Williams v. Penn Ctr. for Rehab. & Care
147 A.3d 590
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- Thomas Williams, administrator of Gardenia Williams’ estate, sued Penn Center for Rehabilitation and Care, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, and Manor Care entities alleging negligence, corporate negligence, breach of oral contract, wrongful death, and survival claims.
- Manor Care’s wrongful death and survival claims were transferred to arbitration after preliminary objections.
- After a 14-day jury trial, the jury returned a verdict for defendants on December 12, 2013.
- The trial court ordered Williams to file his post-trial brief within 30 days of receipt of the Notes of Testimony (NoTs), but no later than February 2, 2014.
- Williams ordered transcripts but did not pay reporters or secure delivery; he filed a post-trial brief before obtaining NoTs. Defendants and the court could not meaningfully review his claims.
- The trial court dismissed the post-trial motion for failure to obtain the NoTs; Williams’ motion for reconsideration was denied and he appealed. Remaining substantive claims (corporate negligence, evidentiary challenges including Frye issues) were deemed waived.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the post-trial motion for failure to obtain/cite Notes of Testimony | Williams: he timely ordered transcripts and the court order allowed filing with or without the NoTs; he never received a payment request from reporters | Defendants: Williams failed to pay for/transmit NoTs, preventing meaningful review; court order required filing within 30 days of receipt or by deadline | Court: Affirmed dismissal — Williams did not exercise due diligence (did not pay), so dismissal was within discretion |
| Whether the court erred in entering a non-suit on corporate negligence per se | Williams: substantive errors at trial warranted reversal | Defendants: Issues were raised only in the dismissed post-trial motion and thus not preserved | Court: Waived — not preserved because post-trial motion was dismissed for procedural noncompliance |
| Whether evidentiary rulings (including prohibition on using regulations and Frye challenges) were erroneous | Williams: trial court improperly excluded corporate-negligence-per-se evidence and misapplied Frye/Pa.R.E. standards | Defendants: Rulings were part of issues in post-trial motion that was procedurally defective | Court: Waived — cannot review because post-trial motion was dismissed and transcript was not provided |
| Whether novel scientific evidence admitted by defendants violated Frye/Pa.R.E. 702/703/705 | Williams: expert evidence should have been excluded under Frye and evidentiary rules | Defendants: admission was proper and any challenge was not preserved due to dismissal | Court: Waived — issue not preserved for appellate review after dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Roski v. Halfway House, Inc., 579 A.2d 392 (Pa. Super. 1990) (affirming dismissal of post-trial motion where counsel failed to pay for transcript and thus did not exercise due diligence)
- Kennel v. Thomas, 804 A.2d 667 (Pa. Super. 2002) (post-trial noncompliance can forfeit issues on appeal)
- Diamond REO Truck Co. v. Mid-Pacific Indus., Inc., 806 A.2d 423 (Pa. Super. 2002) (issues waived for failure to file or properly preserve post-trial motions cannot be revived via Rule 1925(b))
- Guttman v. Rissinger, 482 A.2d 1324 (Pa. Super. 1984) (appellate review of a trial court’s enforcement of local procedural rules is for abuse of discretion)