*1 summary hand, grant or not to other whether ment.15 On the question was remaining evidence new judgment independently. to resolve Judge Abramson free reasons, order I would foregoing For the reverse granting and reinstate the court’s Superior Court Silicones, summary judgment favor Shincor against Appellees. and Inc. A.2d RYAN, Appellant,
Barbara Ann Marie Rossman, D.O., BERMAN, D.O., Region- I. Morris I. and and Joel Associates, Ltd., Jaffe, M.D., D. Internal Medicine Joel al ditommaso, henry D.O., Cattolico, D.O., Ap- and Leon M. pellees.
Supreme Pennsylvania. Court 16, 2001.
Argued Oct. Decided Dec. above, testimony precluding expert under Rule 15. As stated before 4003.5(b), “extenuating whether circum- need consider Court beyond defaulting party” delay of the caused stances the control Appellees 4003.5. As could not expert disclosure. Pa.R.Civ.P. discovery expert their entitlement to an extension establish here, clearly "extenuating no circumstances” deadlines there were such timely reports excusing produce expert in a fashion. their failure *2 Ryan. O’Neill,Philadelphia, for Barbara Ann George J. Brooks, Henry Philadelphia, for DiTommaso Donald J. M. Cattolico. Leon Samms, I. Washington, for Berman.
Gary M. Fort Joel Walsh, Wright, George Young, H. L. Grady Kevin Mary *3 Jaffe, M.D. Philadelphia, for Joel D. ZAPPALA, CAPPY, C.J., FLAHERTY, and
Before NIGRO, SAYLOR, CASTILLE, JJ. NEWMAN and
OPINION ZAPPALA. Chief Justice jurisdiction the coordinate requires application
This case does of circumstances when the rule rule and examination must the trial court violated apply. not decide whether We rule. the Ryan, Barbara Ann Marie instituted medical
Appellant, Di- against in 1985 Doctors and malpractice action Cattolico Berman, doctors, Tommaso, family against and Doctors her Jaffe, Rossman, consulting specialists, alleging negligent Syndrome, a adrenal disor- diagnose Cushing’s rare failure of the hormone cortisol. that results elevated levels der surgery 1984 to remove a allegedly This had necessitated addition, tumor. In kidney and an attached adrenal prolonged and exacerbated complaint alleged the disease rack fell at work baking she when a on her injuries suffered April products liability action in regard instituted she products injury. work-related she settled
liability injuries for release of claims case executed consequences arising at work. their the accident doctors, Appellees, the release and the defendant learned malpractice action moved amend their answers They summary also plead judgment, the release. moved for asserting malpractice the release barred the action. Judge Appellees Gordon denied both motions. filed a motion extraordinary they again sought wherein relief leave to complaint amend their to the and to move for sum- answers mary judgment. extraordinary motion for The relief was court, heard different same Court of Philadelphia granted who County, Common Pleas both malpractice motions and action. dismissed Appellant appealed. Superior The reversed. It Court held prohibited that the rule actions judge. second remand, On Judge the case went to trial before Field. During trial, again doctors moved to defendant amend incorporate Judge their answers to Field took release. under advisement. plaintiffs case-in-chief, At the close of the Field permitted plead the doctors to amend their and to answers action; product liability release she held that did entirely release not bar the action but portion that occurred after the accident. work-related plaintiff post-trial granted filed motions. Field *4 motions in part: entry the she vacated of nonsuit the as to DiTommaso, Doctors Appellant’s family doctors, Cattolico and the Appellant’s expert’s on basis that testimony the unduly had been at trial. post- limited Field denied doctors, trial motions to the pertaining remaining consulting Berman, Rossman, Jaffe, specialists leaving and thus in effect nonsuit affecting the them. plaintiff
The appealed. Superior The Court affirmed that portion of allowing the trial court’s order amendment of the
