### J. A21024/16

NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 JOIE DIGIOVANNI : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

Appellant : PENNSYLVANIA : : : v. : JOHN B. MURPHY : : : No. 2902 EDA 2015 Appeal from the Judgme nt Entered September 15, 2015 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at No(s): November Term, 2013 No. 01291 BEFORE: Bender, P.J.E. , DUBOW, J., and MUSMANNO, J. MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 22, 2016 Appellant, Joie DiGiovanni, plaintiff b elow, appeals from the Judgment entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on September 15, 2015, in favor of Appellee, John B. Murphy, defendant below, following a jury trial. After careful review, we affirm. We summarize the facts, as gle aned from the detailed trial court opinion, as follows. On February 5, 2012, Appellant was the passenger in a car, which was rear
- ended. Appellee was the driver of the striking vehicle, and was travelling at approximately 45 miles per hour. Appellant di d not wait for an ambulance to take her to the hospital following the accident, but rather travelled there in her boyfriend’s car. Appellant presented at the hospital with a scrape on her chin and a cut lip, and complaining of pain in her ankles, wrist, leg, hip, neck, and back.

### J. A21024/16

- 2 -

Hospital staff performed x
- rays and a C
- T scan, both of which came back negative. Appellant subsequently experienced swelling and bruising. Appellant sought treatment for her injuries from five different medical professionals. Ultimately, she received a diagnosis of fibromyalgia and rheumatoid arthritis. Her doctor prescribed Appellant the drug Humira, which Appellant described as a “miracle drug.” See Trial Ct. Op., 2/25/16, at 1 - 3 (citations omitted). On November 14, 2013 , Appellant filed an arbitration Complaint against Appellee raising claims arising from injuries she alleged she sustained in the February 4, 2012 collision. Specifically, Appellant claimed that, at the time of the accident she suffered from asymptomatic fibromyalgia and rheumatoid arthritis, which conditions were made symptomatic by the trauma of the accident. Appellee filed an Answer with New Matter on October 20, 2014. That same day, the arbitration panel entered an award for Appellant in the amount o f $41,500. Appellee filed an appeal from the Arbitration Award on October 30, 2014. A three
- day jury trial commenced on August 10, 2015. Following the trial, the jury concluded that Appellee’s negligence was not a factual cause of Appellant’s injuries , and, thus, returned a verdict for Appellee on August 12, 2015. Appellant filed a Post
- Trial Motion on August 21, 2015, in which she alleged the jury’s verdict was against the weight of the evidence and that

### J. A21024/16

- 3 -

the court erred in permitting the jury to re ceive medical expert reports and internet articles produced by Appellee’s counsel in cross
- examination of Appellant’s expert witness. On August 25, 2015, Appellee filed an Answer to Appellant’s Post
- Trial Motion. Appellant filed a “Reply in Support to Po st Trial Motion” on September 1, 2015. Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal from the jury’s August 12, 2015 verdict in favor of Appellee on September 4, 2015. 1 

### The trial court denied Appellant’s Post
- Trial Motion on September 14, 2015, and simultaneously
e ntered Judgment in Appellee’s favor. 2 

### Appellant and the trial court have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. Appellant raises the following issues for our review: 1. Whether the jury’s finding that [Appellee’s] negligence was not a factual cause of the injuri es sustained by [Appellant] was against the weight of the evidence requiring the court to remand for a new trial. 2. Whether the court erred in sending portions of hearsay internet articles, which directly addressed the medical

1 

### We note that Appellant’s September 4, 2015 Notice of Appeal was premature as a final order h ad not yet been entered in the case. See PA Energy Vision, LLC v. South Avis Realty, Inc. , 120 A.3d 1008, 1012 n.3 (Pa. Super. 2015) (an appeal of a final order in a civil case lies from the entry of judgment). However, the trial court entered judgment f ollowing denial of Appellant’s Post
- Trial Motion on September 14, 2015, thus perfecting Appellant’s appeal. See Prime Medica Assocs. V. Valley Forge Ins. , 970 A.2d 1149, 1154 n.6 (Pa. Super. 2009) (a final judgment entered during the pendency of an appeal is sufficient to perfect appellate jurisdiction).
2 

### The court mailed the parties Pa.R.C.P. 236 Notice of Entry of Judgment on September 15, 2015.

### J. A21024/16

- 4 - causation issues and theref ore likely [a]ffected the outcome of the case, into the jury room requiring the court to remand for a new trial. Appellant’s Brief at 6. In her first issue, Appellant claims that the jury’s conclusion that Appellee’s negligence was not a factual cause of the harm Appellant suffered was against the weight of the evidence where neither Appellee’s negligence, nor the fact that Appellant now suffers from fibromyalgia and rheumatoid arthritis, are in dispute. Id. at 21, 24. Appellant avers, that “[i]n light of the high speed collision together with the objective and undisputed evidence of injury, the verdict was against the weight of the evidence and justice requires a new [t]rial.” Id. at 24. When considering challenges to the weight of the evidence, we note that, “[t]he weight of the evidence is exclusively for the finder of fact[,] who is free to believe all, none or some of the evidence and to determine the credibility of witnesses.” Commonwealth v. Talbert , 129 A.3d 536, 545 (Pa. Super. 2015). “A j ury is entitled to believe all, part or none or the evidence presented.... A jury can believe any part of a witness’ testimony that they choose, and may disregard any portion of the testimony that they disbelieve.” Martin v. Evans , 711 A.2d 458, 463 (Pa. 1 998) (citation and quotation omitted). Where a jury has made credibility determinations regarding the testimony and evidence presented, those determinations are rarely overturned. Armbruster v. Horowitz , 744 A.2d 285, 287 (Pa.

