Superior Court Finds Trial Court Abused Discretion in Not Granting Continuance To Allow Party To Secure New Expert

In the case of Rutyna v. Schweers, No. 895 WDA 2016 (Pa. Super. Jan. 4, 2018 en banc) (Op. by Lazaurs, J.) (Olson, J., concurring), the Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed the entry of summary judgment and ruled that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the Plaintiff a continuance where, through no fault of the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiff’s expert was suddenly unable to testify less than three (3) weeks before trial. 

This case involved a legal malpractice action related to an underlying medical malpractice action.

In reviewing the issue presented, the Superior Court referenced Pa.R.C.P. 216 for allowable grounds for a continuance and also reviewed the factors typically considered with such requests, including whether there was prejudice to the opposing party by the delay, whether the opposing party was willing to continue the case, and the complexities involved in presenting the case.  Op. at p. 10-11 and fn. 12

The court ultimately found that, given the history of the case, the Plaintiffs were left with insufficient time to obtain a new expert.  

In its Opinion, the Superior Court emphasized that, while the swift resolution of cases is a "linchpin of judicial economy," is not an end in and of itself. Op. p. 18.

The Rutyna decision can be viewed HERE.

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

Repeat of Yesterday's Blog Post on Joyce v. Jack Locker Constr. (Trial Continuance Request) WITH CORRECTED LINK TO OPINION

Lackawanna County Courthouse (Right)
Scranton Electric Building (Left)

In his recent decision in the case of Joyce v. Jack Locker Const., Inc., 2013 WL 6437917 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Dec. 2, 2013 Nealon, J.), Judge Terrence R. Nealon denied a defendant's request for a continuance of a trial on the basis of the unavailability of a defense expert.


In so ruling, the court noted that the notice for the original status conference cautioned counsel to secure the availability of the parties and any expert witnesses for trial as once a trial is set in Lackawanna County "no continuances will be granted due to the unavailability of counsel or a party or expert witness."  Judge Nealon otherwise noted that, under Pa.R.C.P. 216 a trial continuance could be secured for other reasons not applicable to this matter such as, for example illness of an attorney or material witness or where circumstances beyond a party's control make it impossible or fundamentally unfair to proceed to trial.


In this matter, the motion for continuance was filed one week before trial and 2 1/2 months after the trial date was set.  Here the court noted that there had been ample time to complete the videotaped trial testimony of the expert if necessary.


Based on the above the motion for a trial continuance was denied.


Anyone wishing to review a copy of this Opinion by Judge Nealon may click this LINK

Last-Minute Motion for Continuance of Trial Due to Unavailability of Expert Denied in Lackawanna County

Lackawanna County Courthouse (Right)
Scranton Electric Building (Left)

In his recent decision in the case of Joyce v. Jack Locker Const., Inc., 2013 WL 6437917 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Dec. 2, 2013 Nealon, J.), Judge Terrence R. Nealon denied a defendant's request for a continuance of a trial on the basis of the unavailability of a defense expert.


In so ruling, the court noted that the notice for the original status conference cautioned counsel to secure the availability of the parties and any expert witnesses for trial as once a trial is set in Lackawanna County "no continuances will be granted due to the unavailability of counsel or a party or expert witness."  Judge Nealon otherwise noted that, under Pa.R.C.P. 216 a trial continuance could be secured for other reasons not applicable to this matter such as, for example illness of an attorney or material witness or where circumstances beyond a party's control make it impossible or fundamentally unfair to proceed to trial.


In this matter, the motion for continuance was filed one week before trial and 2 1/2 months after the trial date was set.  Here the court noted that there had been ample time to complete the videotaped trial testimony of the expert if necessary.


Based on the above the motion for a trial continuance was denied.


Anyone wishing to review a copy of this Opinion by Judge Nealon may click this LINK