Heffelfinger v. DDS, 2025 Pa. Super. LEXIS 332 (July 21, 2025) Stevens, P.J.E.
Linda Chen, DDS (“Dr. Shen”), Shen Smiles, PC, and Drums Dental Lab, LLC, appeal from the April 30, 2024, judgment entered on the jury verdict in favor of Appellee, Mary Heffelfinger, and jointly against Appellants, in the total amount of $11,459,513.69. After careful review, we affirm.
Moreover, we are unpersuaded by Appellants’ claim that the trial court erred in granting delay damages that purportedly encompassed the COVID-19 judicial emergency period between March 31 and August 31, 2020.
This Court addressed the impact of the COVID judicial emergency on delay damages in Getting v. Mark Sales & Leasing, Inc., 2022 PA Super 58, 274 A.3d 1251 (Pa.Super. 2022), reasoning as follows:
COVID-19 and the judicial emergency it created did not diminish the rights of plaintiffs to be made whole, nor did they prohibit defendants from engaging in settlement negotiations or making reasonable offers to help alleviate court dockets. … [S]imply because the flow of cases had temporarily stopped, it does not follow that all legal practice had also ceased.
We do not read the March 18, 2020, Order of the Supreme Court [declaring a judicial emergency in the Commonwealth] as permitting tortfeasors to reap unjust windfalls from a five-month delay that was clearly beyond the control of their victims. … [T]he [defendant] must compensate the [plaintiffs] for using their money during the judicial emergency to the fullest extent of Pa.R.C.P. 238. Getting, 274 A.3d at 1261-1262 (emphasis omitted). Based on the foregoing, Appellants’ challenge to the award of delay damages warrants no relief.
[Appellee] suffered great harm, as outlined above, solely due to Dr. Shen’s willful disregard of an oral lesion. Dr. Shen testified that she knew the lesion was suspicious. She additionally testified that she knew the lesion kept getting worse, and the treatment she prescribed would not make [Appellee’s] lesion better.
Our review further confirms that, in light of the totality of the record developed at trial, the jury properly exercised its discretion in awarding Appellee $8 million in punitive damages and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellants’ motion for a new trial or JNOV based on the amount of punitive damages awarded.
Upon review, we find that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in concluding that the jury’s verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. “[T]he trier of fact while passing upon the credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence produced, is free to believe all, part or none of the evidence.” Kaur v. Singh, 2021 PA Super 152, 259 A.3d 505, 509 (Pa.Super. 2021) Here, the jury heard testimony from a number of witnesses at trial, including Dr. Shen, Appellee, and at least three different expert witnesses. The jury clearly found the testimony presented by Appellee credible and elected not to believe Dr. Shen’s version of the events. Upon review, we discern no abuse of the trial court’s discretion. The jury’s verdict bears a reasonable resemblance to the proven damages, and we are precluded from reweighing the evidence and substituting our judgment for that of the factfinder. See Mader, 241 A.3d at 613. Accordingly, Appellants’ weight claim merits no relief.
Judgment affirmed.
