J-A05032-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

WILLIAM R. ANDERSON 

Appellant

v.

CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1573 EDA 2021

Appeal from the Order Entered July 27, 2021

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Civil Division at No. 170801984

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and MURRAY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.: FILED MARCH 23, 2023

William R. Anderson (Appellant) appeals from the order entering 

summary judgment in favor of Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail). After 

careful review, we are constrained to reverse and remand for further 

proceedings.

The trial court summarized the case history as follows:

Appellant commenced this personal injury action under the 

Federal Employers Liability Act (“FELA”), [45 U.S.C. § 51, et seq.,]

by complaint, on August 22, 2017. A Case Management Order 

(“CMO”) listing, inter alia, expert report deadlines was issued on 

December 5, 2017. The first CMO provided that [Appellant’s]

expert report was due no later than November 5, 2018. The 

deadline was extended on four occasions, the last being April 1, 

2021, wherein [the trial court] provided that “[Appellant] shall 

submit expert reports no later than 03-May-2021.” See CMO 

(04/01/2021). Despite the directive, and with no permission or 

excuse, [Appellant] submitted the expert report of [] Mark Levin[, 

M.D. (Dr. Levin)] (the “Levin Report”), on May 5, 2021. 

* * *
J-A05032-23

- 2 -

[] In his complaint, Appellant alleged that occupational 

exposures to diesel exhaust, creosote, and asbestos, while

[Appellant was] working for ... Conrail[] as a timekeeper and 

trackman[,] caused him to develop stage 0 chronic lymphocytic 

leukemia (“CLL”). Appellant offered the Levin [R]eport ... on the 

issue of causation.

Trial Court Opinion, 10/1/21, at 1, 2.

The Levin Report detailed Appellant’s occupational and medical history:

[Appellant] worked for Conrail from 1976 to 1990. Initially, 

[Appellant] did clerical work for 2 years and moved to [being] a 

trackman for 5 years and was a track foreman from 1983 to 1990. 

After [Appellant] left Conrail, he went to Red’s Towing for 22 

years. [Appellant] weas [sic] exposed to diesel exhaust, creosote, 

and asbestos on a daily basis throughout his employment with 

Conrail. On July 17, 2012, at age 64, [Appellant] was diagnosed 

with ... CLL[]. [Appellant’s] father smoked but did not do so at

home. [Appellant] never smoked. [Appellant’s] father died of 

lung cancer and his mother died of stomach cancer.

Levin Report, 5/3/21, at 2 (unnumbered).

1

 

In preparing his Report, Dr. Levin stated he had reviewed “the 

Complaint, [Appellant’s] deposition, Appellant’s discovery responses, medical 

and billing records,” id., as well as a report (Perez Report) prepared by 

Hernando R. Perez, Ph.D. (Dr. Perez), who Appellant also had retained as an 

expert.

2

 According to Dr. Levin, the Perez Report established that Appellant’s 

____________________________________________

1 The Levin Report is attached to Conrail’s motion for summary judgment. 

See Motion for Summary Judgment, 6/7/21, Ex. A.

2 Dr. Perez is an expert in the field of industrial hygiene and occupational 

health. See Perez Report, 4/25/19, at 1 (attached to Conrail’s motion for 

summary judgment as Ex. K). Dr. Perez interviewed Appellant, listed 

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-A05032-23

- 3 -

“exposure[s to] diesel exhaust including benzene, creosote, and asbestos, are 

higher than ambient or background levels of exposure.” Id.3 Dr. Levin quoted 

the following passage from the Perez Report:

Among the established carcinogens present in diesel exhaust is 

benzene. Benzene resulting from diesel exhaust emissions has 

been observed to be present at established health hazard 

concentrations in personal air samples of bus maintenance 

workers. Given the similarities in work environments between bus

and locomotive maintenance facilities, similar exposure conditions 

can be anticipated. Benzene exposure is an established cause of 

leukemia. This association is relevant to the case of [Appellant]

given his chronic occupational exposure to diesel exhaust and 

leukemia diagnosis.

Levin Report, 5/3/21, at 3 (quoting Perez Report, 4/25/19, at 8) (footnotes 

omitted by Dr. Levin). 

