Skip to main content

MEDICAL MALPRACTICE-DAMAGES-ZERO DAMAGE AWARD

Derbyshire v. Jefferson Frankford Hosp., 2024 Pa. Super. LEXIS 553 (PA Superior Ct., December 20, 2024)(Stabile, J.)

OPINION BY STABILE, J.: Appellant, Carol Derbyshire f/k/a Prosper, appeals from a judgment entered against her and in favor of Appellee Aria Health1 in this personal injury action. Prior to trial, a motions judge struck Appellee’s answer to the complaint and new matter with prejudice due to untimeliness under Pa.R.C.P. 1029(b). Another judge who presided over trial nonetheless refused Appellant’s requests to direct the jury to find in her favor on the issues of negligence and causation and allowed these issues to go to the jury. The jury returned a verdict in Appellee’s favor on the issue of causation and awarded zero damages. We hold that the trial judge in post-trial proceedings did not commit error in denying Appellant’s motion for a new trial limited to the issue of damages, and we affirm.

According to Appellant, Appellee admitted negligence and causation by failing to file a timely answer to the complaint. Therefore, Appellant continues, the trial court should have directed the jury to enter a verdict in Appellant’s favor on the issues of negligence and causation and limited trial to the amount of damages.

In the present case, the trial court struck Appellee’s answer and new matter to the amended complaint under Rule 1029(b). The striking resulted in a deemed admission of all facts, and similar to a default judgment under Rule 1037(b)(1), resulted in an admission only of “liability” by the Appellee. See ICMFG (trial court struck the Appellants’ pleadings and entered a default against them on liability). This, however, did not immediately entitle Appellant to proceed to a trial on her unliquidated damage claim without first establishing that Appellee’s conduct caused her damages. Appellee apparently was successful in convincing the jury that while Appellant suffered an injury, her claimed damages were not related to Appellee’s tortious conduct. Appellee elicited testimony from Appellant on cross-examination that suggested that her fall on Appellee’s property did not cause her injuries. Appellant claimed on direct examination that she suffered a fractured left knee due to her fall on Appellee’s property. During cross[1]examination, however, she admitted, inter alia, that she did not go the emergency room until five days after her fall, she complained of right knee pain in the emergency room but not left knee pain, and she had another fall at her home after the fall at Appellee’s facility. It therefore was within the jury’s prerogative to award zero damages for the injuries claimed. Therefore, the trial court properly declined Appellant’s post-trial motions seeking a new trial on damages.