160 answers to The court defendant doctors’ include the release. on, however, malprac- to hold that release barred the went the DiTommaso, Doctors against tice action Cattolico family doctors, against consulting as as well the action Therefore, por- specialists. Superior Court reversed of court’s that held otherwise. The net tion the trial Ryan, Ann plaintiff, that the Barbara Marie result was to all and was out of respect nonsuited with the defendants entirely. court is whether Field violated the coordi- issue here of jurisdiction
nate rule when overruled the decision she granting same defendant Judge Gordon of the court complaint.1 doctors’ motion to amend their answers prohibits judge from The coordinate rule court, overruling judge of same the decision another are, however, under circumstances. situations most There apply. recently not This when rule does Court stated not granted “a later motion should be entertained when denied, motion of kind has been unless previously the same clearly in facts a new intervening changes or the law warrant University v. Trustees Goldey question.” look at (1996). 150, 264, Pennsylvania, 544 Pa. A.2d 267 675 Never- kind, theless, recognized that “where the motions differ we summary ... objections from motions for preliminary differ judgment, ruling precluded on a motion not judge later judge granting although from relief another has denied earlier motion.” Id. Co., this in Riccio v. American Ins. Republic
We clarified Riccio 422 distinguished Pa. A.2d We basis that in Riccio Goldey purposes from rulings post-trial trial motions judge made We concluded: were different. procedural- is distinct post-trial process
Because the rendering following non-jury ly that of a verdict and because the considerations of the are different Sons, Royle EAP WL 1. See v. John & No. 5 Gerrow (Pa.2002), application for additional discussion jurisdiction rule. *5 procedural stage ... each we hold that the coordinate to jurisdiction apply rule does not bar a substituted hearing post-trial correcting motions from mistake made by trial judge during process. the trial Id. at 425-26. necessarily
This case is not
or
Goldey
controlled
either
cases,
aspects
It
to
is
Riccio.
has some
akin
each of those
but
in
distinguishable
respects
some
from each.
willWe
therefore
of
in
purposes
consider
order to
rule
decide whether
applied
not it should be
in
of this
the circumstances
case.
jurisdiction
salient case
the coordinate
is
rule
Starr,
564,
Commonwealth v.
It
purposes to case, Riccio, In this the inappropriate. tion of the rule quite the was different time procedural posture of case the made; judge presid the who the two different decisions were a superior position trial was in to reevaluate the ed over the liability its question of the release and relation the products judge case than was the who malpractice pretrial medical plaintiffs the the During the initial trial of made decision. case-in-chief, presented which evidence was estab abundant seeking damages that in this for case lished case; products injuries liability in the work-related suffered in the supported products conclusion that the release this the them, liability damages, sought case the or some of barred Riccio, Thus, rationale of the this case.2 under the rule not apply, improper did not it was coordinate Judge permit the defendant doctors to amend Field plaintiffs complaint incorporate answers their case, liability though Judge products even release permission stage had at an of the Gordon denied earlier proceedings. Superior Court.
We therefore affirm participate FLAHERTY did not Former Chief Justice of this case. the decision concurring opinion. files a
Justice NIGRO concurring opinion. files Justice SAYLOR NIGRO, Justice, concurring. that agree majority I with the Field did not
While
jurisdiction rule when she
violate the coordinate
overruled
by
mo-
granting Appellees’
Gordon’s
renewed
decision
granted
only
allocatur
a limited
to consider
This Court
on
basis
rule
question of whether
the trial court violated the
of coordinate
jurisdiction.
scope
question of the
of the release and
effect on
its
us;
litigation
we
is not before
have not re-
Superior
question
viewed the
Court’s resolution
this
and do not
holding.
its
disturb
I disagree
tion to amend
complaint,
their answers
with
majority’s
reaching
particular,
that
I
analysis
result.
disagree
primary
with
on this
majority’s
reliance
Court’s
Co.,
in Riccio American
Ins.