### J. A21024/16

- 5 -

Super. 1999). Further, “ [i]n order for a defendant to prevail on a challenge to the weight of the evidence, the evidence must be so tenuous, vague and uncertain that the verdict shocks the conscience of the court.” Talbert , supra at 546 (internal quotation marks and citation omi tted). The trial court cogently and comprehensively addressed Appellant’s weight of the evidence claim in its Rule 1925(a) Opinion. Accordingly, with respect to this issue, we affirm on the basis of the trial court’s well
- reasoned Opinion. See Trial Ct. Op. at 5 - 7. In her second issue on appeal, Appellant claims the trial court erred in permitting limited portions of internet articles from the Mayo Clinic, the National Institute of Health (“NIH”), and the Cleveland Clinic about rheumatoid arthritis into the jury room. Appellant’s Brief at 24. Appellant claims that it was inappropriate to provide the jury with these documents because counsel had not moved them into evidence and they are hearsay documents. 3 

### Id . At trial, both parties’ expert witnesses testified at trial by way of videotaped deposition. The transcripts of those depositions, and the internet
3 

### To the extent that Appellant challenges the trial court’s decision to permit the jury to view the articl es during deliberation on hearsay grounds, we find this argument waived. Our review of the record, including the deposition transcripts of Dr. Whalen and Dr. Derk, and the trial transcript, indicates that Appellant did not preserve this issue by making a specific, timely objection before the trial court. See Boykin v. Brown , 866 A.2d 1264, 1267 (Pa. Super. 2006) (holding that in order to preserve the application of a hearsay objection for appellate review, that specific exception must first be raised befo re the trial court).

### J. A21024/16

- 6 -

articles used by counsel to question the witnesses attached thereto, were entered into evidence. During deliberation, the jury asked the court t o send back to the deliberation room the articles used by Appellee’s counsel during cross
examination of Appellant’s expert, Dr. Whalen. Following colloquy with counsel, and over Appellant’s objection that the documents had not been moved into evidence, t he trial court permitted the jury to receive “only the relevant pages [of the internet articles] that were touched upon from the testimony by the two experts[, Drs. Whelan and Derk].” 4 

### N.T., 8/12/15, at 68. Notwithstanding Appellant’s claim on appeal that the articles were not moved into evidence, our review of the record confirms that, “the articles were attached to Dr. Whalen’s deposition transcript, Exhibit P
- 13, and were admitted into evidence [Exhibits D
- 5, D - 7, and D
- 8].” Trial Ct. Op. at 8. M oreover, Appellant represented to the court during an in camera discussion that the articles used by Appellee’s counsel to cross
- examine Dr. Whalen were “part of the transcript[,]” and “part of what we introduced as Dr. Whalen’s testimony. We have the who le transcript and the tape introduced. And, in fact, [the NIH article] is Exhibit D
- 5 of [Appellant’s] Exhibit, I think it’s 13.” N.T., 8/11/15, at 75
- 76. Appellant’s counsel

4 

### Pages 1, 3, 4, and 9
- 11 of the National Institutes of Health article, pages 1, 2, and 7 of the Mayo Clinic article, and page 1 of the Cleveland Clinic Article.

### J. A21024/16

- 7 -

conceded that he “moved [into evidence] the entire transcript and this was att ached to the transcript.” Id. at 76. During a jury trial, the court “may make exhibits available to the jury during its deliberations.” Pa.R.C.P. 223.1(d)(3). The trial court has discretion to determine which exhibits should be permitted to be viewed by the jury during deliberations. Wagner by Wagner v. York Hosp. , 608 A.2d 496, 503 (Pa. Super. 1992) (noting that “the trial court has the discretion to determine which exhibits should be permitted to go out with the jury. ”). Accordingly, the trial co urt did not abuse its discretion in permitting the jury to view the articles during deliberation. Judgment affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished. Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 9/22/2016

### J. A21024/16

- 8 -2 TI1 is Co u rt w a s i n s tru c t ed by th e Sup e ri o r C o u rt th at th e p l ai n ti f f' s p r ematur e app e al was t o be co n s i d e r e d a s i f it w e r e ti m e l y fi l e d aft e r th e d e n i al of th e p l ai ntiff s pos t- tri al m o ti o n s. I T h e ph 1 in ti ff w a s r ep rese nt e d b y J am e s F amig l i o, E s q ui r e , and th e d e f e nd a nt w as r ep r e se nt e d b y Ro n a ld 1- farr e r o, E s q ui r e .

