Superior Court Addresses Issues Raised With Respect to Verdict Slip in Med Mal Case

In the case of Hagans v. Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, No. 536 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super. July 10, 2025 Stabile, J., McLaughlin, J., and Lane, J.) (Op. by McLaughlin, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s rulings relative to a medical malpractice action. The appellate court upheld the trial court’s denial of the medical Defendant’s Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict, relative to certain evidentiary rulings, and also upheld the trial court’s rulings related to the Verdict Slip.

This action arose out of alleged medical malpractice related to the birth of the Plaintiff’s child.

Of note, the Superior Court upheld the verdict in favor of the Plaintiffs in this action where the jury’s Verdict Slip demonstrated that it found at least one individual medical provider liable and where the Defendants consistently acknowledged that all providers worked together as a single care team relative to the treatment provided.

The hospital Defendant argued that the Verdict Slip should have been required to ask the jury to evaluate the negligence of each individual Defendant. The defense argued that the Plaintiff bore the burden of proof as to whether each Defendant’s conduct fell below the standard of care. The trial court rejected the hospital’s arguments and affirmed the judgment during post-trial proceeds.

On appeal, the appellate court noted that the review of the Verdict Slip confirmed that the jury found at least one individual Defendant liable for the harm such that there was sufficient evidence to establish the hospital Defendant’s vicarious liability.

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


Source: The Legal Intelligencer State Appellate Case Alert, www.Law.com (July 31, 2025).

Trial Court Judge Addresses Post-Trial Issues Including Issues With Verdict Slip and With Bifurcation of Trial

In the case of Major v. Five Star Equipment, Inc., No. 2020-CV-3550 (C.P. Lacka. Co. May 9, 2025 Nealon, J.), the court addressed several post-trial issues after a defense verdict in a case involving a pedestrian who was hit by a motor vehicle.

Of note, the court addressed various issues raised with regards to the content of the Verdict Slip and factual cause questions, as well as with respect to the bifurcation of the liability and damages phases of the trial.

After providing a thorough review of the applicable law, Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas ruled that there were no errors with regards to the content of the Verdict Slip and the various questions presented to the jury on that slip.

The court otherwise noted that the bifurcation of the trial was warranted under the circumstances presented in the case, including the fact that counsel had underestimated the number of days it would take to try the case during the pre-trial proceedings.

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


Source: “The Legal Intelligencer Weekly Case Alert” on www.Law.com (June 4, 2025).

Superior Court Upholds Defense Verdict Reached By Jury After 14 Minutes in Med Mal Case

In the case of Corey v. Wilkes-Barre Hospital Co., LLC, No. 507 MDA 2021 (Pa. Super. Dec. 11, 2023 en banc) (Op. by King, J.) (Olson, J. Concurring) (Kunselman, J. Dissenting), the Pennsylvania Superior Court addressed numerous issues in a medical malpractice claim in which a nonsuit, in part, had been granted and in which issues were raised with regard to the verdict slip and the short length of time that the jury deliberated before announcing its defense verdict.

With respect to the Plaintiff’s post-trial challenges in regards to the identity of the parties on the verdict slip, it was noted that the trial court had confirmed that Plaintiff’s counsel failed to object to the verdict slip when the trial court had provided an opportunity to the attorneys, immediately prior to the slip being provided to the jurors, to note any objections. The trial court had indicated that, when asked if counsel was satisfied with the verdict slip, Plaintiff’s counsel answered in the affirmative.

On appeal, the Plaintiff had also complained that the jury returned a verdict within only fourteen (14) minutes after the case had been given to the jury for a decision. The Plaintiff argued that the Plaintiff did not believe that the short conference by the jury resulting the verdict should had been considered “deliberations.”

The appellate court disagreed and rejected the Plaintiff’s request that the case be remanded to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether an improper outside influence, or other misconduct, influenced the jury’s deliberation. The appellate court found that the trial court had correctly determined that the Plaintiff failed to offer any good reason to justify further inquiry into the validity of the verdict.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Concurring Opinion by Judge Olson can be viewed HERE.  The Dissenting Opinion by Judge Kunselman can be viewed HERE.


Source: Article – “Rejecting Verdict Slip and Jury Deliberation Challenges, Superior Court Affirms Nonsuit for Northeast PA Hospital” By Riley Brennan of the Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Dec. 12, 2023).

Judge Nealon of Lackawanna County Rejects Request to Have Settled Defendants on Verdict Slip

In the case of Williams v. Glenmaura Senior Living at Montage, LLC, No. 21-CV-1494 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Nov. 7, 2022 Nealon, J.), the court addressed a motion by certain Defendants in a medical malpractice case for reconsideration of the court’s previous Order granting certain settling Defendants’ Motion for Discontinuance from the case by virtue of the settling Defendants’ Joint Tortfeasor Agreements.

One of the non-settling Defendants wished to keep the settling Defendants in the case for purposes of the trial.

Judge Terrence R. Nealon
Lackawanna County

In his Opinion, Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas confirmed that, in Pennsylvania, there is no absolute right to have settling Co-Defendants placed on a verdict slip.

Rather, under the applicable standard of review, the trial court is required to determine whether any evidence of a settling Co-Defendant’s liability exists before deciding whether to put that Co-Defendant on the verdict slip.

In terms of a medical malpractice action, Judge Nealon noted that expert testimony is required to establish the elements of a duty, breach, and causation and that, if expert testimony will not be presented at trial to establish a settling Defendant’s potential liability, then that settling Defendant should not be included on the verdict slip.

Judge Nealon noted that he had previously granted the voluntary Discontinuance of the settling Defendants in this matter in the absence of admissible expert testimony against those Defendants. The court also noted that any efforts by the Plaintiff to introduce expert testimony on the standard of care and causation would amount to hearsay in this case.

As such, the court found that it had previously properly granted the settling Defendants’ Motions for Discontinuance. The Motion for Reconsideration at issue here was, therefore, also denied.

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