Republic
decision
tion rule does not “bar substituted correcting by motions from trial mistake made during grounded Id. at 426. We process.” fact that simple purpose post- decision the entire permit process trial motion is to the trial court to its correct appellate own errors to review court. As we explained: “To not deciding post-trial allow motions to *7 legal during process overrule errors made the trial ... would post-trial post- render the motion rules meaningless process nothing motion would become more than an futility.” in exercise Id. Riccio,
Unlike instant case not involve does the recon- post-trial sideration of an majority issue motions. The nevertheless Riccio applicable, apparently believes to be un- derstanding it to stand the broader proposition depar- jurisdiction ture is appropriate any coordinate rule procedural of posture changed time the case has and a subsequent a “superior position is in to reevaluate” the Riccio, Majority However, motion. at 795. Op. gave in we no post-trial consideration to whether motions had superior information from which to ascertain the correct reso- of lution the issue him and I before would not extend the rule addition, in that case to such incorporate considerations. I do not in any way application read Riccio to bar the jurisdiction coordinate rule when two of motions the same kind Rather, are filed to post-trial proceedings. under those circumstances, I apply believe the court must the stan- dard set v. Goldey forth in Trustees University Pennsyl- of of vania, and “intervening whether an change consider in facts clearly or the law a question.” warrant new look at the 544 150, (1996). 264, said, Pa. 675 267 my view, A.2d That in
164 “change exception Goldey clearly applies forth in in facts” set here.1 specifically this Court stated that under Goldey, rule, “a later motion should not be granted when a motion of the kind has
entertained or same denied, previously intervening changes unless been facts A.2d question.” the lato warrant a new look at the 675 clearly added.) Where, here, at 267 motion” (emphasis “later amend, any changes underly- a renewed a ing particular significance change facts because are precisely triggers party’s right facts is what a See amend. Moreover, change Pa. R.Civ. P. 1033. facts sufficient any “at trigger right to amend can occur time” on new either “offered or admit- proceedings, based evidence 2 added). facts (emphasis change ted.” When such Id. occurs, liberally amend ... right granted should be “the resulting to an prejudice unless error law or there party.” v. Allegheny Hosp., adverse Connor General Larzelere, 306, 600, v. 461 602 410 (1983)(quoting A.2d Schaffer 267, (1963)). 402, Pa. A.2d of law” Under “error not allow exception, required “a court is amendment of pleading will be state a claim on which party if unable to Zazyczny, Pa. granted.” relief could be Werner 681 A.2d
Here, judge, explanation, Ap- the first trial without denied trial, he had pellees’ motion to amend on the eve before *8 so, that any testimony. heard At time did the the same he addition, Goldey's "change exception 1. as I believe that in facts” applies, to purported I would not resort reliance on ihe "manifest rule, injustice” ques exception to the coordinate which Starr, tionably grounded in dicta Commonwealth Sons, Royle & A.2d See Gerrow v. John J-124-2001 J, (Nigro, dissenting). Specifically, provides: 2. Rule 1033 court, party, party by A consent of or leave of either the adverse may arty may pleading. pleading at ... amend time his amended happened aver which have before or transactions occurrences original though filing pleading, they give after even to a rise may new cause of action or defense. An amendment he made pleading evidence or admitted. conform offered added). (emphases Pa. R.Civ. P. 1033 judge denying judg- for summary issued motion “on Appellees ment that had filed based on the release genuine basis there of material fact stated that exist issues as Judgment Summary Pa. 1035.” This R.C.P. Order. 6/2/92 strongly suggests ruling second order that court was not possibility developments might out that future factual provide justification necessary for both amendment pleadings entry judgment favor based on Appellees’ However, that when trial judge release.3 the second subse- quently granted amend, again motion to was it on the eve and, trial, thus, had any testimony before the court heard unchanged. factual record was Under circum- these stances, the second had legal no factual or basis on which to first judge, Superior overrule the and the Court properly juris- reversed and remanded under diction rule. parties court,
When returned to the trial with a third now presiding, Appellees amend, again moved to arguing they trial,” and, “now at a stage were different thus, N.T., 9/4/98, were entitled relief. at 2. Given that the parties again very point were once at the proceed- same in the ings they had been the first two that they times moved to amend, and the underlying changed record had not facts any way, Judge rightly grant Field refused to the renewed motion, explaining on day the first of trial that: Appellees]
You [the don’t like this case. You don’t like ruling. nothing Gordon’s There’s I change can do to it. changed You don’t any have circumstances.
