Cadena v. Latch
78 A.3d 636
Pa. Super. Ct.2013Background
- Cadena sued for non-economic damages after a 2007 rear-end collision where Latch was at fault.
- Cadena alleged multiple injuries including cervical and lumbar radiculitis and related conditions, with pain in shoulder and chest and ongoing daily life impact.
- She had two prior accidents and, pre-accident, did not have a primary care physician; initial post-accident treatment was followed by limited ongoing care.
- Dr. Allon (Dec. 11, 2008) diagnosed eight conditions tied to the accident and opined they affected daily living; Cadena described substantial life impacts in deposition.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Latch on Oct. 1, 2012, dismissing all claims with prejudice; Cadena appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver of full tort and sufficiency of evidence | Cadena argues she knowingly waived full tort; certificate of coverage and interrogatory were insufficient to prove waiver. | Latch contends waiver was properly established and evidence supports the waiver. | Issue disputed; court focused on whether waiver could be sustained as a matter of law. |
| Serious injury question under limited tort | Cadena contends her injuries were serious, creating a jury question and precluding summary judgment. | Latch argues the injury is not serious as a matter of law and should be decided by the court. | The court held that the issue of serious injury is a jury question; summary judgment was improper. |
| Dismissal on serious injury grounds only for non-economic claims | Cadena asserts non-economic claims were not defeated by a finding of no serious injury, thus dismissal was improper. | Latch maintained dismissal was proper due to lack of serious injury. | Court did not decide this issue due to ruling on the second issue; remanded on the serious injury question instead. |
Key Cases Cited
- Washington v. Baxter, 553 Pa. 434, 719 A.2d 733 (Pa. 1998) (serious-injury determination reserved for the jury unless no reasonable dispute exists)
- Graham v. Campo, 990 A.2d 9 (Pa. Super. 2010) (factors for serious injury inquiry)
- Robinson v. Upole, 750 A.2d 339 (Pa. Super. 2000) (impairment need not be permanent to be serious)
- Kelly v. Ziolko, 734 A.2d 893 (Pa. Super. 1999) (fact issues exist regarding whether injuries are serious)
- Reeser v. NGK N. Am., Inc., 14 A.3d 896 (Pa. Super. 2011) (summary-judgment standard in Pa. Superior Court context)
- Petrina v. Allied Glove Corp., 46 A.3d 795 (Pa. Super. 2012) (summary judgment standard and burden on moving party)
- Barnes v. Keller, 62 A.3d 382 (Pa. Super. 2012) (summary judgment standard; light burden on moving party when burdened party must show no triable issues)