D & L Typing Service v. The Penn State
3014 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 8, 2017Background
- D & L Typing Service contracted (2006–2008) to provide overflow medical transcription to Penn State Hershey; no volume guarantees. D & L began transcribing in August 2006; Penn State stopped sending dictation in June 2007. D & L sued for breach of contract in 2010 seeking about $4.5 million.
- After discovery and interlocutory venue appeals, the case proceeded to a seven-day jury trial in July 2016; the jury returned a defense verdict. D & L filed post-trial motions but did not designate portions of the trial transcript for transcription as required by Pa.R.C.P. 227.3 and Monroe Co.R.C.P. 227.1.
- The trial court denied D & L’s post-trial motions (August 3, 2016) for failure to request transcript portions and later denied an expedited transcript motion as moot. Judgment on the verdict was entered August 12, 2016; D & L appealed.
- On appeal D & L advanced six claims: (1) trial court erred by denying post-trial motions for failure to designate transcript portions; (2) trial court erred in denying expedited transcript; (3–5) evidentiary/discovery complaints about admission and identification of exhibits; and (6) court erred by using a multiple-interrogatory (special) verdict form instead of a general verdict.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding D & L’s failures to designate transcript portions and to comply with Rule 1925(b) and appellate transcript rules prevented preservation and review of most issues; where addressed, the trial court did not abuse its discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (D & L) | Defendant's Argument (Penn State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Denial of post-trial motion for failure to designate transcript portions | D & L argued denial was error and abuse of discretion | Penn State argued rules require transcript designation; failure precludes court from addressing specific errors | Court: Affirmed denial; D & L failed to comply with Pa.R.C.P. 227.3 and Monroe Co.R.C.P. 227.1 so issues not preserved or reviewable |
| 2. Denial of expedited transcript motion | D & L argued transcript was necessary because of numerous evidentiary errors | Penn State: transcript request was filed after post-trial motion denial and was therefore moot; D & L also failed to timely request transcript on appeal | Court: Issue waived for lack of appellate briefing and, in any event, transcript request was moot; no abuse of discretion |
| 3. Admission of exhibits not provided per court order / discovery | D & L argued Penn State introduced un-exchanged or unidentified documents and deprived confrontation/authentication | Penn State argued documents had been produced earlier in discovery and trial court did not abuse discretion in admissibility | Court: Issues not preserved (post-trial motion/transcript failures); in limine ruling and admissibility reviewed for abuse of discretion and no reversible error shown |
| 4. Use of multiple-interrogatory special verdict instead of general verdict | D & L preferred a simple general verdict determining liability and damages | Penn State sought special verdict questions; trial court considered complexity and documentary nature of trial | Court: Not an abuse of discretion; special verdict aided jury; issue waived/preserved problems remain for lack of transcript |
Key Cases Cited
- Croyle v. Dellape, 832 A.2d 466 (Pa. Super. 2003) (appeal lies from entry of judgment, not denial of post-trial motions)
- Bennett v. A.T. Masterpiece Homes at Broadsprings, LLC, 40 A.3d 145 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard for reviewing denial of new trial)
- Williams v. Penn Center for Rehabilitation and Care, 147 A.3d 590 (Pa. Super. 2016) (enforcement of local procedural rule reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Midwest Fin. Acceptance Corp. v. Lopez, 78 A.3d 614 (Pa. Super. 2013) (interpretation of Pa. R. Civ. P. is a question of law; de novo review)
- Brandon v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., 34 A.3d 104 (Pa. Super. 2011) (appellant must provide complete record; failure to provide transcript waives review)
- Century 21 Heritage Realty, Inc. v. Bair, 563 A.2d 114 (Pa. Super. 1989) (trial judge’s discretion to grant or refuse special findings)
- Estate of Haiko v. McGinley, 799 A.2d 155 (Pa. Super. 2002) (issues waived where appellant provides no reasoned legal discussion on appeal)