Dr. Levin opined:

I conclude [Appellant’s] exposure to benzene was more likely than 

not a contributory cause of his CLL. It is my professional medical 

opinion based upon more likely than not [sic] ... that [Appellant’s] 

CLL was caused by benzene exposure. It is widely accepted that 

leukemia is caused by benzene.

____________________________________________

publications he reviewed in preparing his report, and stated that he

“additionally reviewed relevant peer reviewed scientific literature to inform 

[his] opinions.” Id. at 1-2; see also id. at 19-20 (list of references).

3 The Perez Report stated, inter alia: “[Appellant] experienced diesel exhaust 

exposures across the continuum from low to intermediate during his career as 

a track laborer, foreman and track supervisor. [Appellant’s] work settings 

were representative of environments associated with elevated risk of 

occupationally related cancer.” Perez Report, 4/25/19, at 8. Dr. Perez further 

detailed Appellant’s exposures to different toxic substances while working for 

Conrail, including creosote, asbestos, and benzene. See id. at 8-15; but see 

also id. at 16 (observing Appellant “did not have air sampling or biological 

monitoring performed to assess his exposures at any point during his career 

with [Conrail].”). 
J-A05032-23

- 4 -

Levin Report, 5/3/21, at 5 (unnumbered; break omitted).

On June 7, 2021, Conrail filed a motion for summary judgment, 

claiming:

Dr. Levin’s report wholly fails to identify or discuss any, let alone 

a generally accepted, methodology supporting his threadbare 

opinions on general and specific causation. As a result, the 

undisputed record is devoid of any grounds on which a jury could 

find a causal connection between [Appellant’s] alleged 

occupational exposures and his CLL. Accordingly, summary 

judgment must be entered in favor of Conrail and against 

[Appellant].

* * *

In a case that must be proven based upon established scientific 

and medical research, the Levin Report fails to establish either 

general or specific causation. Instead, Dr. Levin summarily opines 

that “[Appellant’s] exposure to benzene was more likely than not

a contributory cause of his CLL,” and that “[i]t is my professional

medical opinion based upon more likely than not and based on all 

of the above, that [Appellant’s] CLL was caused by benzene 

exposure.” [] Levin Report[, 5/3/21,] at 3 (emphasis added).

Motion for Summary Judgment, 6/7/21, at 1-2, 4 (paragraph numbers and 

breaks omitted). According to Conrail, the deficient Levin Report “identifies 

no methodology, nor does it reflect the employment of any methodology, by 

which [Dr. Levin] makes the leap from association to causation.” Id. at 6.

Conrail further claimed, “there is nothing in Dr. Levin’s report quantifying 

[Appellant’s] specific exposures.” Id. at 7. Finally, in the alternative to 
J-A05032-23

- 5 -

summary judgment, Conrail requested the trial court schedule a Frye4 hearing 

to determine the admissibility of the Levin Report. Id. at 25.

Appellant filed a response opposing Conrail’s summary judgment motion 

on July 6, 2021, asserting “Dr. Levin’s report establishes both general and 

specific causation.” Response, 7/6/21, ¶ 19. Appellant claimed, “a relaxed 

standard of causation is applied under the FELA.” Id. ¶ 20 (citing Rogers v. 

Missouri Pac. R.R. Co., 352 U.S. 500 (1957)). Appellant asserted that Dr. 

Levin’s report was “the product of a differential diagnosis, which is a generally 

accepted methodology.” Id. ¶ 65 (citing Stange v. Janssen Pharm., Inc., 

179 A.3d 45, 55 (Pa. Super. 2018) (“differential diagnosis is a generally 

accepted methodology”)). Appellant explained:

Dr. Levin reviewed the Complaint, [Appellant’s] deposition, 

[Appellant’s] discovery responses, medical and billing records and 

Dr. Perez’s industrial hygiene report. [Dr. Levin] conducted a 

literature search and reviewed findings from several well[-

]regarded organizations such as [the International Agency on 

Research of Cancer, Environmental Protection Agency, and the 

National Toxicology Program]. He thereafter used his professional 

judgment based upon his education, training and experience in 

formulating his opinions. As part of his differential diagnosis, Dr. 

Levin considered [Appellant’s] genetic predisposition to cancer, 

and ruled out tobacco smoke.