Di gi ov an n i 

### V s M u r p h y - O P FLD 

## 111111111 

# I II 1111 I 111111111 

# If Ill ho ur , w h en h e wa s ap p ro a c h in g th e b e n d in Int e r s t at e 7 6 whe r e R oos e v el t Bo ul e v ar d a nd 

### Ci ty L i n e Id
. at 5 0- S 1. 

### T h e d e f

e n dan t wa s driv i n g a s p o rt u tili ty ve h icle ( S U V) , at ap p r o xi m at el y 45 mil es p e r in tra f fi c , w h e n th e d e fe nd a nt 's v e h i cl e co llided w i th th e v e hicl e i n whic h th e p l ain tiff w a s trav e li n g . 8 / 1 0/ 1 5 at 46, 4 9

- 5 0
. T h e pl aintiff and h e r fri e n d w e r e fa c i n g e a c h o th e r t a lki n g , a s 

### th e y w e r e s tu c k veh icl e, tr av e li n g c a s t o n I nt e r s tat e 76 t o war d s C e nt e r C i ty Ph ila de lphi a . N o t es o f T e s ti m o ny ( N. T. ) O n Fe b ruary 4, 

### 2 0 l 2 , at ar o un d 6 : 0 0 P. M
. , the p lai n tiff w a s a p a sse n g e r in h e r fri en d 's F A C TS: m o ti o n s . n o ti ce o f appe al .' S u b s e q u e n tl y, o n S e pt e mb e r 1 4 , 2 0 1 5 , thi s Co u rt d e ni e d th e pla inti ff' s p o s t
- tri al T i m el y p os t- tria l mo ti o ns w er e fil e d on A u g u s t 2 1 , 20 1 5
. O n S e pt e mb e r 1 , 2 0 1 5 , th e p la intiff filed a J oh n 

### .13. M u rp h y (h e r eaf t e r, th e d e fe nda nt ) , an d agai n s t Jo ie Dr G i o v a n n i ( h e r e a f t e r , th e p lai nti ff) .' O n Au g u s t 1 2 , 2 01 5 , fo ll owi n g a j u ry 

### tria l b e for e thi s Co urt , v e r di ct w a s ent e r ed in fav o r o f 

# -- s. r .. -i

. 

### PRO C EDURAL H ISTORY : O P INION 

## , .. c. 

## , . . 

## . 

# .,, r -.. C: , ) r- s 

### o , JO H N B. 

### MURPHY C:T\ 

### S u pe rior Court Do c ket 

## Ni? <> . r } , . ,. 

### 2902 

### E D A 2 0 15 ~ :_,_. ·



# tt ,c ( ·; ·
~ : · +' 

### S arm in a , 

# J
. F ebruary 25 , 2016 

## v. N o v e mb e r T e rm, 2013 N o . 1 2 91 JOI E DIGIOVANNI,

PHILADE L P H IA COUR T OF C OMMON P L E A S

CIVI L TRIAL DIVI S ION Circulated 08/31/2016 02:49 PM

### 2

Av e n ue m e et. Id. at 12 5
. T he def end a n t di d no t im medi ately n o tice th at th e car s i n fro nt of h im

we r e s to p p e d, an d co n se q u ently h e "r e ar- en d e d" th e v ehi cl e th e p la inti ff w as trav e lin g i n , whic h wa s i n fr o nt o f h i m . 

## kl T he car th e p l ain tiff w a s travelin g in hit th e c ar i n 

### fro n t of i t , and that c ar hit
the c ar i n fr o nt of it as w e ll
. I d
. at 51
. A frc r the c o ll ision , the d e fend a nt exi t e d hi s v e hicl e, walked o ver to the plai nti ff , a n d ri sk e d 

### if eve1:7 o nc w a s o k ay . I d
. at 51. T he p l ain ti ff stat e d th at sh e w as no t ok ay , a nd call e d h er b o y fri e n d t o

c o m e to th e s c e ne o f th e a c c i den t . 

### hi, at 5 2. The p o li c e al so arri v e d at the sc e n e. I d. at 5l. T h e p l a in tiff' s b o y fri end th en r ook h er t o Lanke n au H o s p ita l ; s h e di d not wai t fo r a n a mb ulan ce t o


### arn ve. Id
. T h e d e f

e ndan t wa s ab l e t o driv e hi s vehi cl e away fr om th e acc i d en t s ce n e. Id. at 1 32
. Wh en the p l ain tiff arriv ed at the ho s p ital , sh e w a s co mp l a ining o f p a in 

### in h er an kle s , w ris t , l eg , hip, n ec k , back. I d
. at 53
. S he al so presente d w ith a sc r ape o n h e r c h in , and a b u s t e d o p en lip. 

### Id
. T h e ho s pital sta ff performed x - ray s a n d a C T scan, both o f whi c h c ame ba c k neg ative. Id
. at 5 4
. T h e pl ai n ti ff wa s n ot admi tte d t o the h os pit al, an d wa s g iv e n Tylen o l w i th codeine
. I d. at 54

- 5 5. Th at s a m e 

### d ay, th e p l a inti ff left th e h osp it a l a nd im me diat e l y tra ve l e d with h er boy fri en d t o h er par e n t's s hor e h ous e in Mar g ate , New J e r s e y. N.T. 8/ 1 0/ 1 5 at 54

- 55. 

