207 A.3d 970
Pa. Super. Ct.2019Background
- On Jan. 5, 2014, Bryan Wright slipped on a 4–6 foot patch of ice at a Residence Inn and injured his left shoulder; he later had arthroscopic surgery.
- Wright sued Marriott for negligence; a jury in Aug. 2017 found Marriott 100% liable and awarded $8,896.44 (medical) and $55,000 (non‑economic).
- On the eve of trial Marriott moved in limine to preclude Wright’s sole medical expert, internist Dr. Paul Sedacca; the trial court largely granted the motion and limited Dr. Sedacca to testifying only about medical bills.
- Because the exclusion occurred right before trial, Wright could not obtain a replacement medical expert; trial proceeded without expert testimony on causation, prognosis, or objective exam findings.
- Wright sought a new trial on damages only, arguing he was prejudiced by exclusion of his only medical expert and inability to introduce medical records; the trial court denied relief.
- The Superior Court reversed in part, holding the trial court erred in excluding Dr. Sedacca and that Wright was prejudiced as to damages; remanded for a new trial limited to damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by disqualifying Dr. Sedacca as a medical expert | Dr. Sedacca, an internist with 37 years’ experience evaluating musculoskeletal injuries and disability, had a reasonable pretension to specialized knowledge and could opine on causation, treatment, prognosis | Dr. Sedacca lacked orthopedic specialty training; case law (malpractice context) requires a specialist; exclusion appropriate | Court held trial court misapplied the expert‑qualification standard; Dr. Sedacca was qualified under Pa. R.E. 702 and Miller’s "reasonable pretension" test |
| Whether exclusion of the only medical expert prejudiced Wright warranting a new trial | Exclusion shortly before trial prevented replacement expert; without objective medical testimony and records Wright was prejudiced on damages and Marriott stressed the absence in closing | Trial court: jury had sufficient evidence (plaintiff testimony and other records) to determine causation and damages; no prejudice shown | Court held exclusion was prejudicial to damages (though not liability) and reversible error; new trial on damages granted |
| Scope of new trial: damages only or liability as well | New trial should be limited to damages because liability was fairly and fully litigated and separable from damages | Marriott argued a damages‑only retrial would be unfair and that the court cannot grant issues not requested | Court applied Catalano/Lambert framework and limited retrial to damages only; liability verdict left intact |
| Preservation/waiver of prejudice argument | Wright preserved prejudice argument in post‑trial motion and supplemental brief | Marriott argued Wright failed to separately plead prejudice in post‑trial motion | Court found Wright preserved the prejudice claim and addressed it on the merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Brass Rail Tavern, 664 A.2d 525 (Pa. Super. 1995) (expert‑qualification test: whether witness has any reasonable pretension to specialized knowledge)
- Chanthavong v. Tran, 682 A.2d 334 (Pa. Super. 1996) (specialists in one area may be qualified to testify on overlapping areas)
- Dambacher v. Mallis, 485 A.2d 408 (Pa. Super. 1984) (limits where subject matter is so specialized that generalists are unqualified)
- Wexler v. Hecht, 847 A.2d 95 (Pa. Super. 2004) (podiatrist not qualified to opine on orthopedic standard of care; referenced in specialty‑standard context)
- Kovalev v. Sowell, 839 A.2d 359 (Pa. Super. 2003) (self‑represented plaintiff not qualified to testify as medical expert where experience unrelated)
- Crespo v. Hughes, 167 A.3d 168 (Pa. Super. 2017) (granting new trial on damages where erroneous evidentiary ruling affected severity/future loss but not liability)
- Cooper v. Burns, 545 A.2d 935 (Pa. Super. 1988) (new trial on damages only where liability was fairly determined)
- Catalano v. Bujak, 642 A.2d 448 (Pa. Super. 1994) (scope of new trial governed by law, not party requests)
- Lambert v. PBI Indus., 366 A.2d 944 (Pa. Super. 1976) (new trial limited to damages appropriate where liability is separable and fairly resolved)