Court Opinion

ID: 9805897
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 18:24:29.539075+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:51:05.552029
License: Public Domain

*1020CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION BY
STRASSBURGER, J.:
I disagree that Deeds is entitled to a new trial; accordingly, I respectfully dissent and offer the following analysis.1
First, I disagree with the Majority that Deeds is entitled to a new trial on the basis that there were alleged violations of the collateral source rule. Any prejudice resulting from the introduction of the concept of Medicaid or the idea that Deeds’ caregivers were not paying for Deeds’ care, would occur only in the amount of damages awarded to Deeds. Here, the jury found that the Appellees were not liable for Deeds’ injuries. Thus, they never reached the issue of damages, so no prejudice resulted.
I also disagree with the Majority that having two attorneys question Deeds’ witnesses was reversible error. The Majority concluded that it was the superfluous counsel for Trustees who “transgressed the collateral source rule on at least three occasions, transgressions which form the basis for the award of a new trial in this case.” Majority Opinion, at 1017. Having already concluded that Deeds was not prejudiced by these alleged transgressions, I also conclude that Deeds is not entitled to a new trial on the basis of trial court error in permitting counsel for Trustees to participate.
To the extent that the Majority concluded that Deeds was entitled to a new trial solely on the basis that the trial court erred in permitting both counsel to “ ‘tag team’ Deeds at trial while representing the same interest[,]” I also disagree. Id. Deeds points to no specific prejudice it suffered, other than the verdict itself, which could not possibly be considered evidence of prejudice as Deeds suggests. In the instant case, the trial court determined that Deeds’ last minute request to exclude counsel for the Trustees was too late. Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 223, such a decision was within the trial court’s discretion, and I see no reason in the record for such decision to be reversed.

. I agree with the Majority that Deeds' third allegation of error regarding Dr. Perry’s testimony does not warrant a new trial.