____________________________________________

4 See Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923) (holding courts

should not admit scientific evidence at trial unless the underlying methodology

has gained general acceptance in the scientific community); see also Pa.R.E.

702(c) (incorporating Frye).
J-A05032-23

- 6 -

Id. ¶ 29. Finally, Appellant argued “Dr. Levin’s use of the words ‘more likely 

than not’ does not serve to form a basis to preclude his opinions in this 

matter.” Id. ¶ 30.

On July 27, 2021, the trial court granted Conrail’s motion for summary 

judgment, concluding that Appellant’s “expert report fails to establish 

causation.” Order, 7/27/21. Appellant timely appealed. Appellant and the 

trial court have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

The trial court explained its rationale for entering summary judgment

as follows:

Excusing formatting and grammatical issue[s], the Levin 

Report was not only late but deficient. It failed to identify 

generally accepted methodologies used to support the opinions 

offered. In addition, there is no mention of the manner or levels 

of [Appellant’s] exposure to [] “diesel[] exhaust, creosote, and 

asbestos.” Lastly, the Levin Report merely concludes that the 

Appellant’s “exposure to benzene was more likely than not a 

contributory cause of his CLL,” [Levin Report, 5/3/21, at 5

(unnumbered),] but fails to identify the source of the exposure. 

At best, the Levin Report makes the case for a correlation, not 

causation. Even under FELA’s relaxed standard of causation, more 

is required.

Trial Court Opinion, 10/1/21, at 3-4; see also id. at 2 (“There is no portion 

of the Levin Report that identifies the level of exposure during [Appellant’s] 

work at Conrail or the length of exposure.”).

Appellant presents two issues for our review:

1. Whether the Trial Court abused its discretion in granting 

[Conrail’s] Motion for Summary Judgment as a matter of law 

excluding Mark Levin, M.D.[?]
J-A05032-23

- 7 -

2. Whether it was error of law for the Trial Court to conclude 

“[Appellant’s] expert report fails to establish causation” in light 

of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Walsh v. 

BASF Corp., 234 A.3d 446 (Pa. 2020)[?]

Appellant’s Brief at 4.

Preliminarily, we reiterate that this action arises under FELA. Section 1 

provides:

Every common carrier by railroad ... shall be liable in damages to 

any person suffering injury while he is employed by such carrier 

... for such injury or death resulting in whole or in part from the 

negligence of any of the officers, agents, or employees of such 

carrier....

45 U.S.C.A. § 51. “FELA cases adjudicated in state courts are subject to state 

procedural rules, but the substantive law governing them is federal.” Labes

v. N.J. Transit Rail Operations, Inc., 863 A.2d 1195, 1198 (Pa. Super. 

2004) (citation and footnote omitted).

“In FELA cases, ‘the plaintiff must prove the common law elements of

negligence: duty, breach, foreseeability, and causation.’” Welsh v.

AMTRAK, 154 A.3d 386, 395 (Pa. Super. 2017) (emphasis added; citation

and quotes omitted). Under FELA, a jury may find liability as long as the 

evidence justifies the conclusion that railroad negligence “played any part, 

even the slightest, in producing the injury....” Rogers, 352 U.S. at 506

(emphasis added; footnote citation omitted); see also Criswell v. Atl.

Richfield Co., 115 A.3d 906, 912 (Pa. Super. 2015) (noting FELA employs a 

relaxed standard of causation that is less demanding than the common law 

test).
J-A05032-23

- 8 -

Appellant first challenges the trial court’s finding that the Levin Report 

failed to establish causation. See Appellant’s Brief at 14-25. Appellant claims, 

contrary to the trial court’s determination, “Dr. Levin’s opinion on specific 

causation [] was formed using a differential diagnosis etiology....” Id. at 23;

but see also id. at 14 (asserting “Dr. Levin’s expert Report identified opinions 

for both general and specific causation.”). Appellant argues:

Dr. Levin, as part of his differential diagnosis, properly identified 

and considered the risk factors and/or alternative causative 

factors which could lead to [Appellant’s] CLL, which includes 

smoking, and a family history of cancer, along with workplace 

exposures. Dr. Levin discussed in his report that he considered 

[Appellant’s] genetic predisposition to cancer and ruled out 

tobacco smoke.

