Court Opinion

ID: 9399839
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-06 16:11:51.44031+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:40.180550
License: Public Domain

J-S09003-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

 LAVERN BRINSON                           :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                          :        PENNSYLVANIA
                    Appellant             :
                                          :
                                          :
              v.                          :
                                          :
                                          :
 GIANT EAGLE, INC., T/D/B/A               :   No. 665 WDA 2022
 BRIGHTON HEIGHTS GIANT EAGLE,            :
 AND TRINITY DOOR SYSTEMS, INC.           :

               Appeal from the Order Entered May 16, 2022
     In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Civil Division at
                          No(s): GD-15-016638

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., BOWES, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.:                          FILED: JUNE 6, 2023

      Appellant, Lavern Brinson, appeals pro se from the trial court’s May 16,

2022 order that dismissed with prejudice her claims against Appellees, Giant

Eagle, Inc., t/d/b/a Brighton Heights Giant Eagle (“Giant Eagle”), and Trinity

Door Systems, Inc (“Trinity”) (collectively referred to herein as “Appellees”).

Due to substantial deficiencies in Appellant’s brief, we dismiss her appeal.

      On September 23, 2015, Appellant filed a negligence complaint against

Appellees. Therein, she alleged that, on October 10, 2013, Appellant arrived

at Giant Eagle, a grocery store, as a business invitee to shop. Complaint,

9/23/15, at ¶¶ 2, 23.     According to Appellant, Giant Eagle had a set of

automatic doors at its main entrance, which Giant Eagle contracted with

Trinity to repair, maintain, and service, among other things. Id. at ¶¶ 9-12.

Appellant claimed that as she
J-S09003-23

       walked up to the first automatic door, the door opened,
       [Appellant] entered the doorway and saw the second automatic
       door open, when suddenly and without warning and through no
       fault of her own, the first automatic door closed on [Appellant],
       whereby her arm was seriously and permanently injured due to
       the defective automatic doors.

Id. at ¶ 26. Appellant averred that, as a result of Appellees’ failure to, inter

alia, inspect the doors and ensure that their sensors functioned properly, she

has suffered shock and injury to the nervous system; strains and sprains;

generalized trauma to the entire body; generalized trauma to her arm; reflex

sympathetic dystrophy (“RSD”) of the right arm; severe pain in the right

extremity; contusion of the right forearm; soft tissue injury to her right arm;

and wrist pain. Id. at ¶¶ 17, 31. She asserted that, as a result of those

injuries, she — among other things— “has and will be required to expend large

sums of money for surgical and medical attention, hospitalization, medical

supplies, surgical supplies, medicines, and attendant services[,]” and “has

been and will be deprived of her earnings[.]” Id. at ¶ 32.

       Discovery took place, and trial was continued various times for various

reasons.1, 2 Based on our review of the record, it appears that the case was

finally scheduled to proceed to trial on May 16, 2022. On that day, the trial

court held a conference with the parties before the commencement of the jury
____________________________________________

1Prior to May 16, 2022, our review of the record does not indicate that any
party filed any dispositive motions.

2Appellant was represented by counsel until June of 2021. See Trial Court
Order, 6/4/21 (granting Appellant’s counsel’s motion to withdraw
appearance). Thereafter, she proceeded pro se.

                                           -2-
J-S09003-23

trial, where it acknowledged that all parties had filed pre-trial motions and

inquired into what evidence Appellant intended to introduce at trial:

       [The court]: … All parties have filed pre-trial motions.[3] I think
       the most efficient way to do this is, [Appellant], is for me to ask
       you some questions about what you intend to prove in your case.
       Specifically, how many witnesses do you intend to call[?]

       [Appellant]: I intend to call two.

       [The court]: Who are they?

       [Appellant]: One is my sister -- my prayer sister.

       [The court]: And what is her name?

       [Appellant]: Lisa Davis.

       [The court]: And who else do you intend to call?

       [Appellant]: Temika Green.

       [The court]: What would Ms. Davis say?

