J-A17034-17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

D & L TYPING SERVICE, INC., IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellant

v.

THE PENN STATE MILTON S. HERSHEY 

MEDICAL CENTER,

Appellee No. 3014 EDA 2016

Appeal from the Judgment Entered August 12, 2016

in the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County

Civil Division at No.: 3461-CV-2010

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., RANSOM, J., and PLATT, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY PLATT, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 08, 2017

Appellant, D & L Typing Service, Inc., appeals from the judgment 

entered in favor of Appellee, The Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical 

Center, in this breach of contract action.1 We affirm.

We take the following relevant factual and procedural history from the 

trial court’s October 12, 2016 opinion and our independent review of the 

certified record.

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 Appellant purports to appeal from the denial of its post-trial motions. 

“[H]owever, an appeal properly lies from the entry of judgment, not from 

the denial of post-trial motions.” Croyle v. Dellape, 832 A.2d 466, 470 

(Pa. Super. 2003) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). We have 

amended the caption accordingly. 
J-A17034-17

- 2 -

On December 16, 2005, Appellee and Appellant entered into an 

agreement wherein Appellant would provide overflow transcription services 

for medical dictation to Appellee. The contract did not provide Appellant 

with any volume guarantees. The agreement took effect on January 1, 

2006, and was to run until December 31, 2008. Beginning in January 2006, 

Appellant began developing the programs necessary to handle transcription 

from Appellee’s system. On August 7, 2006, it began transcribing medical 

documents. In June 2007, Appellee stopped sending Appellant further 

dictation. 

On April 19, 2010, Appellant filed a breach of contract action against 

Appellee, alleging that it was entitled to almost 4.5 million dollars in 

damages. The trial court explained the ensuing procedural history, as 

follows:

After two separate interlocutory appeals to the Superior 

Court on venue grounds, [Appellee] filed its answer and new 

matter on January 2, 2014. [Appellant] closed the pleadings by 

filing its reply to new matter on January 17, 2014. After several 

motions and hearings during discovery, the case was set for a 

jury trial during the July 2016 trial term. Following a jury trial 

on July 6-14, 2016, the jury returned a defense verdict on an 

interrogatory verdict sheet. Thereafter, [Appellant] filed post[-

]trial motions . . . on July 22, 2016[.] [Appellant’s] post-trial 

motion did not specify any portion of the trial record to be 

transcribed. On July 29, 2016, [Appellee] filed objections to 

[Appellant’s] failure to designate portions of the record to be 

transcribed pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 227.3 and [a] motion to 

dismiss portions of [Appellant’s] post[-]trial motions . . . . On 

August 3, 2016, [the trial court] issued an order denying 

[Appellant’s] post-trial motion, based upon [Appellant’s] failure 

to “designate any portions of the trial transcript to be transcribed 
J-A17034-17

- 3 -

pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 227.3 and Monroe Co.R.C.P. 227.1[.]” 

(Order, 8/03/16).

Thereafter, [Appellant] filed an expedited motion for 

transcript of trial on August 10, 2016 []. [Appellee] filed a 

praecipe for entry of judgment on verdict on August 12, 2016, 

which was entered the same day. On August 15, 2016, [the trial 

court] denied [Appellant’s] transcript motion by order. 

[Appellant] filed the instant notice of appeal . . . on August 31, 

2016[.] . . . No request for a trial transcript accompanied the 

notice of appeal. Thereafter, [the court] issued an order on 

September 2, 2016, directing [Appellant] to file a concise 

statement of errors complained of on appeal within [twenty-one] 

days as required by Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) [], which [Appellant] filed 

on September 8, 2016. [See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). The court filed 

an opinion on October 12, 2016. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a).]

(Trial Court Opinion, 10/12/16, at 4-6) (unnecessary capitalization and 

footnote omitted; record citation formatting provided).

Appellant raises six issues for this Court’s review:

[1.] Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law and 

abused its discretion in denying the Appellant’s post[-]trial 

motion based upon rule Pa.R.C.P. 227.3 and Monroe Co.R.C.P. 