Id. at 24. According to Appellant,

the [trial] court improperly determined that Dr. Levin could not 

reach an opinion on specific causation, because, as stated in [the 

court’s] 1925(a) opinion, “there is no portion of the Levin Report 

that identifies the level of exposure during [Appellant’s] work at 

Conrail or the length of exposure” and “there is no mention of the 

manner or levels of [Appellant’s] exposure to [] ‘diesel exhaust, 

creosote, and asbestos.’” [Trial Court Opinion, 10/1/21, at 3, 4.] 

However, the [c]ourt recites this proposition in error because (1) 

Dr. Levin’s opinions rely upon the industrial hygiene report 

of Dr. Perez, which discusses [Appellant’s] exposures in 

detail and provides ranges of exposure levels to diesel 

exhaust using a generally accepted methodology; (2) Dr. 

Levin’s report states that [Appellant’s] exposure to diesel exhaust, 

including benzene, creosote and asbestos are “higher than 

ambient or background levels of exposure,” and (3) dose analysis

is not required for an expert to opine as to medical causation.

Appellant’s Brief at 24 (emphasis added; some capitalization modified).

Appellant further claims, to the extent that Dr. Levin “does not 

specifically call out any methodology by name in his report,” this is immaterial 
J-A05032-23

- 9 -

where “the methodology of drawing inferences from a review of published

scientific literature has been long recognized by courts as a generally accepted 

methodology.” Appellant’s Reply Brief at 1-2 (citing Commonwealth v. 

Hopkins, 231 A.3d 855, 872 (Pa. Super. 2020) (“Courts accept a variety of 

sources as evidence that the expert’s methodology is generally accepted, 

including judicial opinions, scientific publications, studies, and statistics, 

expert testimony, or a combination of the above.”) (citations omitted)).

Finally, Appellant asserts, “[h]ad the trial court felt there were questions 

regarding Dr. Levin’s methodology, the proper procedure would have been to 

hold a Frye [h]earing as requested by [Conrail].” Appellant’s Brief at 25; see 

also id. (“Instead, the trial court improperly determined that Dr. Levin’s 

opinions were the result of no identifiable generally accepted methodology and

thereafter conducted its own analysis and formulated its own opinions. This 

is a clear abuse of discretion....”).

Conrail counters the trial court properly exercised its discretion in 

determining the Levin Report failed to establish causation:

[Dr. Levin] did not take the basic steps required under the Frye

standard to show that he employed a generally accepted 

methodology. Instead, [Dr.] Levin relied on studies that show 

only an association between [Appellant’s] alleged exposures and 

his CLL, while providing no information about the methodology he 

used for choosing those studies. 

Appellee’s Brief at 20. According to Conrail,

Nothing in [Dr.] Levin’s report suggested that he employed any 

methodology to opine on general causation, much less a generally 

accepted one. The trial court acted within its discretion to 
J-A05032-23

- 10 -

determine [Dr.] Levin’s report was inadmissible under those 

circumstances. See Snizavich v. Rohm and Haas Co., 83 A.3d 

191, 194 (Pa. Super. 2013) (affirming the grant of summary 

judgment because the expert had failed to establish causation 

through the application of a “coherent scientific or technical 

methodology”).

Id. at 18-19 (emphasis in original). 

Conrail further argues:

[Dr.] Levin’s report lacked any analysis of the amount (or dose) 

of [Appellant’s] exposure to benzene and asbestos, or to the 

products that contained those substances. In cases involving 

dose-responsive diseases, including in FELA cases, “expert 

witnesses may not ignore or refuse to consider dose as a factor in 

their opinions.” Howard ex rel. Estate of Ravert v. A.W. 

Chesterton Co., 78 A.3d 605, 608 (Pa. 2013).... Without such 

evidence, no causal link between the plaintiff’s exposures and his 

disease may be inferred. See Wilson v. A.P. Green Indus., 

Inc., 807 A.2d 922 (Pa. Super. 2002) (affirming summary 

judgment where evidence of regular exposure [was] insufficient 

to establish mesothelioma caused by plaintiff’s exposure to 

asbestos)....