       [Appellant]: Ms. Davis would be a character witness on the
       damages. Before this accident happened, I was faithfully and
       truthfully to [sic] the work of God, worshipping, doing clergy,
       going to hospitals, laying hands, helping the poor, feeding the
       hungry. And I can’t do that no more. She would be a witness
       talking about feeding the flock.

       [The court]: Just essentially, you called her a character witness.
       But really your character is not at issue here. I think you mean is
       [sic] what we call a condition witness. She knew what you did
       before. And she’ll be able to tell us what activities you engaged
       in before. And you would tell the jury that you cannot do those
       anymore?

       [Appellant]: Yes, sir.

       [The court]: And what would Ms. Green say?

____________________________________________

3 Based on our review of the record, it is unclear to us which pre-trial motions
the trial court is referencing.

                                           -3-
J-S09003-23

       [Appellant]: Ms. Green would say I lost the life of living. I used
       to be there for all of them.

       [The court]: We can talk about that when and if we get to that
       stage. So you only intend to call two witnesses?

       [Appellant]: Yes, sir.

N.T., 5/16/22, at 3-4.

       The trial court then inquired into what documents Appellant intended to

offer into evidence. Id. at 4-22. Eventually, the issue of whether Appellant

could read doctor reports into evidence arose, and the following exchange

occurred:
       [The court]: It appears that [Trinity] has filed a motion basically
       asking me to throw out [Appellant’s] case completely; right?

       [Trinity’s counsel]: Yes, Your Honor. Actually, I filed a brief and
       [Giant Eagle’s counsel] filed a motion. I joined in on the motion.
       My brief deals with the very issues that she cannot prove the case
       on damages.[4] And a negligence case requires a breach of a duty
       and proof of damages. And without a medical doctor who’s going
       to testify about what her injuries were and what her damages are,
       she will not be able to prove the second element of her case --
       negligence.

       [The court]: Which is?

       [Trinity’s counsel]: Damages.

       [The court]: Harm was caused?

       [Trinity’s counsel]: Harm. And a causal connection between the
       incident and the medical treatment that she received. And I think
       she said that she’s going to read the report of Dr. [Brinda]
       Navalgund, but she did not take a deposition for use of trial. And
       if she [in]tends to read a report, we will object to it because we

____________________________________________

4 We are unable to locate these filings in the record. In our review, we
uncovered no motion asking the trial court to dismiss Appellant’s case, nor did
we locate a motion arguing that Appellant is unable to prove damages.

                                           -4-
J-S09003-23

        will not have an opportunity to cross-examine the doctor, and we
        certainly have that right.

        [The court]: It’s one thing to say she cannot read a doctor’s report
        into evidence. It’s another thing to conclude from that [that] her
        case should be dismissed completely, isn’t it?

        [Trinity’s counsel]: Yes, unless she has some other evidence of an
        injury[,] and she can support that.

        [The court]: I know that [Appellant] has filed some paperwork
        stating that she wants to read a number of things into evidence
        including doctor reports. Let’s just talk about the simple issue of
        can [Appellant] read any doctor’s report into evidence. And you
        have just argued that she cannot.

        [Trinity’s counsel]: Correct.

        [The court]: [Giant Eagle’s counsel?]

        [Giant Eagle’s counsel]: Obviously, I concur. I filed a motion to
        the same effect.[5] We have the right to cross-examine any
        adverse witnesses. She does not have the right to read a report.
        It’s not a proper way to run a trial.

        [The court]: Okay.       [Appellant], … I believe based on the
        paperwork you have filed -- you do want me to allow you to read
        doctor’s reports to the jury?

        [Appellant]: Yes, sir.

        [The court]: And they’re objecting. Do you know what hearsay
        is?

        [Appellant]: Yes, sir. It’s--

        [The court]: I’m not asking you to recite it. Let me tell you what
        I think it is. It’s an out-of-court statement -- these reports were
        made out of court. And it’s being offered into evidence to prove
        the truth of what is in the statement. Is that what you want to
        do? You want me to read to the jury[,] or even give to the jury,
        the medical report that says you suffered certain medical
        problems as a result of this incident; correct?