N.T., 9/4/98, Shortly thereafter, Judge 10. Field reiterated parties rationale and invited the to renew their motion “at appropriate time,” more after had presented evidence been presented flesh out the issues in the motion:
I this feel at time are basically we where Gordon decision, when he made his I any way and do not see that I could anything do different this time. That is not to response to the Barbara Ann Marie amend. alia, Ryan argued, provide inter release did not a valid defense and, thus, proposed amendment would be futile. *9 a a more
preclude you making from similar at I think suffi- enough time. And that there are appropriate portion hearing, at least cient reasons consider case, I are questions in this too. think there some evidence require in we hearing. that at would some So there least very it, I wanted may come back and reexamine but to be timing of the up you with it.... case leads [T]he [front] should me that at some evidence be heard to believe least this case.
N.T., 9/8/98, at 3-4. followed, facts in days support of trial that and motion to were Appellees’ release amend defense Appellees developed In particular, and developed refined. sought that to collect persuasive Appellant record evidence fact, had, that malpractice action damages the medical and, thus, injury were resulted from her work barred plain Appellant described at some language the release.4 accident, had length explaining that a rack the work-related causing supermarket bakery, fallen in a Pathmark on her head, neck, back, arm, injuries and shoulder. serious N.T., N.T., 9/14/98, 186-88; 9/14/98, at at 272-77. testi- She hospital fied into the as that she admitted result had not been able to work since accident and she N.T., N.T., 270-71; 9/15/98, 9/14/98, at at time. had Appellant acknowledged also trial that she instituted liability injury, with her products action connection work action, alleged that had and that in that she accident alia, face, head, neck, back, caused, to her injuries inter shoulders, arms, bones, skin, joints, disfigure- as well as ment, health, distress, poor depression, emotional and discom- 9/15/98, Meanwhile, in N.T., fort. 119-23. action, sought damages to collect for the provided
4. The release that: ALL shall IT A FULL AND FINAL RELEASE OF CLAIMS and IS anticipated apply ALL AND UNKNOWN INJURIES and KNOWN result, resulting, unanticipated injuries damages or or event, accident, might casualty well as to result said which known or those now disclosed. Release, (emphasis original). 1at *10 “symptoms Cushing’s Syndrome,” including weight certain face,” discolorations, gain, weakness, so-called “moon skin back, pain, hump bone on her and facial hair.5 Not did admit Appellant “Cushing’s Syndrome at trial these symptoms” did not until surface her work-related acci- after dent, N.T., 9/15/98, 68-70; N.T., 9/14/98, 196; N.T., at at 9/14/98, given damages at but breadth of her claim in action, products liability they clearly were in subsumed that claim. As products the release liability action injuries, unknown, covered all known or anticipated or unan- ticipated, from, which might had resulted result from the accident, work-related see n. supra complaint, like the it was enough broad encompass injuries least some of the for sought which Appellant to recover in malpractice the medical action.
Accordingly,
new,
ample
there was more than
enhanced and
clarified
pursuant
evidence
to which
Field
apply
could
the changed
exception
facts
in Goldey, and conclude that the
evidence now
Appellees
cogniza-
established that
could
state
ble release defense.6 Judge Field was therefore free to
overrule the first
and grant Appellees’ motion to
amend
their answers
assert
Impor-
the release defense.