Id. at 21. 

Finally, Conrail claims, in the alternative, that summary judgment was 

proper where Appellant’s claims were barred by the applicable statute of 

limitations. Id. at 31 (citing 45 U.S.C. § 56 (no FELA “action shall be 

maintained under this act ... unless commenced within three years from the 

day the cause of action accrued.”). According to Conrail,

[Appellant] testified he was informed by his physician no later 

than 2013 that his exposures to diesel exhaust, asbestos, and 

creosote allegedly caused his CLL. Based on his own testimony,

[Appellant] was required to file his claims no later than 2016.

Because [Appellant] did not file suit until 2017, his claims are 

time-barred.
J-A05032-23

- 11 -

Id. at 32 (citation to record omitted).

We apply the following standard in reviewing the grant of summary 

judgment:

[S]ummary judgment is only appropriate in cases where there are

no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled

to judgment as a matter of law. Pa.R.C.P. 1035.2(1). When

considering a motion for summary judgment, the trial court must

take all facts of record and reasonable inferences therefrom[,] in

a light most favorable to the non-moving party[,] and must

resolve all doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue of material

fact against the moving party. An appellate court may reverse a

grant of summary judgment if there has been an error of law or

an abuse of discretion. Because the claim regarding whether

there are genuine issues of material fact is a question of law, our

standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary.

Nicolaou v. Martin, 195 A.3d 880, 891-92 (Pa. 2018) (some citations

omitted). 

Thus, our responsibility as an appellate court is to determine 

whether the record either establishes that the material facts are 

undisputed or contains insufficient evidence of facts to make out 

a prima facie cause of action, such that there is no issue to be 

decided by the fact-finder.

Welsh, 154 A.3d at 390 n.5 (citation omitted).

The “admission of expert scientific testimony is an evidentiary matter 

for the trial court’s discretion and should not be disturbed on appeal unless 

the trial court abuses its discretion.” Buttaccio v. Am. Premier

Underwriters, 175 A.3d 311, 315 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citation omitted). “An

abuse of discretion is not merely an error in judgment; rather, it occurs when

the law is overridden or misapplied, or when the judgment exercised is

manifestly unreasonable or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill-will.” 
J-A05032-23

- 12 -

Scalla v. KWS, Inc., 240 A.3d 131, 136 (Pa. Super. 2020) (citations

omitted). 

This Court has explained that a

proponent of expert scientific evidence bears the burden of

establishing all of the elements for its admission under Pa.R.E.

702,[5] which includes showing that the rule in Frye ... is satisfied. 

See Grady [v. Frito-Lay, Inc.], 839 A.2d [1038,] 1045 [(Pa.

2003)]. Frye, which is now embodied in Pa.R.E. 702(c), instructs

that the court should not admit scientific evidence during trial

unless the underlying methodology has gained general acceptance

in the scientific community. See Commonwealth v. Topa, ...

369 A.2d 1277, 1281-82 (Pa. 1977). “Frye does not apply to

every time science enters the courtroom[;] ... Frye does apply,

however, where an expert witness employs a novel scientific

methodology in reaching his or her conclusion.” Folger ex rel.

Folger v. Dugan, ... 876 A.2d 1049, 1058 (Pa. Super. 2005) (en

banc) (citations omitted). One method to assess a Frye motion 

is to conduct a Frye hearing, although a hearing is not mandatory. 

See id[.]

____________________________________________

5 Rule 702 provides:

A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, 

experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an 

opinion or otherwise if:

(a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized 

knowledge is beyond that possessed by the average 

layperson;

(b) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized 

knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the 

evidence or to determine a fact in issue; and

(c) the expert’s methodology is generally accepted

in the relevant field.

Pa.R.E. 702 (emphasis added); see also Pa.R.E. 705 (“If an expert states an 

opinion the expert must state the facts or data on which the opinion is 

based.”). 
J-A05032-23

- 13 -

Buttaccio, 175 A.3d at 315 (footnote added).