____________________________________________

5   Again, we do not see such a motion in the record.

                                           -5-
J-S09003-23

        [Appellant]: Yes, sir. I want to give them this report that says[,]
        before this incident[,] I had none of these conditions. And after
        the incident, I had all these injuries. That report was the proof of
        my medical. There’s the medical records from 2010 that states
        that they know they have in their records, I had conditions [sic].
        It’s preexisting condition [sic]. And have [complex regional pain
        syndrome (“CRPS”)] and RDS[6,] fibromyalgia [sic]--

        [The court]: Hold on. What are the three things again?

        [Appellant]: CRPS.

        [The court]: What else?

        [Appellant]: RDS.

        [The court]: And what else?

        [Appellant]: Fibromyalgia.

        [The court]: But that’s hearsay?

        [Appellant]: No, sir. It’s proof. It’s a document that’s of record.

        [The court]: Obviously, you don’t know what hearsay is then. It’s
        an out-of-court statement that you’re trying to introduce to prove
        to the jury what is in there is true. And that’s hearsay. And we
        can talk about hearsay all day if we want. But that’s clearly
        inadmissible. You may read from no medical reports at all. I’m
        not letting you do that. I’m sustaining the objection. No medical
        record will be read to the jury.

        [Giant Eagle’s counsel]: Your Honor, it begs the question that
        [Trinity’s counsel] was raising. If she has no doctor to testify as
        to whether her injuries are [sic], then what evidence can a jury
        hear as to what her injuries are? We know in certain cases, a lay
        witness can talk about an injury that a jury understands, such as
        a broken bone.

               [Appellant], I believe, believes that she has been seriously
        injured as a result of this incident. We dispute that. She needs
        proof of that and she doesn’t have it. So the question is, if she’s
        going to testify, then what can she say happened as a result of
        this incident. It’s my view that without doctors[,] she can’t say
        much, if anything. She can say I got bruised which resulted in a
____________________________________________

6   We believe Appellant meant RSD, instead of RDS.

                                           -6-
J-S09003-23

     short period of time [sic]. But beyond that, you now have a
     causation problem or any other issue that she may have -- any
     other problem she has functioning in life or among those lines
     because she doesn’t have a doctor to say, yes[,] it caused this
     particular injury or problem.

     [The court]: [Appellant], you understand that you cannot read
     from the medical records, nor can you tell the jury what a doctor
     told you what your condition is. For example, those conditions
     that you mentioned before.

     [Appellant]: My ex-attorney had put in a request of them to take
     a video of her. Is that admissible?

     [The court]: Do [you have] a video?

     [Giant Eagle’s counsel]: None was ever taken.

     [The court]: [Giant Eagle’s counsel] said a video was not taken.
     [Trinity’s counsel], as an officer of the [c]ourt, do you know of any
     video?

     [Trinity’s counsel]: I have no recollection of any video of Dr.
     Navalgund.

     [The court]: So there’s no video. So how do you intend to prove
     that the serious injuries that you say occurred from this alleged
     incident, were the result from this alleged incident?

     [Appellant]: From the negligence and premises liability that
     caused my accident. They’re acting like this [is] a medical
     malpractice[ case,] and this is a personal injury claim for premises
     liability and negligence. I have to prove that with the documents.
     Their own documents will prove that they were negligent.

     [The court]: Ma’am, we’re talking about -- what were the three
     conditions again?

     [Appellant]: CRPS.

     [The court]: Go ahead. What else?

     [Appellant]: RDS.

     [The court]: And what else?

     [Appellant]: Fibromyalgia.

     [The court]: Okay.

                                     -7-
J-S09003-23

       [Giant Eagle’s counsel]: Your Honor, the second item is RSD.

       [The court]: … [D]o you have one or more doctors?

       [Appellant]: I have nine doctors.

       [The court]: Has one or more of your doctors told you that you
       suffer from these conditions as a result of the accident?