tantly, Judge
also
Field
considered
oral
Appellant’s
arguments
Connor,
(no
regarding prejudice, see
right
Thus, extending holding this Court’s limited without Riccio, majority. as the I reach the same result Justice,
SAYLOR, concurring. case aptly explains, at issue this majority As the respect maintaining between substantial tension judicial adminis- rulings in of sound and efficient the interest tration, ability to correct mistakes fur- and the essential justice. my colleagues, Unlike of the interests therance *11 arising from however, I do not differences discern material Judges and in which Gordon procedural postures the distinct to deny Appellees to and allow rulings Field made their answer, I that respectively, since believe amend their sufficiently developed at circumstances were relevant I would ruling. made his initial nonethe- Judge time Gordon order, I find that because Superior affirm the Court’s less itself, infirm, in of sufficiently Gordon’s any during time course to warrant correction reasoning follows. proceedings. My action, complaint present her had defendant-physicians that of Appellant asserted some of in their and treatment her negligent examination been 1978, exacerbating glandular thus disorder. beginning in her injuries to that she Further, Appellant explicit made reference suggest litigant way opinion read to that a is In no should this be right required prove in order establish its to amend the a defense clear, As law makes pleadings to add the defense. our case 270, "liberally Schaffer, right granted," A.2d be al amend should only deny a prejudice party, to the adverse a court should and absent party seeking “will be unable to when amendment to amend Werner, granted.” which relief could be 681A.2d state claim on is similar to that of a demurrer and does not 1338. This standard require underlying or defense proof of the facts the claim asserted. where, here, However, by holding judge apparently as a trial erred standard, high party seeking too of a and facts subse- amendment developed proposed quently at trial clear that claim .make viable, succeeding judge may support use those facts to defense is judge, long properly of first so as the also the reversal opposing party. prejudice will result to the concludes that no accident, sustained her work-related that contending injuries aggravated such symptoms pre-existing her and, disease, conversely, presence that made the disease injuries her worse they than otherwise would have been. Hence, Appellant claimed that the alleged negligence doctors’ proximate was a power cause of her total loss of earning date In each accident.1 motion to amend filed Gordon, successor, before his ultimately Judge Field, admitted, alleged, Appellees Appel- that product lant against Aid, had filed a liability action Baker’s accident, Inc. arising out of the 1982 and that she had settled in exchange that suit payment for Baker’s Aid’s to her of $275,000. recognizing Appellees
While and Baker’s Aid al- are leged joint tortfeasors, nevertheless, to be not but successive Pennsylvania prescribes plaintiff law that a generally enti- single tled to satisfaction loss. See Brown v. 357, 362-63, 409 Pa. Pittsburgh, (1962); 186 A.2d 402-03 Roth, 270, 272, Hilbert v. 149 A.2d release, face, on its discharged persons all any “consequences flowing” accident, from the work-related which presumably included loss of earning power that Appellant claimed have as of that Accordingly, suffered date. to the might extent they be deemed liable for the economic *12 injuries alleged present complaint, in the physician-defen- the dants who Appellant prior treated appear 1982 would also to be $275,000 entitled to portion offset for that of the recovery Appellant’s attributable to earning loss of capacity.
Additionally, those who treated after 1982 could also have argued that the as, release a bar liability constituted Appellant’s case, under of theory the maladies from which suffering resulted, she was point at that at least to some degree, from 1982 accident. It apparent was thus 1. The more common presented situation in the cases involves an injured person who against commences actions both a tortfeasor and a physician See, subsequent e.g., Thompson who rendered treatment. v. Fox, 209, 210-11, 107, (1937). Here, Pa. by A. 107-08 contrast, portion at alleged least a of is to have occurred first. record, already of at pleadings
the face of the release amend, that the release Appellees’ of first motion the time hence, Appel- liability, possible a bar constituted amend their answer absent permitted to lees should have been amendment unrelated to the denying valid for some reason materiality of the release. such potential that there was one acknowledged
It should be
initially
at
at which he
Gordon
the time
reason before
that, given that
amendment-Appellant asserted
denied the
on the
of the date set
amend occurred
eve
Appellees’ effort to
trial,
prejudicial. Appellees,
would be
for
the amendment
recently
of
however,
learned
the settle-
claimed to have
and,
provide
ment,
unfortunately, Judge
did not
Gordon
Moreover, Judge
his order.
Gordon
supporting
rationale
motion, and issued his
to consider the
postponed the trial
year
my
later.
motion more than one
denying
order
view,
unexplained,
issue an
it was
for
Gordon to
error
for
per
curiam Appellees’ petition
leave to
denying
to assert
these circum-
answer
release
amend their
stances,
the basis for the amendment
particularly where
amend-
Appellant,
and disallowance
always known
Appel-
satisfaction of
opened the
double
possibility
ment
damages.
lant’s claim for economic
posture
majority
change
procedural
on a
relies
application
jurisdic-
negating
the case as
Co.,
Republic
Ins.
Riccio American
tion
precept.
(Pa.1997),
however, as
distinguishable,
Here, justice the interests of the coordinate rule would best resting present be served the Court’s disposition on injustice with connected the denial of the sufficiently amendment. Such permit denial erroneous correction upon renewal of the motion.
Supreme Pennsylvania. Court
Submitted Oct. 2000.
Decided Dec.