This Court was presented with similar facts in Labes, supra. The 

appellant/plaintiff previously worked for the defendant/railway, and developed 

pain in his right knee which eventually required surgery. Labes, 863 A.2d at

1196-97. The appellant initiated a negligence action under FELA, and 

presented at trial evidence which included, inter alia:

the testimony of his orthop[]edic surgeon, Dr. Esformes, in 

support of his causation argument that the repetitive nature of 

[appellant’s] work had caused back and knee problems, including 

specifically the heavy lifting and extended periods of kneeling on 

hard and uneven surfaces which his job required.

Id. at 1197. At the close of the appellant’s case, the trial court granted the

defendant’s motion for compulsory non-suit and dismissed the case. Id.

The Labes Court recognized that claimants under FELA have a relaxed 

standard of causation. Id. at 1198 (citing Rogers, 352 U.S. at 506-07 

(“Under this statute the test of a jury case is simply whether the proofs justify 

with reason the conclusion that employer negligence played any part, even 

the slightest, in producing the injury or death for which damages are sought.

It does not matter that, from the evidence, the jury may also ... attribute the 

result to other causes, including the employee’s contributory negligence.”)). 

We explained that Pennsylvania Courts have

consistently adhered to the Rogers standard, stating that in only 

the most frivolous cases may the courts deny a FELA

plaintiff his or her qualified right to a jury trial. Ciarolla v.

Union Railroad Co., ... 338 A.2d 669, 671 (Pa. Super. 1975). 

“[FELA] is to be liberally construed on behalf of injured workers,
J-A05032-23

- 14 -

with the result that often recovery will be proper under [FELA]

when it would not be under the common law of negligence.” 

Ignacic v. Penn Cent. Transp. Co., ... 436 A.2d 192, 194 (Pa.

Super. 1981) (citations omitted).

Labes, 863 A.2d at 1198 (emphasis added).

The Court concluded:

The trial court found “plaintiff merely showed it was possible that 

his injuries may have resulted from the defendant’s negligence.” 

Trial Court Opinion at 9 [(emphasis added)]. Under FELA,

however, such a showing is sufficient. Indeed, a non-suit

under FELA is justified only in those cases where there is a zero

probability either of employer negligence or that any such

negligence contributed to an employee’s injury. See Pehowic [v.

Erie Lackawanna R. Co.], 430 F.2d [697, 699-700 (3rd Cir.

1970) (stating “a trial court is justified in withdrawing [FELA]

issues from the jury’s consideration only in those extremely rare 

instances where there is a zero probability either of employer 

negligence or that any such negligence contributed to the injury 

of an employee.”)).]

Labes, 863 A.2d at 1200 (emphasis added). We held “the determination of 

negligence, if any, was for the jury” and reversed. Id.

Although Labes involved the entry of non-suit, the reasoning is 

applicable here. We further observe:

Judges, both trial and appellate, have no special competence to

resolve the complex and refractory causal issues raised by the

attempt to link low-level exposure to toxic chemicals with human

disease. On questions such as these, which stand at the frontier

of current medical and epidemiological inquiry, if experts are

willing to testify that such a link exists, it is for the jury to

decide whether to credit such testimony.

Trach v. Fellin, 817 A.2d 1102, 1117 (Pa. Super. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis

added; citation omitted).
J-A05032-23

- 15 -

Finally, we agree with Appellant that if the trial court had “questions 

regarding Dr. Levin’s methodology, the proper procedure would have been to 

hold a Frye [h]earing,” Appellant’s Brief at 25, which Conrail had raised as an 

alternative to summary judgment. See Buttaccio, supra (regarding Frye

hearings). 

For these reasons, we are compelled to reverse the entry of summary 

judgment,

6 and remand for further proceedings, which may include a Frye 

hearing, consistent with this memorandum. In light of our disposition, we do 

not address Appellant’s second issue.

Order reversed. Case remanded for further proceedings. Jurisdiction 

relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 3/23/2023

____________________________________________

6 To the extent Conrail argues Appellant’s action was barred by the statute of 

limitations, this matter must be decided by the jury. Because “the 

determination concerning [a] plaintiff’s awareness of [his or her] injury and 

its cause is fact intensive,” it is “ordinarily a question for a jury to decide” 

when a plaintiff’s action accrued, for purposes of the statute of limitations and 

accompanying “discovery rule.” Wilson v. El-Daief, 964 A.2d 354, 362 (Pa. 

2009).