Brown v. Trinidad
111 A.3d 765
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2015Background
- On Nov. 3, 2011, Trinidad turned left into Brown’s oncoming vehicle at an intersection; Brown elected limited tort under the MVFRL.
- Brown presented eyewitness testimony (crossing guard Brenda Washington) and medical expert Dr. Geoffrey Temple, who testified Brown sustained an L5–S1 post‑traumatic disc herniation causing ongoing symptoms and future treatment needs.
- Trinidad’s radiology expert, Dr. Andrew Shaer, agreed there was an L5–S1 herniation but attributed it to preexisting degenerative disease; trial court precluded some testimony about Dr. Shaer’s prior work for plaintiff’s counsel.
- A jury found Trinidad negligent, Brown not comparatively negligent, and that Brown sustained a "serious impairment of bodily function," awarding $85,000; delay damages were added and Trinidad’s post‑trial motions were denied.
- Trinidad appealed seeking JNOV or a new trial on grounds that Brown failed the limited‑tort threshold, certain expert testimony/examination was improperly precluded, and the eyewitness was untimely disclosed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether JNOV/new trial warranted because Brown’s injuries did not meet limited‑tort "serious impairment" threshold | Brown: expert proof (Dr. Temple) established post‑traumatic L5–S1 herniation producing serious, ongoing functional impairment | Trinidad: injuries were degenerative/preexisting; not a serious impairment as a matter of law | Court: Evidence (including expert testimony and Brown’s testimony) sufficed; jury could reasonably find serious impairment; deny JNOV/new trial |
| Whether court erred excluding testimony that Dr. Shaer had reviewed films for plaintiff’s counsel | Brown: irrelevant and prejudicial if admitted; would suggest bias favoring plaintiff | Trinidad: testimony would show lack of bias or full disclosure of expert relationships | Court: Exclusion proper — testimony that Dr. Shaer had worked for plaintiff’s counsel was irrelevant/probative value outweighed by prejudice; allowed testimony that he reviewed films for both sides |
| Whether court erred in striking questions asking Dr. Temple whether a chiropractor could only opine to a "reasonable degree of chiropractic certainty" | Brown: trial court’s ruling blocked useful context about treating provider’s credentials | Trinidad: cross should have exposed limits of chiropractor’s opinion and impact on Dr. Temple’s reliance | Court: Striking was proper — expert may rely on other providers’ records; asking one doctor to state legal/competency standard for another profession was improper |
| Whether trial court erred in admitting Brenda Washington despite late identification | Brown: identified Washington in amended pretrial memorandum months before trial; no prejudice | Trinidad: late identification (after discovery deadline) prejudiced defense preparation | Court: Admission proper — plaintiff disclosed witness months before trial and defense deposed her on first trial day; no undue prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Washington v. Baxter, 719 A.2d 733 (Pa. 1998) (defines and explains "serious impairment of body function" threshold under limited tort)
- Samuel‑Bassett v. Kia Motors Am., Inc., 34 A.3d 1 (Pa. 2011) (discusses appellate review standards for verdicts and weight of evidence)
- Joseph v. Scranton Times, L.P., 89 A.3d 251 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standards for JNOV and viewing evidence in light most favorable to verdict winner)
- Cacurak v. St. Francis Med. Ctr., 832 A.2d 158 (Pa. Super. 2002) (medical expert may base opinions on other providers’ records if customarily relied upon)
- Feingold v. SEPTA, 517 A.2d 1270 (Pa. 1986) (witness exclusion for late identification is improper absent prejudice)