### \X l h c o th e p l ai n tiff r e tu rn e d fr o m the s h o r e , 

### s h e b ega n t o s w e ll a nd brui s e . 

## hi at 55
. ' Th u s, th e p l a inti ff 

### soug h t tr eatm e n t fr o m Dr. Bren t \Xlein e nnan, w h o tr eat s p eo p l e 

### who ha ve be e n i n car

ac cid ent s. I d. at 56. 13 e c au s e sh e di d n o t lik e th e ar e a in w h i c h Dr
. Wc in erm a n 's offi ce wa s l o cated , th e p la in ti ff so u g ht tr e atm e n t fr o m a d i ff e re n t d o c t o r ab o ut a wee k l ate r - D r. H ard in g , a

c h i roprac to r. Id
. at 57
. After b e i n g s e en 

### b y Dr. H ardi n g , th e p l a inti ff th e n w en t to h e r 

### famil y doctor , Dr
. A l e xand er Ri c c i u tti, wh o worked at Medi c al Re h ab il i mti o n Ce nte r o f P h ila de lphia , with

c o mpl ai n t s o f swo ll e n wri sts , arm s , a nkl es , a nd a c h a n gi n g co l o r se n s ati o n in h e r 

### h and s . I d
. at 5 9. T he s e s ymp t o ms n e v e r s ub s id e d fo ll ow in g th e m o t o r veh icle ac ciden t th e p l ain tiff 

### was invo lv e d in ,
a n d the y wer e n o t c o ntro ll e d 

### b y medi cation
. 

## kl at 60.

### 3

' T h e p l ai n tiff r e s tifie d th : lt w hi le u nd e r th e c ar e of ~ fai n L i n e Rh c u m ato l o g y , she wa s p re s crib e d H umir a , M e th atr e x ar e , Cyc l o b c nzapri n e , a s w e ll a s folic a dd and a mu s cl e r e l ax e r. i'\ .T. 8/ 10/ 1 S at 7 7- 79
. p l ai ntiff s u s t ai ne d injuries to h e r w ri sts 

### and an kl es as a d ire c t r es u lt o f th i s mo t or ve hi cle a ccid e n t, ag a in s t longs t a n d i n g P e n nsy lv a n i a l aw. T h e plai n tiff 

### cl a ims th at th e re wa s n o 

### di sp ut e th at th e T h e p l ai n ti ff

s fir s t cl ai m is th at th e ve rdi ct wa s ag ain s t th e we i g ht of th e e v i d e n ce a nd 

### 1) Th e v e r di c t w a s a g ainst th e wei g ht of th e e v id ence 

### a nd a ga in s t l o n gs t a ndin g P e nn s ylva n i a l aw . 2
. T h e C o urt erred i n pe rmitti n g th e 

### jury to r ece i v e in th e j u ry ro om a ll ex p ert m e di c al r ep orts a nd i n t e rn e t arti cl es produ ce d 

### b y d efe n s e c o un s el in th e cro s s - exa m inati o n o f pl a in tif f' s e x p ert. 

### I. T h e v e rdi c t 

### wa s a gain st th e wei g ht o f 

### th e ev ide n c e 

### and a g a in s t l o n gs t a ndin g P en n syl v a ni a l a w . T h e p l ai ntiff ra is e s tw o i ss u es o n ap p e a l : 

### L E G A L ANALY S IS: d es crib e d a s a " mi ra c l e dru g." I d
. at 7 9

- 81. a n d th e pl a in ti ff t e s tifi e d th at her sy mp to m s arc contro lle d , p arti cularl y b y th e H umir a , w h i c h s he I d
. at 77 - 7 8. Dr. W h a la n k e pt th e p l ai n tiff o n th e sa me drug s th at s h e wa s pre vi ou s ly pr esc rib e d , d i ffe r e nt 

### rh eu mat o l o g i s t - O r . T h omas Wh al a n - 

### wh o wa s tr e atin g the 

### p lai n ti ff at th e tim e of 

### tri al
. A ft c r tr eatin g at M ai n L in e R h e umat o logy for rou g h I }' o n e y e ar, th e p lain tiff be gan s e e ing a H u mira e v ery tw o we e k s . I d
. re s p o n s i v e . 

### Td. at 

### 73
. Th e p l ain ti ff t es ti fi e d th at 

### s h e i nje c t s h er s el f 

### in h er sto ma c h 

### or he r thi gh with p lai n tiff w as treate d w i th th e drug H u mira , a n d a n umb er o f o ther dru g s ,' to wh i c h s he w a s Rh e umarol og y, wh er e she w a s dia g n o sed wi th 

### fibr o my al gi a and rh e u mat o i d arthriti s . I d
. at 72
. The r e fe rr e d th e p lainti ff to a rh e u m ar o l og i s t , N
. T
. 8 / 

### t 0/ 1 5 at 71. T h e p lai nti ff wen t t o M a in Line D r . Ric ci utti refe rre d the plaintiff t o Dr. Yang , a p h ys i atrist , who t oo k a n 

### E lv f G an d th en

### 4 I Tn s u p p o rt o f thi s p rop os itio n , th e pl ain ti ff c i t es t o C n :;s el li v . P o wl e n, in w hi ch rhe S u p e ri o r C o urt fo und th at th e jury ' s a ward o f z ero d ama ge s w as a gai ns t th e we ight of the e v i d en ce p r ese nted at tri al
. 9 37 , -\
. 2 d 1 13 7 , 114 0 (P a . S u p e r.

~ 0 0 7 )
. I n C a ss e lli , th e plai n ti ff \V<IS i nj u re d wh e n he s rumb l e d an d f e ll o il a si d ewa lk out s i d e of th e d e f e n dan t' s h om e . 

### hl .11 I 138
. It wa s un di sp uted at trial th at th e plainti ff fell an d b roke hi s foo t, and th e r e w as n o dis p u te that the m e di c al e x pe n ses in c u rre d b y th e p l ai ntiff w e r e re a s o n able
. 