227.1[?]

[2.] Whether the trial court erred and abused its discretion in 

denying the Appellant’s motion for a transcript of the trial[?]

[3.] Whether the trial court erred and abused its discretion in 

allowing the Appellee to present documentary evidence into 

evidence which [was] not provided in accordance with the trial 

court’s order of April 16, 2016, which required the exchange of 

exhibits by May 31, 2016, [Appellee] presenting the following:

i. May 31, 2016, an exhibit list simply listing 

documents with no Bates Stamp numbers;

ii. June 3, 2016, an exhibit list which identified 

some exhibits by Bates Stamp numbers; and
J-A17034-17

- 4 -

iii. June 15, 2016, a thumb-drive which contained 

copies of exhibits[?]

[4.] Whether the trial court erred and abused its discretion in 

permitting the Appellee to submit a trial list of 685 exhibits, 

without identifying which exhibits would be introduced at trial 

until a witness was called, and the exhibit identified by Bates 

Stamp number[?]

[5.] Whether the trial court erred and abused its discretion in 

admitting the exhibits identified by [Appellee] at the conclusion 

of the trial over the objection of counsel for the Appellant when 

the documents were hearsay and not authenticated, and 

deprived counsel of the ability to confront the preparer of the 

exhibit[?]

[6.] Whether the trial court erred and abused its discretion in 

submitting a multiple interrogatory verdict sheet over the 

request of counsel for the Appellant to submit a verdict slip 

simply identifying a verdict for [Appellant] or [Appellee] and, if 

for [Appellant], the amount thereof, especially when the 

interrogatory did not specify when [Appellant] was not 

performing[?]

(Appellant’s Brief, at 4-5) (unnecessary capitalization omitted).

In its first issue, Appellant argues that the trial court erred and abused 

its discretion in denying its post-trial motions on the basis of Appellant’s 

failure to designate any portion of the record to be transcribed pursuant to 

Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 227.3 and Monroe County Rule of Civil 

Procedure 227.1. (See id. at 12-16) Appellant’s claim lacks merit.

When reviewing post-trial motions seeking a new trial, we 

consider whether the trial court made an erroneous ruling and, if 

so, whether the mistake constituted harmless error or whether 

Appellant suffered any prejudice. . . . We will not reverse an 

order denying a new trial unless the trial court committed an 

error of law that controlled the outcome of the case.
J-A17034-17

- 5 -

Bennett v. A.T. Masterpiece Homes at Broadsprings, LLC, 40 A.3d 145, 

149-50 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citations and quotation marks omitted).

“We review the trial court’s enforcement of a local procedural rule for 

an abuse of discretion.” Williams v. Penn Center for Rehabilitation and 

Care, 147 A.3d 590, 593 (Pa. Super. 2016), appeal denied, 2017 WL 

1015635 (Pa. filed Mar. 17, 2017) (citation omitted). “[I]f the matter under 

review involves the interpretation of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil

Procedure, we have before us a question of law, where our standard of 

review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary.” Midwest Fin. 

Acceptance Corp. v. Lopez, 78 A.3d 614, 624 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citation 

omitted). 

Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 227.3 provides, in pertinent part: 

“All post-trial motions shall contain a request designating that portion of the 

record to be transcribed in order to enable the court to dispose of the 

motion. . . . If no portion is indicated, the transcription of the record shall be 

deemed unnecessary to the disposition of the motion. . . .” Pa.R.C.P. 227.3. 

Pursuant to Monroe County Rule of Civil Procedure 227.1:

(a) A copy of any Motions for Post-Trial Relief shall be delivered 

to the trial judge, the official court reporter and the adverse 

party within twenty-four (24) hours after filing them with the 

Prothonotary. Counsel shall assign specific reasons for each 

motion and shall state whether a partial or full transcript of 

the testimony is required and set forth the reason therefore. 

