appeal, citing Pa.R.A.P. 302; likewise, issues absent from court-ordered Rule 1925(b) statement are waived for purposes of appellate review).
J-A03045-16
AND THORACIC DEGENERATIVE DISC DISEASE; B) IT WOULD REQUIRE AT LEAST 3-6 MONTHS TO RECOVER FROM THE LUMBAR SPRAIN AND STRAIN AND THERE IS A 25-30% CHANCE THAT THE INJURY MIGHT BE PERMANENT; C) [MRS. HAMM] IS DISABLED FROM RETURNING TO HER JOB AS A CAFETERIA WORKER; D) [MRS. HAMM'S] COMPLAINTS HAVE AN OBJECTIVE BASIS FROM THE MRIS AND X-RAYS; E) ALL OF [MRS. HAMM'S] TREATMENT HAS BEEN REASONABLE AND NECESSARY; F) [MRS. HAMM'S] CONDITION IS PERMANENT; G) THE 8/15/2010 ACCIDENT CAUSED AT LEAST SOME OF [MRS. HAMM'S] PERMANENT DISABILITY (AND THEREFORE PERMANENT INJURY); AND H) IF SHE EXPERIENCE[D] RADIATING PAIN AND NUMBNESS PRIOR TO 03/28/11, THEN THE PRESSURE ON THE NERVE HAD TO PRE-EXIST HER FIRST WORK ACCIDENT?
MUST A NEW TRIAL BE GRANTED BECAUSE THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO GIVE PENNSYLVANIA SUGGESTED STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTION 7.90 (OR EQUIVALENT CHARGE) ON OTHER CONTRIBUTING CAUSES?
MUST A NEW TRIAL BE GRANTED BECAUSE THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN REFUSING TO GIVE [APPELLANTS'] SUPPLEMENTAL POINTS FOR CHARGE 1 & 2 REGARDING CAUSATION OF SUBSEQUENT INJURIES ARISING FROM HER IMPAIRED PHYSICAL CONDITION CAUSED BY THE AUGUST 15, 2010 ACCIDENT?
DID THE TRIAL COURT COMMIT PREJUDICIAL ERROR BY FAILING TO PRECLUDE THE [DEFENSE] IME DOCTOR, JOHN WILLIAMS, M.D., FROM TESTIFYING CONCERNING HIS REVIEW OF MRI FILMS WHICH WERE NOT CONTAINED IN HIS REPORT AND WHICH HE GAINED ACCESS TO BY VIOLATING THE DISCOVERY RULES AND HIPPA RULES CONCERNING ACQUIRING PATIENT INFORMATION?
BECAUSE THE FOLLOWING ISSUES HAVE BEEN FAIRLY DECIDED: A) THAT [NATHAN HANDWERK] WAS NEGLIGENT AND THAT HIS NEGLIGENCE CAUSED [MRS. HAMM] HARM; B) THAT [NATHAN HANDWERK] WAS RECKLESS AND THAT HIS RECKLESSNESS CAUSED [MRS. HAMM] HARM; AND C) THAT [NATHAN HANDWERK'S]
J-A03045-16
CONDUCT WAS OUTRAGEOUS AND DESERVING OF PUNITIVE DAMAGES; SHOULD THE NEW TRIAL BE LIMITED TO DETERMINING THE FOLLOWING ISSUES: 1) THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATORY DAMAGES TO BE AWARDED FOR THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF [APPELLANTS'] HARM RESULTING FROM [NATHAN HANDWERK'S] CONDUCT; AND 2) THE AMOUNT OF PUNITIVE DAMAGES TO BE AWARDED AS A RESULT OF [NATHAN HANDWERK'S] RECKLESS AND OUTRAGEOUS CONDUCT?
(Appellants' Brief at 3-4).
Appellants essentially argue they are entitled to a new trial because
(a) Nathan Handwerk admitted liability for the accident; (b) Mrs. Hamm is
permanently disabled and cannot resume her job as a cafeteria worker; (c)
Nathan Handwerk's own defense expert conceded Mrs. Hamm suffered from
a lumbar sprain and strain from the accident and cannot continue to work;
(d) both parties' experts agreed that the August 15, 2010 accident
contributed to Mrs. Hamm's ultimate disability; (e) Nathan Handwerk's
expert admitted Mrs. Hamm's course of medical treatment was reasonable
and necessary; (f) the trial court directed a verdict because both parties'
experts agreed Mrs. Hamm suffered injuries from the accident; (g) the jury
award of $1,000 in compensatory damages was inadequate and against the
weight of the evidence; (h) given the directed verdict, the trial