### hl Th e j m y foun d ch at th e d e fend ant wa s 50% n eglig e nt , th at th e p l ain tiff w a s 50% n eg lige n t, and rhat each p arty's n eg lig e n c e w as a s u b st antial fact o r in c ausin g the p l a intiff' s inju ri es . 

### lrl. at 11 39
. Neve rth ele s s , th e jury d id n ot a w ard d ama g e s to th e p lai n ti f f 

### I.Ii Th e S u p e ri o r Court c on cluded th at th e j u1y' s verdi c t o f ze ro d : \m a g e s. wh e n th e re w a s n o d i s p ute as to th e de f e nd an t' s n e g li g e n ce an d c au sati o n wa s ng ains t di e wei gh t o f the e vid e nc e, an d reman ded di e c a s e fo r :1 n e w tri al , 1 ~ t o dam a ge s . Id, at 1 141. 

### C a ss e lli , h o w e ve r , i s not o n p o int , us th ere wa s , 1 d i s pute i n th e ins t an t c a s e .1 $ t o th e c ausatlon oi th e p l:l in t iff s in j uri e s , and th e j m y ulti mat e ly fou nd rh ar rh e plninti ft's inj u rie s w e re n o t cau s ed by rh e de fe ndant' s n e g lig e n c e. 

### A rmb ru s t e r , 7 4 · 1 A. 2 d at 28 7
. Th is Co urt h as r e p eate dl y e mph as i ze d th at i t i s n o t 

### o nl y 

## al J c o u rt ' s i n h e re n t fu n d a me nt a l and salut ary p o we r , but its du ty to gra nt a n ew trial w h en 

### i t beli ev e s th e ver dic t w a s agai ns t th e w e i g ht o f the ev i d e n c e an d re s u lt e d in a mi sc arri age of ju s ti c e . Alth o u g h a ne w tri al s h o uld n o t b e gran te d b ec au s e o f a mere c o nfli c t in t es tim o n y o r b e cau s e th e [co u rt] o n the sa m e fa c ts w o u ld h a ve arri ve d at a diff e r e n t c o nclu s i o n , a n ew tri a l sh ou ld b e aw ar d e d w he n th e jury ' s v e r d ict 

## i s s o c o n trary t o th e evi d e n c e a s to s h o ck o n e' s s e n s e o f ju s tic e and th e awar d o f a n e w tria l i s i mp e rati v e so th at rig ht m ay b e g i v e n an o th e r o p portu n i ty t o pre v ail. M a 11 1111 0 /'t. tO ,,. 

### 1818 M

(lr ke l 

### Pad11 e 1 : chi

p , 7 34 A.2 d 23 , 2 8 (Pa
. Sup cr.1 9 99 ) ( ci tati o n s o mi tt ed )
. T he s t an d ar d 

### b y w hi c h a tri a l c o urt s h o u l d r e v iew a w eig ht o f th e e vi d e n c e cl ai m is a s fo ll o w s: 

### Martin v . Ev an s, 

### 71 · 1 A. 2d 4 5 8 , 463 ( P a. 19 9 8 )
. C re d i bility d e term i nati o n s ar e w i th i n the s o le p ro vin ce of the 

### jury. 'A 

### j ury i s e nti tl e d t o b e lie v e a ll , p art or n on e of th e e vi d e n c e p res e n te d
. . .. 

### A j u ry c a n b el i ev e an y p art of a witn ess ' t esti m o n y th at th ey ch o os e, a nd m ay dis reg ard an y p ortio n o f th e tes tim on y that th ey d i s be lie ve . ' 

### Ra n dt, at 

### 2 34, 6 71 

### A.2 d at 

### 2 3 3 (ci t ati o n 

### omitted ). An n b ru stc r 

### v. H o ro w i t z, 7 44 

### 1 \
. 2 d 2 8 5 , 2 8 7 

### (Pa. S uper . 199 9 ), aff d , 81 3 

### A.2d 6 98 

### (Pa
. 20 0 2 ). w h er e a jury h as ma d e cre dibili ty determin ation s r e gard i n g th e testi mon y and evid e nce pr es ent e d
. I ss ue s o f cr e d ib i li ty are fo r the 

### j ury to det e rmin e , an d fa c tu al finding s ar e rar ely o v e rtu rne d co nfli c ti n g te s ti m on y, th e v er d i ct wa s n o t a gai n s t the we i g ht o f th e e vid e nce, a nd thi s cl ai m fail s . c au sati o n . A s i t i s w i thin the so l e p ro v i nc e o f th e 

### j ury t o m ak e cr e dibility det ermin ati o n s r e g ar d ing injuri e s , wa s d i s p u t ed , an d the m e d ic al ex p e rts for b oth s id e s o ffer e d c o n fli cti n g t e s timon y a s t o n eg li g e n ce w as 

### not di s put ed in th is cas e , th e p lain ti ff s i nju ries , a s w e ll as the cau s atio n of th o se an d thu s th e p l ai n ti ff wa s e nti tl e d t o da m a ges fo r tho s e i n ju rie s . ' A lth o u g h the d e f e n d a n t' s

