Crespo, A. v. Hughes, W.
167 A.3d 168
Pa. Super. Ct.2017Background
- On June 17, 2011, Antonio Crespo and Edward Torralvo presented to Temple University Hospital after hydrofluoric-acid exposure to their hands; Dr. William B. Hughes (TUH burn specialist) ordered lidocaine and injections of calcium gluconate into affected digits.
- Crespo’s two left-hand fingers became necrotic and required partial amputation; Torralvo had surgical excision of necrotic tissue and ongoing pain/disfigurement.
- Plaintiffs’ experts testified injections (especially high-volume digital injections) were outside the standard of care and caused ischemic injuries; defense presented competing experts and hospital policy evidence.
- A 12-day jury trial returned verdicts awarding Crespo $4,679,676 and Torralvo $538,000; trial court entered judgment (with delay damages) and denied post-trial motions for new trial/remittitur.
- Appellants (Hughes, Hughes & Hensell Associates, P.C., and Temple University Hospital) appealed raising evidentiary and procedure challenges (preclusion of wage-loss claim, limits on cross-exam, expert testimony scope, learned-treatise use, crimen falsi evidence, and excessiveness of verdict).
- The Superior Court affirmed liability as to Torralvo’s damages but reversed and remanded for a new trial limited to Crespo’s economic and noneconomic damages because the trial court erred by excluding impeachment evidence of Crespo’s crimen falsi conviction and failing to give a crimen falsi jury instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Crespo) | Defendant's Argument (Hughes/TUH) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pretrial motion to preclude Crespo’s wage-loss claim | Wage loss supported by testimony and expert analysis of musician earnings and loss of earning capacity | Wage-loss speculative; no tax records or documentary proof of musician income | Denial affirmed — evidence (vocational/actuarial testimony and witness testimony) sufficed to send wage-loss to jury |
| Preclusion of questions about marijuana use and unpaid child support | N/A (plaintiff moved to preclude) | Such matters bear on credibility and plaintiff’s pain treatment / claimed income | Grant of plaintiff’s motion affirmed — court excluded marijuana use and child-support evidence as unfairly prejudicial or irrelevant under Pa.R.E. 403 |
| Allowing fact witnesses (treating physician, band leader, manager) to give opinion-style testimony | Testimony based on personal observations and treatment notes is admissible fact testimony | Such opinions amounted to expert testimony that required pretrial disclosure under Pa.R.C.P. 4003.5 | Admission of Dr. McClellan and Cruz’s testimony affirmed (treating physician’s contemporaneous treatment opinions and personal observations do not convert him to an undisclosed expert); Laponte issue waived |
| Ability to impeach plaintiff with his 2014 guilty plea (crimen falsi) and request for crimen falsi jury instruction | N/A (defense sought to impeach) | Court limited cross-examination and refused crimen falsi instruction, treating some inquiry as collateral | Reversed as to Crespo’s damages and remanded for new trial on damages only — exclusion of crimen falsi impeachment and refusal to instruct the jury was clear error that prejudiced defendants’ ability to attack credibility |
Key Cases Cited
- Grady v. Frito-Lay, Inc., 839 A.2d 1038 (Pa. 2003) (abuse of discretion standard on evidentiary rulings)
- Kaczkowski v. Bolubasz, 421 A.2d 1027 (Pa. 1980) (scope of recoverable lost future earnings and use of reliable economic data)
- Helpin v. Trustees of Univ. of Pa., 10 A.3d 267 (Pa. 2010) (lost future earnings not limited to pre-injury salary; consider broader productivity factors)
- Deeds v. Univ. of Pennsylvania Med. Ctr., 110 A.3d 1009 (Pa. Super. 2015) (distinguishing fact witness opinion from expert testimony)
- Aldridge v. Edmunds, 750 A.2d 292 (Pa. 2000) (Pennsylvania rule on learned treatises and limitations on using treatises as substantive evidence)
- Pa. Rule of Evidence 609 discussed via Allen v. Kaplan, 653 A.2d 1249 (Pa. Super. 1995) (crimen falsi convictions admissible to impeach credibility)
- Stapas v. Giant Eagle, 153 A.3d 353 (Pa. Super. 2016) (criteria for new trial limited to damages)