Kimble, R. v. Laser Spine Institute, LLC
2021 Pa. Super. 196
Pa. Super. Ct.2021Background
- Sharon Kimble, an Ohio resident, underwent outpatient spine surgery in Wayne, PA; she was discharged and later died the same day; toxicology showed multiple opioids and CNS depressants and coroner attributed death to their synergistic effect.
- Robert Kimble sued under Pennsylvania Wrongful Death and Survival Acts against Dr. Glenn Rubenstein and three corporate entities doing business as Laser Spine Institute (LSI defendants).
- At trial the parties and court routinely referred to the corporate defendants collectively as "Laser Spine Institute;" the agreed verdict slip listed "Laser Spine Institute" and the jury returned $20 million total (65% Laser Spine Institute, 35% Rubenstein).
- The trial court granted JNOV as to the Survival Act award (striking $10M) but denied other post-trial relief; LSI later argued the verdict/judgment was void because the verdict slip used the trade name rather than each corporate defendant’s formal name.
- Appellants also sought JNOV/new trial/remittitur based on (a) alleged failure to prove standard of care/causation, (b) improper limitation of cross-examination and exclusion/authentication of Ohio PFA and divorce records, (c) improper apportionment under vicarious-liability theory, and (d) manifestly excessive wrongful-death damages.
- The Superior Court affirmed: judgment was not void, JNOV/new-trial claims were largely waived or without merit, apportionment error did not prejudice defendants because vicarious liability imposed full liability, evidentiary limits were within discretion, and the $10M wrongful-death award was not so excessive as to shock the conscience.
Issues
| Issue | Kimble (Plaintiff) Argument | LSI / Rubenstein (Defendant) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Verdict slip naming and judgment voidness | Plaintiff sought entry of judgment against the corporate defendants in their proper corporate names after jury verdict against “Laser Spine Institute.” | Verdict slip used trade name only; judgment against corporate defendants is void because jury did not find each corporate defendant liable and they never consented to judgment against them under that name. | Defendants waived challenge by agreeing to verdict slip; judgment is not void and trade-name usage did not defeat entry of judgment against the sued corporate entities. |
| JNOV for failure to prove standard of care/causation | Plaintiff presented sufficient expert proof to support negligence finding and causation as to Rubenstein; JNOV inappropriate. | Plaintiff failed to present evidence of applicable standard of care or breach by Dr. Rubenstein; insufficient proof to submit to jury. | Defendants failed to preserve this ground for JNOV at trial (nonsuit and proposed charges did not raise standard-of-care issue); claim waived and thus denied. |
| Apportionment vs. vicarious liability | Plaintiff argued joint tortfeasor apportionment appropriate per verdict slip. | Jury should not have apportioned liability because LSI’s liability was vicarious (imputed) and thus LSI is liable for 100% once agent’s negligence is found. | Court agreed apportionment instruction was incorrect, but defendants suffered no prejudice: because law makes principal vicariously liable for full damages, result stands and no relief warranted. |
| Admissibility/authentication of Ohio PFA and divorce records and scope of cross-examination | Plaintiff opposed admission of uncertified out-of-state records; court limited collateral, inflammatory inquiry. | Defendants argue documents were self-authenticating under UIIPA and Rule 902 and exclusion/preclusion of detailed cross-examination about domestic abuse prejudiced their defense on loss-of-companionship damages. | Court found offered copies lacked required certification under Rule 902/UIIPA; limiting collateral factual questioning was within discretion to avoid relitigating PFA/divorce; no reversible prejudice shown. |
| Excessiveness/remittitur of $10M Wrongful Death award | Plaintiff: evidence (testimony about extraordinary grief, routines, memorialization) supported non-economic loss and jury valuation; decline to disturb verdict. | Defendants contend award is excessive given evidence of marital discord, no economic loss proof, and lower comparative verdicts; remittitur or new trial required. | Trial court’s denial of new trial/remittitur affirmed: award for non-economic loss is entrusted to jury; record supported substantial noneconomic damages and award did not shock conscience. |
Key Cases Cited
- Heldring v. Lundy Beldecos & Milby, P.C., 151 A.3d 634 (Pa. Super. 2016) (trade-name/judgment identity issues in post-judgment malpractice context)
- Stapas v. Giant Eagle, Inc., 198 A.3d 1033 (Pa. 2018) (failure to object to verdict-slip language at trial waives appellate challenge)
- Keffer v. Bob Nolan’s Auto Serv., Inc., 59 A.3d 621 (Pa. Super. 2012) (discussion of vicarious liability and compensation sources)
- Maloney v. Valley Med. Facilities, Inc., 984 A.2d 478 (Pa. 2009) (vicarious liability generally entails 100% liability)
- McMichael v. McMichael, 241 A.3d 582 (Pa. 2020) (wrongful-death damages review and limits on awarding zero damages)
- Armbruster v. Horowitz, 813 A.2d 698 (Pa. 2002) ("shocks-the-conscience" standard for granting new trial on weight-of-the-evidence grounds)