Upon receipt of the post-trial motions the trial judge may 

determine what portions of the testimony shall be transcribed.
J-A17034-17

- 6 -

(b) In motions requesting a new trial, particular reasons shall be 

assigned; general reasons will not be considered. Reasons 

relating to rulings on evidence shall be separately 

designated.

Monroe Co.R.C.P. 227.1 (emphases added). “When a party fails to comply 

with the rules governing Post–Trial Motion practice, the trial court may 

refuse to address the issues raised therein, and this Court has held that 

those issues are not preserved for appeal.” Williams, supra at 593

(citation omitted). 

Here, Appellant’s post-trial motion asserted seven grounds for the 

grant of a new trial, generally alleging trial court error in evidentiary rulings 

and the improper use of a multiple interrogatory verdict sheet. (See

Appellant’s Post-Trial Motion, 7/22/16, at unnumbered pages 1-3). 

However, it did not request that any portion of the notes of testimony be 

transcribed or identify the specific evidentiary rulings. (See Appellant’s 

Post-Trial Motion, at unnumbered pages 1-3; see Trial Ct. Op., at 5, 7). 

Because of these failures to comply with the Pennsylvania and local rules for 

post-trial motions practice, the trial court was “unable to know what errors 

are alleged to have transpired, let alone address [Appellant’s] contentions.” 

(Trial Ct. Op., at 8). 

Based on the foregoing, and our independent review of the post-trial 

motions and the applicable law, we conclude that, because the notes of 

testimony were necessary for the disposition of Appellant’s claims, and 

Appellant failed to specifically identify the challenged evidentiary rulings, the 
J-A17034-17

- 7 -

trial court did not abuse its discretion or commit an error of law when it 

denied Appellant’s post-trial motion on the basis of its failure to comply with 

the post-trial procedural rules. See Williams, supra at 593; Bennett, 

supra at 149-50; Pa.R.C.P. 227.3; Monroe Co.R.C.P. 227.1. Appellant’s first 

issue lacks merit.

In its second claim, Appellant alleges that “the trial court abused its 

discretion in denying the Appellant’s expedited motion for transcript.” 

(Appellant’s Brief, at 16) (unnecessary capitalization omitted). Appellant’s 

issue is waived and would lack merit.

The Rules of Appellate Procedure state unequivocally that each 

question an appellant raises is to be supported by discussion and 

analysis of pertinent authority. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(b); Estate 

of Lakatosh, 441 Pa. Super. 133, 656 A.2d 1378, 1381 (1995)

(concluding that appellant had waived issue raised on appeal as 

corresponding argument in brief included only general 

statements without appropriate citation to authority). Without a 

reasoned discussion of the law against which to adjudge [an 

appellant’s] claims, our ability to provide appellate review is 

hampered. “It is not this Court’s function or duty to become an 

advocate for the appellant[].” Commonwealth v. Birdseye,

432 Pa. Super. 167, 637 A.2d 1036, 1043 (1994)[, affirmed, 670 

A.2d 1124 (Pa. 1996), cert. denied, 518 U.S. 1019 (1996)]. . . .

Estate of Haiko v. McGinley, 799 A.2d 155, 161 (Pa. Super. 2002).

Instantly, Appellant’s one-page argument on this claim does not 

contain any legal authority or pertinent discussion, instead merely 

concluding that its motion should have been granted. (See Appellant’s Brief, 

at 16-17). Therefore, it is waived. See McGinley, supra at 161.

Moreover, it would not merit relief. The trial court explained:
J-A17034-17

- 8 -

[Appellant] filed its post-trial motion on July 22, 2016, 

which [the court] denied by order dated August 3, 2016. 

Thereafter, [Appellant] filed an expedited motion for transcript of 

trial requesting that the entire trial transcript be transcribed 

because “there were numerous erroneous evidentiary rulings 

created throughout the [t]rial.” (Appellant’s Transcript Motion, 

8/10/16). Because [the court] had already denied [Appellant’s] 

post-trial motion and no other matter was pending before the 

court when [Appellant] filed its transcript motion, and given the 

basis of [Appellant’s] transcript request as set forth in its 

motion, [the court] denied the transcript motion as moot. . . .

