Superior Court Overturns Med Mal Defense Verdict Based on Erroneous Evidentiary Rulings by Trial Court

In the case of Hagelauer v. Mainline Emergency Medicine Associates, LLC, No. 2064 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super. June 2, 2025 Panella, P.J.E., Beck, J., and Ford Elliot, P.J.E.) (Op. by Panella, P.J.E.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court addressed various issues raised following the entry of a defense verdict in a medical malpractice case.

According to the Opinion, the allegations pertained to the treatment, or lack thereof, relative to a deceased Plaintiff who suffered cardiac arrest.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court overruled the defense verdict based upon a finding, in part, that the trial court had improperly barred the Plaintiffs from cross-examining the Defendants’ expert about an article that the expert had authored which conflicted with his trial testimony.

The Superior Court noted that an expert's authoring of an article and including a reference to the article in his CV constituted an adoption of the information contained in the article by that expert. The appellate court found that it was not credible that an expert would author an article that she or he did not adopt and support.

As such, the preclusion by the trial court of the cross-examination of the Defendant's expert on that article was found to be reversible error as the Superior Court ruled that the jury missed out on important information that might have colored its evaluation of that expert’s credibility.

The Superior otherwise addressed a separate issue of hearsay within hearsay that arose during the course of the trial.

The appellate court noted that it was not an abuse of discretion by the trial court to have excluded a note written by the Plaintiff as inadmissible double hearsay.

The note at issue included a compound statement referred not only to the Plaintiff's state of mind, but also referenced medical instructions.

While the portion of the statement that referenced the Plaintiff's state of mind may have been admissible under Pa.R.E. 803(3)'s hearsay exception related to a declarant's statement of their then-existing state of mind or condition, here, the court noted that compound statements such as the one at issue were not admissible.

Rather, the court noted that, given the existence of hearsay within hearsay, the trial court properly excluded the evidence.

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


Source: “Bad Evidentiary Ruling In Med Mal Trial Spurs Pa. Appeals Court To Toss Hospital’s Defense Verdict,” By Aleeza Furman of The Legal Intelligencer (June 4, 2025).

Soure of image: Photo by Katrin Bolovtsova on www.pexels.com.

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.

Court Addresses Hearsay Within Hearsay Issues

Is that hearsay?

In response to a post-trial motion filed in the case of Huertas v. El Bochinche Restaurante, Oct. Term, No. 02851 (C.P. Phila. Co. 2022 Hill, J.), the court addressed hearsay issues that arose during the course of a premises liability trial.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff attended a party at a restaurant where she was allegedly attacked in a bathroom.

The Plaintiff was subsequently seen at an emergency room for a facial fracture and other injuries. The records from that visit indicate that the Plaintiff informed the treating physician that she was “punched in the face while walking down a street.”

The Plaintiff later visited a different hospital, stating there that she was injured in the restaurant.

The Plaintiff eventually brought a lawsuit against the restaurant for negligence.

As the case proceeded to trial, the Plaintiff had filed a Motion In Limine requesting the trial court to exclude any possible statements the Defendant would make regarding other claims the Plaintiff had filed.

As to the statements from the hospital records, the court held that the statements were properly admitted under several exceptions to the hearsay rule. 

First, under Pa.R.E. 803.4, hearsay statements “made for diagnoses or treatment" are allowed. The court found that the Plaintiff’s statements at the hospital clearly fell within this exception.

Also, the court referenced precedent holding that statements made by an opposing party are allowed, which was the case with the statements at issue in this matter.  More specifically, the Defendant was seeking to enter statements by the Plaintiff, who was the party opponent.

The court additionally held that the statement at issue was admissible under the business records exception in Rule 803.6. In this regard, the court found that the statement was made and recorded during a regularly conducted activity by the hospital, was recorded contemporaneously close to the time of the alleged incident, and was maintained during the normal course of business.

On a separate but related issue, the Plaintiff argued that the court erred at trial by denying her request to admit the statement by the Plaintiff at the second hospital visit that she had been injured in the restaurant.  The Plaintiff felt that she should have been allowed to introduce that statement in an effort to rehabilitate her testimony and credibility. However, the court clarified that the Defendant had not impeached the Plaintiff, but rather had offered their evidence as substantive evidence excluded from the rules of hearsay.

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


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Sept. 6, 2022).

Hearsay Exceptions Addressed in Context of Med Mal Case

In the case of Delguercio v. Tio, No. 19-CV-3604 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Aug. 19, 2021 Nealon, J.), Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas denied a certain Defendants’ Motion In Limine to preclude hearsay testimony in a medical malpractice action.

According to the Opinion, the Defendant generally filed a Motion In Limine to preclude the Plaintiffs from introducing hearsay testimony at trial unless such testimony fell within one of the enumerated exceptions to the hearsay rule. The Plaintiff filed a response asserting that the testimony at issue was admissible under the hearsay exceptions set forth under Pa. R.E. 803(3) and (4).

This case involved a malpractice action under which the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff allegedly received negligent treatment in the emergency room relative to a deep vein thrombosis condition and/or a stroke condition.

The disputed hearsay statements involve statements made by the Plaintiff’s husband to the attending physician as well as the statements contained in the Plaintiff’s husband’s deposition testimony regarding the Plaintiff’s symptoms and complaints during the course of her treatment. Some of the statements by the husband involved statements that the Plaintiff had made to her husband as to why she reported to the emergency room for the subject treatment.

After reviewing the law of hearsay and the relevant exceptions, Judge Nealon found that the statements by the Plaintiff’s husband were admissible pursuant to the hearsay exception under Pa. R.E. 803(4) which is entitled “Statement Made for Medical Diagnosis or Treatment.” 

The court noted that it was the longstanding law of Pennsylvania that the medical treatment exception to the hearsay rule provides that testimony repeating out-of-courts statements which were made for the purpose of receiving medical treatment are admissible as substantive evidence.  In order for such a statement to qualify for admission under the “medical treatment exception,” it must be made “for the purpose of receiving medical treatment” and be "necessary and proper for a diagnosis and treatment.” See Op. at 6.

The court found that the statements at issue made by the Plaintiff’s husband to the Plaintiff’s treating doctor were clearly made for and relevant to the Plaintiff’s diagnosis and treatment. The court noted that it was inconsequential that the pertinent medical history was provided by the husband rather than the Plaintiff herself, since statements need not be made by the incapacitated patient in order to be admissible pursuant to the medical treatment exception. The court also noted that there is no requirement of corroboration of the information provided before the offered statement is admissible. Nor is the admissibility of the evidence disqualified where the person offering the evidence is an interested party.

The court also found that the statements made by the Plaintiff’s husband regarding the Plaintiff’s complaints of pain, tingling, and other symptoms was admissible as a statement of her physical condition and pain at the time in question. The court noted that Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence No. 803(3) establishes a hearsay exception for any “statement of the declarant’s then-existing….emotional, sensory, or physical condition (such as mental feeling, pain, or bodily health)….”  See Op. at 7. 

The court noted that, in order to be admissible, such statements must overtly describe or relate to a mental, emotional, or physical condition that then exist and must be made contemporaneously with the mental or physical condition, regardless of when, why, or how the condition was caused or produced. Id. at 7-8.

After applying this law to the statements in question, the court found that additional statements were admissible as well.

As noted above, the Defendant’s pre-trial Motion In Limine in this medical malpractice action was denied.

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

Source of image:  Photo by Tingley Law Firm on Unsplash.com.