Court Opinion

ID: 9754473
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 20:02:25.970534+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:53.985088
License: Public Domain

POPOVICH, Judge,
Dissenting:
I dissent to that portion of the opinion denying the appellants damages for the appellee’s negligent handling of the Wycis case.
*67The appellant-Frank Rizzo, having been injured by an improperly performed operation by his surgeon, H.T. Wycis, which was precipitated by an automobile accident involving the City of Philadelphia, was denied the potential award recoverable in a medical malpractice suit.
Judge Kramer’s determination that the appellee was negligent (conduct—absence of due care—which not only exposed the appellant to, but caused him, injury) entitled the claimant to compensation, since there was no dispute that he was owed a duty of care (competent counsel) and the breach of that duty (not being able to take the case to trial) was the proximate cause of his injury—loss of revenue.
However, the affixing of the market rate of interest to the $50,000 is excessive in the circumstances of this case. Mr. Rizzo received the sum stated from the trial court for the appellee’s “poor negotiating skills” and “conduct” in the City case, and next we learn that the amount is given/transferred/converted to the appellee. At the very least, a question arises as to the dual fault present in relinquishing the monies, thus requiring, at best, that the Rizzos be made whole, but not to the extent contemplated by the court here.
On the question of delay damages allowed by Pa.R.Civ.P. 238, it appears facially appealing to apply Rule 238 to a circumstance where an individual/attorney has purportedly fraudulently obtained his clients funds. However, as stated by the Majority, the Rule has not been extended to encompass such circumstances, being restricted instead to situations where a defendant causes bodily injury, death or property damage. I see no justification for expanding Rule 238 as importuned by the appellants and the court below.
Further, we have no way of knowing if the award entered was 125% over that which was proffered by the appellee, since no settlement offer appears to have been made to resolve the dispute short of trial.