(Trial Ct. Op., at 9-10) (unnecessary capitalization omitted; record citation 

formatting provided). We discern no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s 

decision, and Appellant’s second issue, even if not waived, would not merit 

relief.

In Appellant’s third through fifth issues, it generally maintains that the 

trial court made erroneous evidentiary rulings at trial. (See Appellant’s 

Brief, 17-26). Specifically, it claims that the court permitted Appellee’s 

presentation of documentary evidence that had not been exchanged in 

compliance with the trial court’s discovery order, (see id. at 17-19);2failed 

____________________________________________

2 To the extent that this issue can be interpreted as a challenge to the trial 

court’s denial of Appellant’s motion in limine, it would lack merit. (See 

Appellant’s Brief, at 17-19; Order, 4/19/16, at 2 ¶ 4). 

“A trial court’s decision to grant or deny a motion in limine is subject 

to an evidentiary abuse of discretion standard of review.” Dibish v. 

Ameriprise Fin., Inc., 134 A.3d 1079, 1095 (Pa. Super. 2016), appeal 

denied, 141 A.3d 484 (Pa. 2016) (citation omitted). “Questions concerning 

the admissibility of evidence lie within the sound discretion of the trial court, 

and we will not reverse the court’s decision absent a clear abuse of 

discretion.” Id. (citation omitted).

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-A17034-17

- 9 -

to direct Appellee to identify the exhibits it intended to use at trial where it 

had identified and provided more exhibits than it used, (see id. at 20-25); 

and admitted Appellee’s exhibits over Appellant’s objections, (see id. at 25-

26). For the following reasons, Appellant is not entitled to relief on these 

claims.

We first observe that Appellant raised these general evidentiary issues 

in its post-trial motion, which the trial court denied because Appellant’s 

failure to provide a transcript or identify the alleged errors rendered it 

“unable to know what errors are alleged to have transpired, let alone 

address [Appellant’s] contentions.” (Trial Ct. Op., at 8; see Appellant’s 

Post-Trial Motion, at unnumbered pages 1-3). Therefore, the issues are not 

preserved for appellate review. See Williams, supra at 593.

Additionally, even if Appellant had preserved the evidentiary rulings for 

our review, they are waived for Appellant’s failure to provide this Court with 

a trial transcript.3 “It is black letter law in this jurisdiction that an appellate 

(Footnote Continued) _______________________

Here, in its motion in limine, Appellant claimed that Appellee provided 

an exhibit list identifying 680 exhibits, but not copies of them. (See

Appellant’s Motion in Limine, 6/16/16, at unnumbered page 2 ¶¶ 7, 9). On 

June 27, 2016, after argument, the trial court denied the motion on the 

basis that Appellee had provided the documents earlier in discovery, and the 

court therefore would not require Appellee to reproduce them. (See Order, 

6/27/16). We discern no abuse of discretion in the court’s decision. See 

Dibish, supra at 1095. 

3 We are not persuaded by Appellant’s legally unsupported statement that it 

failed to file a transcript request with its notice of appeal because the trial 

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-A17034-17

- 10 -

court cannot consider anything which is not part of the record in this case.” 

Brandon v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., 34 A.3d 104, 106 n.1 (Pa. Super. 

2011) (citation omitted). “It is the responsibility of the appellant to provide 

a complete record to the appellate court on appeal, including transcription 

[]. Where a review of an appellant’s claim may not be made because of 

such a defect in the record, we may find the issue waived.” Id. (citation 

omitted); see also Pa.R.A.P 1911(a) (appellant must request transcript for 

appeal). Therefore, Appellant’s evidentiary issues would be waived for our 

review, even if they were properly preserved.4 See Brandon, supra at 106 

n.1.

