff allegedly suffered while in the hospital for knee surgery.

At trial, the Plaintiffs returned the verdict in favor of the Plaintiff awarding them in excess of $2 million dollars in damages.

On appeal the Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled that one of the claims upon which the Plaintiffs prevailed was barred by the statue of limitations and should not have been submitted to the jury.  After finding that some portion of the jury’s damages award may have been based on that time-barred claim, the Superior Court remanded the case for a new trial on damages.   

Upon further appeal, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in this decision concluded that the Superior Court had erred in remanding the case for a new trial on damages given that, under the “general-verdict rule” adopted by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in the case of Halper v. Jewish Family & Children’s Services,, 963 A.2d 1282 (Pa. 2009), the hospital waived any entitlement to a new trial on damages when the hospital failed to request a special Interrogatory on the verdict sheet that would have permitted the jury to allocate damages awarded on each claim.  

Anyone wishing to review a copy of Justice Donohue's Majority Opinion in this decision may click this LINK.

The Dissenting Opinion by Justice Saylor can be viewed HERE.