Hernandez, J. v. Amoratis, M.
1359 EDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.Dec 27, 2016Background
- On Sept. 11, 2013, Amoratis rear-ended Hernandez while Hernandez waited at a red light; Hernandez initially reported no injury but later sought treatment for mild lower-back symptoms.
- Hernandez underwent about seven months of chiropractic therapy; by the end he reported being pain-free for ~1.5 months and returned to full activity with minimal restriction; he has not had injections, braces, or ongoing treatment since 2014.
- Hernandez had elected "Limited Tort" auto coverage, so he could recover non-economic damages only upon proof of a "serious injury" under the MVFRL.
- Hernandez sued Amoratis for negligence on Sept. 30, 2014; Amoratis moved for summary judgment on Jan. 19, 2016; Hernandez failed to file a responsive brief and the court heard only Amoratis' argument per local rule.
- The trial court granted summary judgment on Apr. 20, 2016, concluding reasonable minds could not differ that Hernandez did not sustain a "serious injury"; the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hernandez sustained a "serious injury" under the MVFRL (serious impairment of a body function) | Hernandez: his post-accident back symptoms and medical evidence (MRI, physician opinion) raise a factual dispute for a jury | Amoratis: objective evidence shows only mild, transient back pain resolved with conservative care; no ongoing treatment or work restrictions | Court: No genuine issue — reasonable minds could not differ that injury was not "serious"; grant SJ |
| Whether Hernandez can recover non-economic damages given limited tort election | Hernandez: his injuries meet the serious-injury threshold, so he may seek non-economic damages | Amoratis: Hernandez's evidence insufficient to meet statutory threshold; summary judgment appropriate | Court: Held Hernandez fails the serious-injury threshold; non-economic damages barred |
| Whether there are triable economic damages | Hernandez: asserted medical treatment but produced no evidence of out-of-pocket bills or liens | Amoratis: no evidence of economic loss; PIP paid medical bills | Court: Held no evidence of economic damages — SJ appropriate |
| Effect of plaintiff's failure to respond to summary judgment motion | Hernandez: (implicit) substantive dispute exists notwithstanding failure to file responsive brief | Amoratis: local and state rules permit entry of SJ where non-moving party does not respond | Court: Applied local rule/Pa.R.C.P. 1035.3 and granted SJ after hearing only moving party |
Key Cases Cited
- Washington v. Baxter, 719 A.2d 733 (Pa. 1998) (serious-injury threshold left to jury unless reasonable minds could not differ)
- Accu-Weather, Inc. v. Prospect Comms., Inc., 644 A.2d 1251 (Pa. 1994) (non-moving party must show genuine issue; cannot rest on pleadings)
- Weible v. Allied Signal, Inc., 963 A.2d 521 (Pa. Super. 2008) (summary judgment standards)
- Cadena v. Latch, 78 A.3d 636 (Pa. Super. 2013) (factors for assessing serious impairment)
- Marks v. Tasman, 589 A.2d 205 (Pa. 1991) (summary judgment granted only in cases free from doubt)
- Rohrer v. Pope, 918 A.2d 122 (Pa. Super. 2007) (summary judgment review principles)