Brown, C. v. Issa, O.
2877 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 8, 2017Background
- On April 11, 2014, Clinton Brown (plaintiff) fell on a puddle while at a commercial property (Seafood Express) where he worked as an employee/investor.
- Plaintiff had prior injuries: a 2009 offshore work injury (shoulder/back) and a motor-vehicle accident about a week before the fall; he was treating for those injuries at the time of the incident.
- Defendant Osama Issa moved for summary judgment in June 2016, arguing Brown sustained no injury from the fall.
- Brown opposed the motion but did not place admissible evidence into the record to show an injury; he attached an expert report to his brief but did not formally supplement the record.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Issa; the Superior Court affirmed, concluding Brown failed to meet his burden to show a genuine issue of material fact regarding injury and also waived appellate argument by failing to develop it with authority.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there is sufficient evidence of injury to send case to a jury | Brown contends evidence supports that he was injured from the fall | Issa contends Brown produced no admissible evidence in the record showing injury | Court: No genuine issue of material fact; Brown failed to produce evidence, so summary judgment for Issa affirmed |
| Whether Brown’s failure to supplement the record with evidence was fatal | Brown argues his opposition sufficed (and attached an expert report) | Issa argues attachments to a brief are not part of the record; no evidence properly submitted | Court: Opposition without record evidence insufficient; attachments to brief do not supplement the record |
| Whether Brown waived appellate challenge by failing to develop argument | Brown presents a short brief without relevant authority or analysis | Issa asserts waiver under appellate rules/case law | Court: Brown’s underdeveloped brief waived the issue on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- E.R. Linde Const. Corp. v. Goodwin, 68 A.3d 346 (Pa. Super. 2013) (summary judgment standard and burden when nonmoving party bears proof)
- Umbelina v. Adams, 34 A.3d 151 (Pa. Super. 2011) (issues inadequately briefed or unsupported are waived)
- Scopel v. Donegal Mut. Ins. Co., 698 A.2d 602 (Pa. Super. 1997) (attachments to briefs do not supplement the official record)
- Williams v. Wade, 704 A.2d 132 (Pa. Super. 1997) (appellate court may affirm on any proper legal ground)