       [Appellant]: Yes, sir.[7]

       [The court]: So you’re not allowed to talk to the jury or testify
       about what your doctors told you, nor are you allowed to introduce
       any documentary evidence about these three conditions. So now
       given that ruling, how can you intend to prove you actually do
       suffer from these ailments? Secondly, that they were caused by
       the alleged incident at Giant Eagle?

       [Appellant]: I[] guess it would be impossible if I can’t admit the
       medical evidence. I have nine doctors that would state that from
       2013 all the way to 2022, this RSD, the conclusion that the door
       hit me, and all these nine years from this door hitting me [sic]. If
       I can’t use my medical evidence --

       [The court]: Then what?

       [Appellant]: I can go as far as their negligence and premises
       liability. I won’t get paid for medical, but they’re still responsible
       for the premises liability and the negligence of the door being the
       way it was that hit me. Because they didn’t fix it properly. The
       invoices for this door shows [sic] when it hit me.

       [The court]: Ma’am, again. I’ll ask you one more time. How do
       you intend to prove you have these conditions[,] let alone that the
       door caused these conditions? You can see that you cannot prove
       that.

       [Appellant]: You’re not letting me do my evidence.
____________________________________________

7 Appellant maintains this position in her brief. See Appellant’s Brief at 25
(asserting that, “[e]ver since October 16, 2013, to this present day[,] …
Appellant has continued to be treated for CRPS, RSD, fibromyalgia, high blood
pressure, depression, [and] stress[] due to the incident on the Giant Eagle
premises on October 10, 2013[.] [M]edical records request[ed] by …
Appellees [from 2010 show that A]ppellant had none of these conditions
before October 10, 2013…”).

                                           -8-
J-S09003-23

      [The court]: Thank you. [Giant Eagle’s counsel], do you have a
      motion?

      [Giant Eagle’s counsel]: Based on [Trinity’s] motion on the fact
      she cannot prove damages, she can’t prove her case. And
      therefore, request that the [c]ourt dismiss the case for the
      inability to prove her case.

      [The court]: [Trinity’s counsel]?

      [Trinity’s counsel]: I believe that [Appellant] cannot prove her
      claim on damages. There’s no admissible medical testimony. And
      as we said earlier, that element of her claim of damages. And she
      acknowledged the second element.

      [The court]: Whether this is considered a motion to dismiss or an
      oral motion for summary judgment, it basically boils down to the
      same thing. Based on the offer of proof made by [Appellant] and
      her concessions, that based on my prior ruling, she cannot prove
      her case. I believe that [Appellant], I must grant the oral motion
      for summary judgment and/or non-suit and/or motion to dismiss.
      Your claim is dismissed with prejudice. Thank you.

Id. at 22-32.

      That same day, the trial court entered an order dismissing Appellant’s

claims with prejudice. She thereafter filed a timely notice of appeal. The trial

court instructed Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of

errors complained of on appeal, and she timely did so.           The trial court

subsequently issued an order directing the Department of Court Records to

transmit the record without the filing of a Rule 1925(a) opinion, as it stated

that the reasons for the entry of the May 16, 2022 order already appear of

record in the May 16, 2022 transcript.

      On appeal, Appellant raises the following fifteen questions for our

review, which we produce verbatim:
      1. Is Appellant entitled to a New Trial due to the trial Courts
      Judicial Bias, Discrimination, Prejudice, Civil Rights Violations, by

                                      -9-
J-S09003-23

     being denied a jury trial without any request or motion made by
     either party this violated her 7th and 14th Amendment.

     2. Were Appellants rights under 28 USC. App. Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule
     38 violated when she was denied Due Process because a Jury Trial
     was Demanded under Rule 38, Rule 39(a)(1)(b), for these reasons
     Appellant is entitled to a New Trial in the United States Superior
     Court of Pennsylvania.

     3. Did the Court take the Appellants Trial Rights away from her
     when they did not allow her to examine prospective jurors under
     Rule 47(a) (1967C.954 s.1.) or a jury trial that makes both
     findings of fact and law through a full trial expounding the
     evidence of the case. By not allowing Appellant any kind of
     trial/jury trial to prove her claims against the Appellees.

