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).

Trial Court Says Appeal Should Be Quashed Because Party Did Not File Post-Trial Motions

In the case of Hernandez v. Grandview Hospital, No. 2018-CV-01736 (Bucks Co. Nov. 15, 2021 Mellon, J.), the court issued a Pa. R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion in support of its decision granting a nonsuit in a medical malpractice case.

Of note, the trial court ruled that the Plaintiff’s appeal should be quashed because the Plaintiff took an appeal from the nonsuit entered in favor of the Defendant and did not first file any written Post-Trial Motions pursuant to the requirements of Pa. R.C.P. 227.1.  As such, the trial court requested that the appellate court quash this appeal.

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

Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Jan. 4, 2022).

Soure of image:  Photo by Gabriel Soto on www.unsplash.com.

Judge Nealon of Lackawanna County Addresses Issues With Zero Verdict For Pain and Suffering Claim

In the case of Fertig v. Horace Mann Ins. Co., No. 16-CV-4801 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Jan. 18, 2022 Nealon, J.), the court granted in part and denied in part a Plaintiff’s Motion for Post-Trial Relief in a case involving an uninsured motorist claim against a carrier.

According to the Opinion, the jury in this UIM benefits trial rendered a verdict awarding the Plaintiff $75,000.00 for future medical expenses but $0 for past and future non-economic damages.

The jury entered this verdict even though the defense medical expert testified that the Plaintiff had unresolved injuries to her head, neck, and knee that were casually related to the accident. The court noted that the jury had been instructed, without objection, that it must award at least some damages for those uncontested injuries in this admitted liability case.  Nevertheless, the jury awarded $0 for pain and suffering.

After the verdict was molded to $0 to reflect the stipulated credit for the tortfeasor’s liability insurance coverage of $100,000.00, the Plaintiff filed a post-trial motion seeking a new trial on the issue of non-economic damages on the grounds that the verdict was against the weight of the uncontroverted medical evidence. The Plaintiff additionally requested an award of delay damages based upon the verdict of $75,000.00, that is, on the amount before the verdict was molded to zero.

The Defendant contended that the Plaintiff waived her right to secure a new trial by failing to object at the time the verdict was announced and by failing to request that the jury be sent back to resume its deliberations to correct a $0 verdict. The Defendant also asserted that the Plaintiff was not entitled to a new trial even if she did preserve her weight of the evidence challenge.

The defense additionally asserted that the Plaintiff cannot recover delay damages on a verdict that was molded to $0.

In addressing whether or not the Plaintiff had waived any arguments against the $0 verdict, the court cited, in part, to the article entitled “Litigating the Zero Verdict,” written by Daniel E. Cummins and Stephen T. Kopko which appeared in the Pennsylvania Lawyer magazine for the proposition that one option a party has in a case involving a $0 verdict is to request the court to send the jury back out to deliberate further in an effort to avoid any post-trial issues that may be created by the entry of that $0 verdict.  However, as noted below, where a claim is made that a verdict was against the weight of the evidence, it is not required that such a request be made for the issue to be preserved.

The court in this case emphasized that the Plaintiff was asserting that the jury’s award was contrary to the weight of the evidence and shocked one’s sense of justice. The court noted that, where a party has asserted a weight of the evidence challenge, an objection filed of record before the jury is discharged is not required in order to preserve the issue for review during post-trial motions.

The court found that, since a verdict must bear some reasonable relation to the harm suffered as demonstrated by the uncontroverted medical evidence, and given that an award of $0 for past and future non-economic damages was found to be so disproportionate to the uncontested medical evidence so as to the defy common sense and logic, the court granted the Plaintiff’s request for a new trial non-economic damages.

On the issue of delay damages, Judge Nealon ruled that, given that delay damages under Rule 238 are to be calculated based upon a molded verdict, and given that the verdict in this case was molded to $0 following the stipulated offset for the liability insurance coverage limit, the Plaintiff was not entitled to any delay damages under Rule 238 and that, as such, this request was denied.

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

If you wish to read the article entitled “Litigating the Zero Verdict,” written by Daniel E. Cummins and Stephen T. Kopko which appeared in the Pennsylvania Lawyer magazine please click HERE.

Source of image: Photo by TBS 44 on www.unsplash.com.