### 5 In Marti n , th e p l a in ti ff brou g ht a p e r sonal 

### i njury la w s u i t a ga in s t a truck driver w h o s e tract or tr ail e r tru ck b a ck e d i nt o th e pl ai n tiff w h e n p ul lin g o ut o f a p arkin g spot at a re s t s to p . 711 A. 2 d at 4 60 ( P a . 19 9 8)
. Th e jury re turn e d a ve rd ic t i n fa vo r o f th e d e fen d a n t , and th e tri a l c ourt g ran te d a

n e w tri al bas e d on a de t ermi natio n th at th e v e rd i c t w a s a gai n s t th e w e i g ht o f the e v i de n c e . I d
. at 461
. B e c au se th er e w as co n fli c ti n g t e s ti m o ny p r es e nt e d b y the partie s r e g arding th e d efe nd an t ' s

n eg lig e n c e, an d th e 

### j ury m a d e a c r edibil i ty de t e rmin ati o n r eg ard in g s u c h t e sti m o n y , o ur S up r e me 

### Co urt h el d th at th e tri al co u rt co uld 

### no t u s urp the ju ry ' s fa c tua l d e termi n ati o n th at the d e fend a nt

w as n o t n e gli ge nt. I d
. at 4 5 9
. W h e re th e r e arc co nfli c tin g fac ts i n e vid e nc e, 

### it is for th e 

### jury t o m ake

c r e d ib ili ty d et e rmin ation s r egar din g the e vid e n ce , an d the tri a l court m a ) ' onl y rev ers e th e jury ' s

v e rdic t w her e the v er di c t was " s o co ntrary t o th e evi d e nc e so as t o s h o c k o ne 's s e n s e o f j ustic e . " 

## hi

at 4 63. A s th e r e w a s co n fl icti n g te s tim on y r eg ar d ing th e d e f e nd a nt ' s n eg lig en ce, o ur Sup r em e C ourt fo und th at th er e w as eq u a lly e n o ugh e v id e n c e t o s upp o rt a findin g in fa v or of the d e fen d ant , a nd

r e i n s tate d th e j u ry 's v erdi c t . Id
. At tri al , th e v ide o taped dep o s iti o n s o f th e plai n ti f f s e xpe rt, Dr
. Thom a s Wh a l en , and the d efe nda nt 's exp ert, D r. C h ri s D e rk, wer e p layed for th e 

### jury . Dr
. \Xlh aJ e n , a b o ard ce rtifi e d ph ys ic ian in rh e um at ol o gy, be ga n tr eatin g the plaintiff in 

### J u l y of 20 13. D r. 

### \ 'Xl ha len De p o s iti o n , 4/2 3 /1 5 , at 1 0

- 11 , 23. In a dd i tio n t o treati ng th e p laintiff for t wo years, D r . W hal e n rev i e w e d the fo ll o wi n g mat e ri al s i n or de r t o pr ep are a repo rt fo r th e plai n ti ff: med i ca l reco r d s a nd im a g e s fr o m 

### J

. ankenau H os p ital , D r. \X l e in e rm an , Dr
. Hartin g , M ai n Lin c Rh eu mat o l o g y , a nd ph o t o g raph s o f th e pl a in tiff' s an kl es and fee t. 

## hl at 2 5

- 2 6. Ha v in g re vie w e d th es e m at e ri al s a nd tr eat e d the p l ai n ti ff , Dr. Wh al e n o pin ed, ro a reason ab le d egr e e o f m e dical ce rt ainty , th nt a s a r esu l t of th e m o t o r ve h i cl e

a c c id e n t the pl ain tiff w a s invo l ve d in , the p lai nti ff s uffer ed " ce rv i c al an d l u mb ar s tr ain s an d s p ra in s,
strai n s an d s p rai n o f her an kl e s , 

### p o s t
- tr aumatic o n s e t of rh e um at o i d arth riti s , post
- trau m ati c fi b r omya l g i a s yn dro me , an d p o s s i b l e RS D , whi c h i s r e fl e x sy mp ath e ti c 

### d y s tr o p h y . " Id. at 2 7

- 28
. D r .

### 6 So when I examined the patient, this was 

### July 10 of 2014, on that examination, that day , she presented with her mother. Her vitals were normal. She had slight tenderness over the trochantcric and anserine bursas. There was full range of motion of her joints, with no swelling of the joints. There was no limitation in motion of the joints. There was [sic] no joint deformities. Patient did not have rheumat o id nodules. There was no warmth or redness or fullness of 

### nny of her joints. She had slight paraspinal muscle pain in the cervical region. Her grip was very good in both hands. She had good range of motion of her ankles, knees, toes, hips, lower back, cervical spine, elbows, shoulders, hands, and wrists. I examining the plaintiff, Dr. Derk found no abnormalities: report. Id. at 26-27. Dr. Derk examined the plaintiff himself on july 10, 2014. Id. at 27-28. Upon Whalen Rheumatology 

### Group, Mitchell Harding, D.C., and Penndel Rehab, as well as Dr. Whalen's \'(fellness, Lankenau Hospital, Main Line Rhcumatology, Open iv1RI Center,Jefferson Imaging, deposition transcript, photos of the plaintiff, medical records and images from 

### \'Xleincrnrnn Pain and coming to 

### his conclusion, Dr. Derk reviewed all of the documents provided to him: the plaintiff s th e car accident that was the subject of this trial. Dr. Derk 

### Deposition, 4/29/15, at 8, 24~25. In a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the plaintif f's rheumatoid arthritis was not 