     4. After seven years of processing all documents to the Court that
     was required by Law, and then denied a jury trial this violated her
     Rights under the 7th Amendment of the Bill of Right 1964, and in
     doing so also Violating the 1st and 14th U.S. Constitutional
     Amendment.

     5. The trial court era in violation of 42 PA Const Stat 8309 (2014)
     (a) trial court failed to give Appellant due process in submitting
     tangible evidence to a jury.

     6. Did the honorable court deny Appellants submission of
     genuineness and Authenticated documents that proved both
     Appellees were negligence and of premises liability which is error
     in the courts decision that was made in plain era from a Motion in
     Limine.     Spindler v. Brito-Deforge, 726So, 2d963, 964
     (Fla.5thDCA 2000) motion in limine Rule 103 (a)

     7. Did the Honorable Judge violate Appellants right to submit
     tangible/Preponderance of evidence to the Court by not allowing
     Appellant to submit into Trial Court Records, this admissible
     evidence is in court records into the Court. Copies of Appendix
     and Exhibits submitted herein…

     8. Appellant 14th Amendment was violated when the Court denied
     her the right to introduce photographs of injuries, incident scene,
     Video Expert, Witness transcripts, videos discovery, eleven
     treating different Doctors reports Past, Present and Future
     interrogatories discovery, Request for Admission, both Appellees
     pretrial statements,

                                   - 10 -
J-S09003-23

     9. Did the court error under the rule of court proceedings when
     they never allowed the plaintiff to enter her opening statement at
     trial. Already submitted in record in the era of appendix evidence

     10. Did the court Violate plaintiff’s rights under Rule 702, Rule
     806.6 also Rule 803.18 by not allowing plaintiff to submit
     admissible evidence of medical records concerning mental and
     physical injuries to the jury. Copies are in record Again the District
     Court of Common Pleas denying Appellant rights to submit this
     evidence into Court Records.

     11. The judge era when he deceived the Court and Appellant by
     saying that we would go back to submitting of admissible evidence
     after we he hears the medical evidence which he never heard any
     of the Doctors Reports Bias, just the diagnosis of the medical
     conditions of CRPS, RDS, and Fibromyalgia then he denied the
     submission of all medical evidence into court record. And Never
     went Back to the admissible evidence, Then dismissed the Claim
     with Prejudice with No Legal Law. 207 Pa. Code Rule 2.3 Bias,
     Prejudice, and Harassment.

     12. Was the Judge in era and in violation of the Appellants Rights
     under Court processing procedures when he discussed off record
     a video tape that was not submitted as admissible evidence into
     Court record by the Appellant but was from the Appellees which
     he discussed off record with them that was not admissible
     evidence submitted into the court. while at the same time denying
     her submission of the Incident DVD that the Appellees entered in
     the Production of Records to the Appellant which has an Expert
     Witness Report stating that the DVD has been tampered with that
     the Appellant was submitting as admissible evidence but was
     denied. copies of expert report submitted herein.

     13. Did the Court error when they denied Appellant the Right to
     submit Admissible Evidence from Appellees own Records that
     Proved both Appellees were aware of these Nine requested repairs
     invoices/orders from October 7, 2013, to October 18, 2022,
     acknowledging the same Repairs for the Dangerous Issues on this
     Giant Eagle Main Entry Door #10524 Repairs were still needed but
     went Unrepaired for Ten straight Days. Three days before
     Appellant was Permanently Injured by this same door and Seven
     days After the Door were still not Fixed and Both Appellees were
     Fully aware of this hazardous dangerous Door that was in dire
     need of Emergency Repairs. Copies submitted herein.

                                    - 11 -
J-S09003-23

      14. Did the Court deny Appellant her rights to lay a solid
      foundation of entering admissible evidence into the Court Records.
      any legally binding writings such as contracts, depositions and
      affidavits also any Authentication or Identification under 28 App.
      F.A. Rule 901 (a)(b)(3)(7)(9).