(Footnote Continued) _______________________

court had denied the request it made after the denial of its post-verdict 

motion. (See Appellant’s Brief, at 16). At the time it made its request, the 

trial transcript was moot because nothing was pending in the trial court. 

However, the Rules of Appellate Procedure require an appellant to move for 

a transcript at the time of filing its notice of appeal, if necessary for our 

review. See Pa.R.A.P. 1911(a).

4 We also note that Appellant’s statement of errors fails to comply with Rule 

1925(b), because it lacks the specificity necessary for the trial court’s 

review. (See Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) Statement, 9/08/16, at unnumbered 

pages 1-2; Trial Ct. Op., at 8). Therefore, Appellant’s evidentiary issues 

would be waived on this basis as well. See In re A.B., 63 A.3d 345, 350 

(Pa. Super. 2013) (“[A] Rule 1925(b) statement ‘shall concisely identify each 

ruling or error that the appellant intends to challenge with sufficient detail to 

identify all pertinent issues for the judge.’” Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(ii). 

“Issues not included in the Statement and/or not raised in accordance with 

the provisions of this [Rule] are waived.” Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii).”).
J-A17034-17

- 11 -

In its sixth issue, Appellant maintains that “the trial court abused its 

discretion in submitting to the jury a multiple interrogatory verdict slip 

instead of a general verdict slip.” (Appellant’s Brief, at 26). 

Generally, a trial judge in Pennsylvania may grant or 

refuse a request for special findings on the basis of whether such 

would add to the logical and reasonable understanding of the 

issue. We will not disturb a trial judge’s decision to grant or 

refuse the request absent an abuse of discretion. 

Century 21 Heritage Realty, Inc. v. Bair, 563 A.2d 114, 116 (Pa. Super. 

1989) (citations omitted); see also Pa.R.C.P. 2257.

Here, again, Appellant raised this issue in its post-trial motion, which 

the trial court denied because of Appellant’s failure to provide a transcript, 

rendering it unable to address either Appellant’s objection or its trial ruling 

on this issue. (See Trial Ct. Op., at 8). Additionally, Appellant’s failure to 

provide this Court with a trial transcript renders us incapable of determining 

whether the trial court properly exercised its discretion in granting Appellee’s 

request for a special verdict slip. For these reasons, Appellant’s claim is not 

preserved for our review, and is waived. See Williams, supra at 593; 

Brandon, supra at 106 n.1. Moreover, to the extent we can consider this 

issue, we do not find an abuse of discretion. The trial court explained: 

In the case at bar, [Appellee] filed proposed special verdict 

questions on July 6, 2016, the day of voir dire and opening 

statements. [Appellee] also filed amended special verdict 

questions on July 12, 2016. At the close of opening statements, 

the court asked [Appellant] to file a proposed verdict sheet. The 

court also reminded the parties to file a proposed verdict sheet 

by the fourth day of trial, so the court could review it prior to the 

charging conference. [Appellant] never filed a proposed verdict 
J-A17034-17

- 12 -

sheet, instead relating to the court at the charging conference 

that it believed the verdict slip should simply determine whether 

[Appellant] had prevailed on its claims, and if so, what amount 

of damages should be awarded.

. . . [T]his case resulted in a [seven-]day, documentary-evidence 

intensive trial. Over [ninety] exhibits were admitted into 

evidence from both parties, and many more were marked for 

presentation over the course of the trial. The court directed both 

parties to file a proposed verdict sheet, and [Appellant] chose 

not to comply with the court’s directions. In such a lengthy and 

documentary-evidence intensive trial, the court chose to exercise 

its discretion to assist the jury in “the logical and reasonable 

understanding” of the issues in the case, in keeping with 

Pa.R.C.P. 2257 and appellate case law from our Supreme, 

Superior, and Commonwealth Courts. . . .

(Trial Ct. Op., at 19-20) (unnecessary capitalization omitted).

We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s reasoning. 

Therefore, Appellant’s sixth issue, even were it properly preserved and not 

waived, would not merit relief.

Judgment affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 9/8/2017