Opinion ID: 1521596
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Prejudice Element

Text: We also find that this final element has been satisfied. In support of its motion for non pros, appellee submitted an affidavit stating that every diagnostic x-ray, film, and report pertaining to the decedent's urological problems and surgery have been destroyed as a matter of routine and regular housekeeping practice. Affidavit of Denise M. Barger, exhibit G of appellee's motion for non pros. The type of prejudice necessary to support a non pros is not limited to the death or absence of a material witness or the disappearance of a record but includes any substantial diminution of (the) ability to present factual information in the event of trial which has been brought about by plaintiff's delay. American Bank and Trust Co. v. Ritter, Todd and Haayen, 274 Pa.Super. 285, 289, 418 A.2d 408, 410 (1980). Given the allegations in appellant's complaint, supra, such evidence undoubtedly would have been crucial to an effective defense and, perhaps, to the presentation of appellant's own case. For example, appellant averred that during a March 1975 operation to remove ureteral stones, appellee failed to remove a mass of other stones then present within the left kidney of the plaintiff's decedent. (R. 24a, par. 4.) Appellee's ability to refute that claim has been seriously prejudiced by the destruction of a post-operative film of the abdomen which, according to appellee, showed no evidence of remaining stones. (R. 53a.) There can be no dispute that the post-operative film, together with the subsequent films documenting the decedent's urological condition, would not have tended to make a fact at issue more or less probable and therefore have constituted material evidence under Pennsylvania law. Martin v. Soblotney, 502 Pa. 418, 422, 466 A.2d 1022, 1024 (1983). Further, appellant's claim that appellee failed to provide proper follow-up care to the decedent would be jeopardized given that the post-operative reports have been destroyed. We are convinced that the destruction of such material evidence, coupled with the inevitable fading of memory and diminution of appellee's ability to produce evidence, firmly supports the trial court's finding of prejudice. Finally, we reject appellant's claim that appellee has waived the right to file for a judgment of non pros. Such a waiver would occur where the movant indicates through his conduct a willingness to try the case on the merits notwithstanding the delay. De Siato v. Shahboz, 277 Pa.Super. 333, 336-337, 419 A.2d 798, 800 (1980). After a careful examination of the record, we can find no action by appellee indicating a waiver had occurred. Appellee's grant of two time extensions to appellant was a mere courtesy and occurred early in the proceedings. Nor do we believe that appellant's filing of a certificate of readiness after three years of inactivity prevents the entry of a judgment of non pros. As in Kennedy, supra, a judgment of non pros may be granted despite the filing of a certificate of readiness. Furthermore, as we noted above, it was incumbent upon appellant to advance his cause of action; appellee cannot be held to have waived the opportunity for a non pros by failing to make such a request at an earlier time. In sum, we are convinced that the requirements for a non pros have been adequately demonstrated. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm the order and judgment.