      15. Does sufficient evidence support the trial court’s finding
      supported by clear and convincing evidence, that the Appellants
      Claims should be Dismissed with Prejudice. From an Appellees
      Motion in Limine? Under Rule 801 (2)( C)(D).

Appellant’s Brief at 12-17.

      Appellate briefs must conform with our Rules of Appellate Procedure.

See Pa.R.A.P. 2101 (“Briefs and reproduced records shall conform in all

material respects with the requirements of these rules as nearly as the

circumstances of the particular case will admit, otherwise they may be

suppressed, and, if the defects are in the brief or reproduced record of the

appellant and are substantial, the appeal or other matter may be quashed or

dismissed.”). With respect to the argument section of an appellate brief, Rule

2119(a) mandates that:
      The argument shall be divided into as many parts as there are
      questions to be argued; and shall have at the head of each part--
      in distinctive type or in type distinctively displayed--the particular
      point treated therein, followed by such discussion and citation of
      authorities as are deemed pertinent.

Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a).

      “When briefing the various issues that have been preserved, it is an

appellant’s duty to present arguments that are sufficiently developed for our

review.   The brief must support the claims with pertinent discussion, with

references   to   the   record   and    with    citations   to   legal   authorities.”

Commonwealth v. Hardy, 918 A.2d 766, 771 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citations

                                       - 12 -
J-S09003-23

omitted). Further, “[c]itations to authorities must articulate the principles for

which they are cited.” Id. (citation omitted).     “This Court will not act as

counsel and will not develop arguments on behalf of an appellant. Moreover,

when defects in a brief impede our ability to conduct meaningful appellate

review, we may dismiss the appeal entirely or find certain issues to be

waived.” Id. (citations omitted). See also In re S.T.S., Jr., 76 A.3d 24, 42

(Pa. Super. 2013) (“This Court is neither obliged, nor even particularly

equipped, to develop an argument for a party. To do so places the Court in

the conflicting roles of advocate and neutral arbiter. When an appellant fails

to develop his issue in an argument and fails to cite any legal authority, the

issue is waived.”) (citations omitted).

      Moreover, “[a]lthough this Court is willing to liberally construe materials

filed by a pro se litigant, pro se status confers no special benefit upon the

appellant.”   In re Ullman, 995 A.2d 1207, 1211-12 (Pa. Super. 2010)

(citation omitted). “To the contrary, any person choosing to represent himself

in a legal proceeding must, to a reasonable extent, assume that his lack of

expertise and legal training will be his undoing.”       Id. at 1212 (citation

omitted).

      Here, although Appellant raises fifteen issues in her statement of the

questions involved, she does not divide the argument section of her brief into

fifteen corresponding parts. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a). Rather, her argument

section has one part, which spans a mere eight pages. See Appellant’s Brief

at 26-34. The argument itself is incoherent and undeveloped. While Appellant

                                     - 13 -
J-S09003-23

makes general references to constitutional amendments, statutes, rules, and

cases, she does not meaningfully discuss them and explain how, or why, they

apply to her case. She instead makes conclusory assertions such as that her

first, seventh, and fourteenth amendment rights were violated.

       In addition, her argument does not focus on the basis for why the trial

court ultimately dismissed her case. Specifically, she does not articulate why

the trial court erred in determining that she could not read her doctors’ reports

to the jury or otherwise testify about what her doctors told her. She also does

not explain how she could have proven her negligence case without this

evidence, and she does not proffer a reasoned analysis to support her claim

that the trial court should not have dismissed her case at the juncture which

it did. These failures by Appellant hinder our review and result in the waiver

of her claims.8 Accordingly, we dismiss Appellant’s appeal.

       Appeal dismissed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 6/6/2023

____________________________________________

8 We also point out that Appellant did not raise any specific objection in
opposition to the dismissal of her case at the May 16, 2022 proceeding. See
Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (“Issues not raised in the trial court are waived and cannot
be raised for the first time on appeal.”). Thus, her claims are waived on this
basis as well.

                                          - 14 -