J-A06026-20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
STACY PHILLIPS : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellant : : v. : : BENJAMIN GILBERT AND GILBERT : DENTAL CENTER : : Appellees : No. 39 EDA 2019
Appeal from the Judgment Entered December 10, 2018 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at No(s): July Term, 2016 02819
BEFORE: STABILE, J., KING, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.: FILED APRIL 14, 2020
Appellant, Stacy Phillips, appeals from the judgment entered in the
Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, following the denial of her post-
trial motions to remove a compulsory nonsuit in favor of Appellees, Benjamin
Gilbert and Gilbert Dental Center. We affirm.
In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly set forth the relevant
facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to
restate them.
Appellant now raises three issues for our review:
WHETHER THE [TRIAL] COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AND/OR ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW IN DENYING [APPELLANT'S] POST-TRIAL MOTION TO REMOVE THE NONSUIT WHERE [APPELLANT] PRESENTED TWO EXPERTS, ____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-A06026-20
BOTH OF WHOM OFFERED OPINIONS WITHIN A REASONABLE DEGREE OF PROFESSIONAL CERTAINTY REGARDING THE STANDARD OF CARE FOR THE PROPER PLACEMENT OF A RESTORATIVE IMPLANT AND A PATIENT'S CANDIDACY FOR THE PLACEMENT OF RESTORATIVE IMPLANT.
WHETHER THE [TRIAL] COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AND/OR ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW IN DENYING [APPELLANT'S] POST-TRIAL MOTION RELATIVE TO [APPELLEE'S] MOTION TO QUASH [APPELLANT'S] EXPERT'S, DR. PLISKIN'S, TESTIMONY WHERE DR. PLISKIN HAS 48 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE AS A LICENSED GENERAL AND RESTORATIVE DENTIST IN THIS COMMONWEALTH AND WHERE HIS EXPERIENCE, SKILL, AND KNOWLEDGE INCLUDE ASSESSING AND EVALUATING RESTORATIVE IMPLANTS FOR PROPER POSITIONING AND WHERE THE ISSUE IN THIS CASE IS WHETHER [APPELLEE] VIOLATED THE STANDARD OF CARE BY PLACING THE RESTORATIVE IMPLANT IN [APPELLANT'S] MOUTH IN THE POSITION HE DID.
WHETHER THE [TRIAL] COURT ABSUED ITS DISCRETION AND/OR ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW IN DENYING [APPELLANT'S] POST-TRIAL MOTION TO OVERRULE [APPELLEE'S] OBJECTION TO [APPELLANT'S] EXPERT'S, DR. PLISKIN'S, TESTIMONY REGARDING [APPELLANT'S] CANDIDACY FOR THE PROCEDURE WHERE DR. PLISKIN'S OPINION THAT [APPELLANT] HAD BONE LOSS THAT REQUIRED GRAFTING PRIOR TO THE PLACEMENT OF A PROPER IMPLANT IS WELL WITHIN THE FAIR SCOPE OF THE FOUR CORNERS OF HIS REPORTS, AND WHERE [APPELLEE] WAS NOT MISLEAD OR PREVENTED FROM PROVIDING A RESPONSE TO THIS OPINION AND, IN FACT, DID PROVIDE A RESPONSE TO THIS OPINION THROUGH A DEFENSE EXPERT, DR. RAYMOND J. FONSECA.
(Appellant's Brief at 10-11).
After a thorough review of the record, Appellant's brief, the applicable
law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Marlene Lachman, we
conclude Appellant's issues merit no relief. The trial court opinion
J-A06026-20
comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the questions presented.
(See Trial Court Opinion, filed June 19, 2019, at 5-19) (finding: (1) Dr. Pliskin
did not offer opinion as to standard of care for implant placement, or that Dr.