Wolking v. Lindner, 3:23-cv-00806

Plaintiffs, Stacey and Daryl Wolking, sued Youngs Apothecary, Inc. d/b/a Tunkhannock Compounding Center (TCC) related to its dispensing of prescribed steroids to Ms. Wolking.
Ms. Wolking alleges she suffered gastrointestinal perforations requiring emergency surgery as a result of excessive and improper steroid prescriptions filled by TCC and prescribed by Dr. Lindner.
Plaintiffs claim TCC negligently filled prescriptions that it knew or should have known were dangerous or excessive.
TCC filed a motion in limine seeking to bifurcate (separate) the trial into distinct liability and damages phases, arguing this would prevent prejudice and promote judicial economy.
Plaintiffs opposed bifurcation, asserting there was no risk of prejudice to TCC and issues of liability and damages were intertwined.
The court held oral argument and considered the parties' briefs before issuing its decision.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Should liability and damages be bifurcated?	Issues are intertwined; same evidence/witnesses needed for both issues.	Bifurcation avoids prejudice and promotes judicial economy.	Motion to bifurcate denied; TCC did not meet its burden.

Lis v. Robert Packer Hosp., 579 F.2d 819 (3d Cir. 1978) (explains that bifurcation is not to be routinely ordered and should be based on careful weighing of circumstances)
Griffith v. Allstate Ins. Co., 90 F. Supp. 3d 344 (M.D. Pa. 2014) (provides four-factor test for bifurcation and allocates burden to moving party)