Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-07-03323/USCOURTS-ca3-07-03323-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James Arkuszewski
Appellee
Stephen Arkuszewski
Not Party
Mary Brennan
Appellant
William J. Brennan
Appellant
Parthsarathy Durgi
Appellee

Document Text:

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

 

No. 07-3323

 

WILLIAM J. BRENNAN;

 MARY BRENNAN,

 Appellants

v.

*PARTHSARATHY DURGI;

JAMES ARKUSZEWSKI;

STEPHEN ARKUSZEWSKI

*(Amended per Clerk’s Order of 08/24/07)

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

 for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(E.D. Pa. No. 06-cv-01338)

District Judge: The Honorable Mary A. McLaughlin 

___________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) 

September 8, 2008

Before: SCIRICA, McKEE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges

(Filed: October 15, 2008)

 

OPINION OF THE COURT

 

Case: 07-3323 Document: 00312110047 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/15/2008
2

MCKEE, Circuit Judge.

Mary and William Brennan appeal the district court’s order upholding a jury

verdict that awarded them $100 each as the result of a motor vehicle accident. For the

reasons that follow, we will affirm. 

Inasmuch as we write primarily for the parties, a lengthy retelling of the facts is

not necessary. The Brennans contend that their minimal jury awards are “functional

equivalents of no damages” and so inadequate as to require a new trial. Brennans’ Br. at

16-17. We review the district court’s denial of a new trial for an abuse of discretion. 

Waldorf v. Shuta, 142 F.3d 601, 621 (3d Cir. 1998). Our review is governed by state law,

and the parties agree that Pennsylvania law governs. Gasperini v. Ctr. for Humanities,

Inc., 518 U.S. 415, 419 (1996). Under Pennsylvania law, an award of damages is not be

disturbed absent a clear showing of “caprice, prejudice, partiality, corruption or some

other improper influence.” Ferrar v. Trs. of the Univ. of Pa., 573 Pa. 310, 343 (Pa. 2002). 

When a jury refuses to award more than minimal damages for pain and suffering, the

verdict must be allowed to stand if there is any reasonable basis to conclude that plaintiffs

did not suffer pain or that a pre-existing condition caused the pain they complained of. 

Davis v. Mullen, 773 A.2d 764, 770 (Pa. 2001).

Although plaintiffs alleged that the collision that occurred here was sufficient to

result in the injuries they complained of, the severity of the collision was disputed. 

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ suggestion that the impact was severe, Mr. Arkuszewski

testified that he did not even realize that his car touched the plaintiffs’ car until after the

Case: 07-3323 Document: 00312110047 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/15/2008
3

accident when Mr. Brennan informed him there had been a collision. Moreover, there

was evidence that both plaintiffs suffered from the effects of preexisting conditions. Mr.

Brennan was suffering from prior injuries and Mrs. Brennan had been injured in an

earlier accident in 2000, as well as a fall in 2002 that left her unable to work. Thus, the

jury’s decision to deny recovery for pain and suffering resulting from this accident does

not “defy common sense and logic.” Neison v. Hines, 653 A.2d 634, 637 (Pa. 1995). 

Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant a new trial.

Plaintiffs also contend that the district court erred by not allowing a medical expert

to testify about a report prepared by another expert. However, the district court’s ruling

was a correct application of the limitations set forth in Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). Plaintiffs

incorrectly argue that Dr. Maher should have been able to testify as to the “diagnosis and

treatment” of Mrs. Brennan’s shoulder injury described in Dr. McPhilemy’s report. The

district court was not persuaded by that argument, and neither are we. The district court

correctly concluded that the chiropractor “cannot be the vehicle through which Dr.

McPhilemy’s opinions would get to the jury. There would be no one for the defendants

to cross-examine with respect to that opinion.” “[A] chiropractor can not substitute for a

medical doctor in giving his report.” Nevertheless, the court allowed Dr. Maher to give

his own opinion about Mrs. Brennan’s shoulder injury.

Moreover, the district court clearly explained that Dr. McPhilemy’s report had not

been timely filed, and plaintiffs offered no explanation for the late filing. See Franklin

Music Co. v. Am. Broad. Cos., Inc., 616 F.2d 528, 539-40 (3d Cir. 1979).

Case: 07-3323 Document: 00312110047 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/15/2008
4

III.

For all of the above reasons, we will affirm the district court’s Judgment in

Accordance with the Jury Verdict, and the denial of the Brennan’s Motion for Post-Trial

Relief.

Case: 07-3323 Document: 00312110047 Page: 4 Date Filed: 10/15/2008