Court Opinion

ID: 9719109
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:42:41.301188+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:04.631761
License: Public Domain

JOYCE, J.,
Concurring and Dissenting.
¶ 1 The majority opinion written by President Judge Emeritus McEwen and the dissenting opinion of Judge Eakin both offer compelling reasons for their respective conclusions. I am however, constrained to write separately.
¶ 2 Initially, I unreservedly join that part of Judge Eakiris dissent that would affirm the disallowance of Dr. Charles Be-roes’ testimony. The trial court correctly granted Appellee’s motion in limine with respect to Dr. Beroes.
¶ 3 Nevertheless, I join that part of the majority that would permit the testimony of Dr. Augusto Delerme. The majority and the dissent correctly set forth the liberal standard for qualifying expert testimony. “The test to be applied when qualifying an expert witness is whether the witness has any reasonable pretension to specialized knowledge on the subject under investigation. If he does, he may testify and the weight to be given to such testimony is for the trier of fact to determine.” Miller v. Brass Rail Tavern, 541 Pa. 474, 480-81, 664 A.2d 525, 528 (1995) (emphasis in original) (internal citations omitted). The majority recognizes Dr. Delerme is an otolaryngologist, and his testimony was not solely based upon Dr. Beroes findings. Dr. Delerme’s findings also referred to medical literature on the subject, and any lack of specific expertise Dr. Delerme may have in esophageal tears, would go to the weight of Dr. Delerme’s testimony and not its admissibility. See id. Accordingly, I join the majority with respect to the admissibility of Dr. Delerme’s testimony.