265 A.3d 335
Pa.2021Background
- Craig Steltz, a former NFL player, sued Dr. William Meyers and Vincera Institutes for malpractice, alleging Meyers failed to diagnose/disclose a complete adductor tendon discontinuity shown in a June 30, 2014 MRI (Dr. Read’s interpretation).
- At a two-week jury trial, Steltz presented Dr. Read as a fact witness but did not present a radiology expert to endorse Read’s MRI interpretation; defense presented two musculoskeletal radiologists (Drs. Crain and Zoga) who disputed Read’s reading.
- On direct examination, defense counsel asked Dr. Zoga whether Steltz "couldn’t find" any of roughly 5,000 musculoskeletal radiologists to testify in support of Dr. Read; the trial court sustained an objection, denied a mistrial, and gave a curative instruction that counsel’s statements are not evidence.
- The jury returned a defense verdict; post-trial the trial court granted a new trial, finding the unanswered question was so prejudicial no curative instruction could cure the harm.
- The Superior Court affirmed (majority), relying on Siegal and the phrasing "couldn’t find" to conclude the question improperly implied Steltz had concealed or failed to procure an expert; a dissent argued no prejudice because Steltz hadn’t put a radiology expert on the stand.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court: it held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the mistrial and therefore could not later grant a new trial based solely on that ruling; remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Steltz’s Argument | Meyers’ (Defendants’) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defense counsel’s question to Dr. Zoga (that Steltz "couldn’t find" any of ~5,000 musculoskeletal radiologists to support Dr. Read) was improper and required a mistrial/new trial | The question implied false and misleading facts (that Steltz had contacted experts and none would testify), attacked Dr. Read’s credibility, and was incurably prejudicial given Steltz had listed a radiologist (Dr. Checkoff) in pretrial papers | The question was record-based advocacy: Steltz had not presented a radiology expert at trial to support Dr. Read, and the question merely highlighted that evidentiary gap; any issue was promptly cured by the court’s instruction | Court held the question, viewed in context, was not untruthful or so prejudicial as to require mistrial; trial court did not abuse discretion in denying mistrial |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting a new trial based solely on the single unanswered question after a sustained objection and curative instruction | The trial court’s later conclusion that the question was incurable error was correct because the wording and insinuation were misleading and prejudiced the jury | Because the trial court had properly denied the mistrial and issued a curative instruction, there was no reversible mistake to support a new trial; plaintiff’s strategic choices (not calling an expert) also weigh against prejudice | Court reversed Superior Court and held that, because the denial of mistrial was not an abuse of discretion, the solitary unanswered question could not justify a new trial; remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Harman ex rel. Harman v. Borah, 756 A.2d 1116 (Pa. 2000) (standard of review for new-trial motions and two-step analysis: mistake and prejudice)
- Siegal v. Stefanyszyn, 718 A.2d 1274 (Pa. Super. 1998) (attorney comment conveying something known to be untrue can warrant new trial)
- Ferguson v. Morton, 84 A.3d 715 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standards for evaluating counsel remarks and prejudice)
- Martin v. Philadelphia Suburban Transportation Co., 257 A.2d 535 (Pa. 1969) (context and curative instructions govern whether remarks justify mistrial)
- Commonwealth v. Simpson, 754 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2000) (jurors presumed to follow court instructions)
- Rice v. Hill, 172 A. 289 (Pa. 1934) (false courtroom statements about availability of an expert can be reversible error)