Hagelauer v. Main Line Emergency Med. Assocs., LLC, 2025 Pa. Super. LEXIS 237 (June 2, 2025) Panella, P.J.E.
Kelly Hagelauer, administratrix of the estate of Stephan Patrice Hagelauer (“Mrs. Hagelauer”), appeals from the judgment entered in favor of Main Line Emergency Medicine Associates, LLC, and Stuart Brilliant, M.D., Main Line Hospitals, Inc. D/B/A Paoli Hospital (“Defendants” or “Appellees”). Specifically, Mrs. Hagelauer argues the trial court erred (1) in excluding an email which the decedent, Stephan Patrice Hagelauer (“Mr. Hagelauer”), sent prior to his death and (2) precluding use of an article written by Defendants’ expert during cross-examination. Finding merit to Mrs. Hagelauer’s second claim, we vacate the judgment and remand for a new trial.
Mrs. Hagelauer filed a post-trial motion seeking a new trial based upon two trial errors. First, Mrs. Hagelauer asserted the trial court erred in excluding an email written by Mr. Hagelauer wherein he provided his availability for a future tennis match and indicated a doctor cleared him to play “provided [he] drink and eat something before playing.” Plaintiff’s Motion for Post-Trial Relief, 3/11/24, Exhibit B. Second, Mrs. Hagelauer argued the trial court erred in precluding cross-examination of Defendants’ expert, Dr. Ali Raja, regarding an article he authored. The trial court denied this motion on July 3, 2024, and judgment was entered on July 12, 2024.
In her first issue, Mrs. Hagelauer argues the trial court erred in finding the email inadmissible as hearsay because it “was being offered to demonstrate [Mr. Hagelauer’s] state of mind about his availability and ability to continue to play tennis.” Mrs. Hagelauer asserts the email either is admissible because it is not hearsay as it was not offered for the truth of the matter asserted, or alternatively, it meets the hearsay exception of a then existing mental, emotional, or physical condition.
The statement here is a “compound statement that both demonstrates the speaker’s then-existing state of mind and, when offered for the truth of the matter asserted, proves a fact that, if considered on its own, would be inadmissible hearsay.” The email clearly showed Mr. Hagelauer felt he was healthy enough to play tennis, a statement of his then-existing physical condition. However, the statement also contained a factual assertion: that a doctor cleared him to play as long as he ate or drank something before playing.
The Court in Fitzpatrick found that these compound statements are inadmissible pursuant to the then-existing state of mind exception:
Although basic state of mind statements generally are deemed reliable because of their strong indicia of reliability, the additional fact-based aspects of a compound state of mind expression are not inherently reliable and, conversely, implicate a high potential for incurable prejudice. Fact-bound assertions attached to state of mind statements lack the spontaneity and sincerity that characterize traditional state of mind statements.
“In other words, even when relevant to a contested issue in the case, a declarant’s ‘fact-bound’ statement, when offered as substantive evidence, is inadmissible to prove … the fact … expressed in the statement.”
Turning to whether this email is admissible under the hearsay exception of a then-existing state of mind, as argued by Mrs. Hagelauer during trial, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion. The email is not a singular expression of Mr. Hagelauer’s state of mind. The email specifically references a “doc” told him he was cleared to play tennis. This fact-bound statement is inadmissible unless another hearsay exception applies. See Fitzpatrick, 255 A.3d at 480. Mrs. Hagelauer has not argued any hearsay exception for this fact-bound statement. Therefore, the trial court correctly determined the email is inadmissible and this claim does not merit relief.
It is incredulous to believe Dr. Raja would author an article that he did not adopt and support. His name is listed on the byline as author and he listed the article on his CV as one of his “[p]rofessional [e]ducational [m]aterials or [r]eports[.]” Just as dubious is Dr. Raja’s attempt to distance himself at trial from the assertion that he wrote this article, which in any event does not preclude its admission under Rule 803.1(1)(B), as when he listed himself as author of the article, he signed and adopted the writing as his own work, whether or not he copied others work in drafting the article.1 Dr. Raja’s testimony would go to the weight to be given the article, not its admissibility. As such, the trial court erred in precluding Mrs. Hagelauer from cross-examining Dr. Raja with his own article that conflicts with his testimony during trial. We find this error prejudiced Mrs. Hagelauer as without admission of this article, Mrs. Hagelauer was effectively precluded from impeaching Dr. Raja with his own previous work product and opinion. This resulted in the jury being unable to evaluate a significant factor weighing on Dr. Raja’s credibility. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand for a new trial.
If this article were not Dr. Raja’s own work, his distancing himself might have precluded admission as solely impeachment material. See Charlton v. Troy, 236 A.3d 22, 39 (Pa. Super. 2020) (“an expert witness may be cross-examined on the contents of a publication … which the expert acknowledges to be a standard work in the field. In such cases, the publication or literature is not admitted for the truth of the matter asserted, but only to challenge the credibility of the witness’s opinion and the weight to be accorded thereto.”) Based upon our decision that the article is admissible as substantive evidence; we do not reach this issue.
Judgment vacated. New trial ordered. Jurisdiction relinquished.