### caused by Dr. 

### Derk, a board certified physician in rheumarology, examined the plaintiff and opined to testified that the plaintiff could have had genetic susceptibility to rheumatoid arthritis. Id. at 92-93. double

- blinded studies to prove it." Dr. Whalen Deposition, 4/23/15, at 42. Dr. Whalen also personal experiences with post-traumatic 

### onset of rheumatoid arthritis, there are no "well-controlled cause" of rheumatoid arthritis. I d. at 62. AdditionnUy, Dr, Whalen testified that, aside from his rheumatoid arthritis was 

### triggered by the motor vehicle accident, as no one really knows the "full Id. at 41. Later on in his deposition, Dr. Whalen clarified that what he really meant was that the vehicle accident, Dr. \X'halen admitted that the causes of rheumatoid arthritis arc not well

- known. Although Dr. Whalen testified that the plaintiffs injuries were a direct result of the motor plaintiff was involved. 

### Id. at 

### 36-37. occurred as a result of some sort of trauma, particularly the motor vehicle accident in which the Whalen testified that by post-traumatic, he meant that the rheumatoid arthritis and fibromyalgia

### 7

th e w ei g ht of th e e viden c e , a nd thi s clai m fai l s . jm y , an d there was e vid e n ce pr ese n t ed at tri a l r o s upport this c onclu s ion , th e v e rdi ct was n o t a g ai n s t expert , Dr
. Derk, t o b e m or e c redible
. A s thi s d eterm i n ati o n wa s wi thin th e so l e pr o v in ce of th e p l ainti f f s i n j u ri es , th e jury m ad e a c redibili ty d e t e rm in atio n, and found th e te sti mon y of the defe n se 4/29/1 5 at at 3L Dr
. D e rk al s o te s ti fied th at there i s n o known cause fo r ftb ro myal g ia. 

## 1J.L at 3 7
. a lth ough s h e h ad re ce ntl y qu i t, th e pl a intiff ha d s moked for ab o ut five y e ar s . Dr
. Derk Dep os i tion ,

Ha v ing h ear d con fli c tin g te s timon y fr o m both e xp e rt s re g ardin g th e c au sati o n o f the p l ai n tiff po ss e ss ed s o m e o f th e ri s k fa c t o r s - h e r g ran dm o th e r h a d rh e umato i d arth riti s , and, I d
. at 3 1 , 33
. Up o n familiari z in g h im se l f w ith the plai n tiff' s hi s t o ry , Dr. Derk l e arne d th at the arth ri tis , the r e ar e cert ain ri s k fa c tor s: ge n etic s, b e in g female , b e in g y ou ng, and s mokin g tob a c c o . at 3 0 -3 1. C o ntrarily, D r . Derk te s tifi e d th at, a lth o u g h there i s no kno w n c au se for rheumat oid rh e um at o id arth riti s ," i s n o t a te rm u se d o r d e fined 

### by th e Ameri c an Co lle g e o f Rh e um ato l o g y. 

## hl arthriti s c an b e cau s e d b y a c ar acciden t , and t es tified th at Dr. 

### Whal e n 's term , "p ost
- trau matic Id
. at 3 9

- 40
. D r . D e rk te s ti fi e d th at ther e i s n o sci e ntific data o r r es e ar ch to suggest th at rheum at o i d p l ainti ff l acked in fl a mmat o ry m arker s 

### th at are typ i ca lly elev ated 

### in p ati e nts wi th rheumatoid arthri tis. plain tiff s bo n e sca n wa s n ormal , and b l ood work that wa s d o n e b efor e his ex a min atio n o f th e D r . De rk q u e stio n ed th e p l ai ntiffs di ag n osi s of rh eumat o id arthritis al toge th e r, b ecause th e I d
. at 28

- 30
. examined h e r fo r c arpal tunn e l. S h e di d n o t h a ve th at. I exa mi n ed her for s w o ll e n lymp h nodes 

### o r th yroid e n l arg e m e n t. She did n o t h ave that. I looke d for oral ulcer s and decr e a se d mois tu re in he r gu m s or h e r mo u th a n d s h e did n o t h av e any is s ue s wi th that. H er l u n g fie l ds wer e de ar . He r car d iov a s c ular e xam wa s n o rma l. B e cau se of the hi s tory of p o s s i b l e Ray n aud' s , I l o o ke d at th e cap ill ari es with a nailfo l d capillaro sc opy a nd th e nailfo l d 

### capillari e s wer e n o rmal.
... H er m o t o r exam wa s g o od
. Th e o nl y abnormali ty th at I co ul d fi n d w a s s h e h a d a v e n o u s m al fo rmation of h e r l eft s h o ulde r c h at th e mo ther to l d me wa s the r e sinc e birth , whi c h wa s a birth mark o n th e lef t s hould e r . Oth e rwis e , the n eu rological exami n ati on , a s we ll as th e m otor e xamination, was co mple t ely n orm a l
.1 ' D r . \X !J 1:1 le n '$ r e po rt w a s atta c h ed t o D r . \ v ' h : 1 l e n' s v i d e o dep o s i ti o n tran s c ri p t a s E x h ibit W1 rn l c n · I
. D r. D e rk ' s r e p o rt

was atta c hed t o Dr. D e rk 's v i d eo d e p o s i ti o n tr a n s c rip t a s E x h i b i t D e rk- Z, and h i s s u pp l e men tal r e p o rt wa s atta c h ed as Ex h ibit D c rk

- 3
. ; 111c p l ai n ti ff i n c orrectl y s tat e s that th i s Co urt a ll o w ed th e j ury t o v i e w a ll in tern et arti cl e s prod u c ed by d e fens e c ou n s e l o n cross - e xamin atio n of p l ai n ti f f' s expert, D r . Whal e n , a s thi s C o urt limi t e d th e arti c l es to o n l y th o se p a g e s th at w e r e m e ntio n e d in th e t e s ti m o n y. N
. 'l'
. 8/ 1 2/ 1 5 at 6 8
. 

