Krepps, F. v. Snyder, K.
112 A.3d 1246
Pa. Super. Ct.2015Background
- Appellants sued in 2007 alleging diabetic patient care failures led to below-the-knee amputation.
- Discovery spanned four years, with sanctions for failure to answer expert interrogatories and delayed responses to admissions.
- Trial court read admitted facts under Rule 4014(b) but denied summary judgment; in limine to admit admissions was denied as untimely.
- After trial, jury found no negligence by Snyder; post-trial motions denied and judgment entered for appellees.
- Appellants challenged admission rulings, jury instruction on two schools of thought, standard of care, and denial of summary judgment.
- Appellants sought to read two admissions (Exhibits 36a/36b) to the jury; court allowed some admissions but excluded others as duplicative or untimely reading.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether admissions deemed under Rule 4014(b) could be read at trial | Krepps asserts admissible under 4014(d) and Rule 126 | Snyder contends admissions not properly read due to timing | Waived/denied reading of some admissions; court allowed discretionary use under Rule 126 |
| Whether the two schools of thought jury instruction was proper | Two schools doctrine should guide disputed treatment options | Instruction properly informed jury of medical dispute | Waived due to failure to object before deliberations; not preserved for appeal |
| Whether trial court erred in denying Plaintiffs’ proposed standard-of-care instructions | Should impose heightened duty for high-risk amputation case | Trial court accurately instructed on standard of care for medical negligence | No reversible error; instruction accurately stated law |
| Whether summary judgment denial was proper given conflicting expert opinions | Duty and standard of care should be established as a matter of law | Conflicting expert testimony creates genuine issue of material fact | Supported by record; issues of fact for the jury |
| Whether Restatement (Second) of Torts and related procedures were misapplied | Court abdicated duty under §328B and misapplied deemed admissions | Record showed genuine issues of fact; court did not err | No reversible error; summary judgment inappropriate given fact questions |
Key Cases Cited
- Stimmler v. Chestnut Hill Hospital, 981 A.2d 145 (Pa. 2009) (purpose of Rule 4014 is to clarify issues and streamline process)
- Womer v. Hilliker, 908 A.2d 269 (Pa. 2006) (procedural rules are not ends in themselves; substantial compliance allowed)
- P.C.S. v. J.E.B., 659 A.2d 1043 (Pa. Super. 1995) (unanswered admissions should be raised before lengthy testimony)
- Estate of Borst v. Edward Stover Sr. Testamentary Trust, 30 A.3d 1207 (Pa. Super. 2011) (prejudice focus for withdrawal of admissions hinges on timing)
- DeArmitt v. New York Life Insurance Co., 73 A.3d 578 (Pa. Super. 2013) (credibility and weight of expert conclusions for summary judgment are for the trier of fact)
- Anthony Biddle Contractors, Inc. v. Preet Allied American Street, LP, 28 A.3d 916 (Pa. Super. 2011) (Rule 126 substantial compliance allows flexibility in procedure)
- Restatement (Second) of Torts § 328B, N/A (N/A) (court and jury division of duties in negligence cases; issues of fact may require jury)