### co un s el' s o b

j e c ti on , thi s Co urt se n t o nl y re l ev a nt p o rti on s o f th e arti c l es , w hi c h w e r e to u ched on in tran s c ri pts o f Dr
. W h al e n a nd D r . Derk
. E x hi bit s P-1 3 , D - 4

. <' Up o n con s iderati o n of p l ai ntiff's W h al e n and D r . D erk, w hi c h w e r e al s o mo ve d i n t o e vid e n ce, a s atta c h m en ts to 

### the vi d e o dep o sition i nt o evi d ence . Ex h i b i t s 0

- 5 , 0

- 7 , 0

- 8. T h e juror s al s o r e q u e s ted to s e c th e exp e rt rep o rts o f Dr
. Th e arti cle s we r e atta c h ed t o D r. W h a len' s d ep o sition trans c ri pt , E xh i bit P

- 13, a n d were admi tted defe n se coun s el du rin g c r o ss - ex aminati on of p l a intiff s e x p e rt , D r. W h al e n. N. T
. 8 / 1 2/ 1 5 at 53. Duri n g delibe r ati o ns , th e jurors a s k ed t o s ee parti c u lar articl es wh i c h w e r e u tili z e d b y Hospi t a l , 608 A.2 d 496 , 503 (Pa.Su p e r . l 992)
. s h o u l d b e p ermi tted to b e vi e wed by th e jury d u ri n g de lib erati o n s . Wa g ner b y Wa gn ct; v . Yo x k deliberati ons." P a. R
. C.P. 22 3 .1 ( d )(.1). 1 11 e trial c o u rt h as d is creti o n t o de t e rmi n e w h i c h e x hi bit s D uri n g a jury tri al, the co urt may " make e x hi bits avail ab l e t o th e j ut }' duri ng it s



## 8 delib e ratio n s . T hu s , th i s cl aim foil s . re p orts and in te rnet arti c l e s ' - rhar were a ll in tr od uc e d int o e videnc e at tri al - duri ng the ir the j u ry d u rin g de li berati ons, th is C ou rt did n o t err in p e rmi ttin g th e jur>' t o view e x pe rt medical e xami n ati o n o f th e pl ai n ti ff s ex p e rt. A s th e tri a l c o urt i s pe rm itte d t o make tri a l e x h ib it s av ailab l e to j u t )' r oo m a ll e x pe rt m e d ica l r eport s a n d i n terne t arti cle s pro du ced by the defe n s e c o u n se l i n c r os s T h e plai n tiff' s seco n d cla im i s th at thi s C o urt erre d i n permi ttin g the jury to r e c e i ve in the 2) T his Co u rt e rr e d in permitting the 

### jury t o r e c e iv e in th e 

### jury ro o m all e x pert medical r e port s a nd internet articl e s produ c ed b y the defen se c ouns el in cr o ss - e x a mination of plaintiff s exp e rt.

## 9

7 P uni c ui arly , p , 1 ges 1 , 3, 4, 9 , and 1 0 fr o m th e N I H arti cle , e ntitl ed " Rh e um atoi d A rth ri ti s , " w e r e s e n t to th e j ury . N .T. 8/ 1 2/ 1 5 at 7 4; E x h ib it D

- S
. Pag e s l , 2 , and 7 fro m th e ;\fa y o C lini c arti cle , en titl ed " D i s e a s e s a nd C o n dition s: R h eum ato i d A rth riti s , " w e r e sc ot t o th e j u ry. I J
. ; E x hi bi t D

- 7
. F in all y , pa g e I fro m th e C l ev e lan d C lin ic artic l e, e n titl ed
" Rh eu m at oi d A rth ri ti s, " w a s s e n t t o th e j ury . IJ
. ; Ex hibi t D

- 8
. 

### . M
. T E RE SA S A!lliIINA, 

## J. BY T H E C OU RT: F or th e for e go in g re a son s , the ve rd i c t e nt e r e d in fav o r o f th e de fe n dan t s hould b e a f firmed
. d e liberati o n s, th is cl aim fail s . and th e experts ' report s - whi c h w e r e all pr o perl y a dmitt e d i nt o e v i d e nc e at trial - during As thi s C ourt a c t e d w ith in i t s di s c r eti o n in all o wi n g the ju ro rs to v i e w p o rtions o f th e arti cl e s Dr. D e rk and Dr
. Whalen t o be s en t to th e 

### ju ry , as th ey we r e al s o a dm i tt e d i n to ev id e n ce. 

## ML th e e xpert s' t es timon y , t o th e 

### ju ry . 7 

### N .T
. 8/ 1 2/ 1 5 at 

### 6 8. T hi s C o urt a llowe d th e e xpe rt r e po n s o f