Court Opinion

ID: 9382023
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-24 16:06:37.77145+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:36.496011
License: Public Domain

J-A05037-23

       NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P.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

 CHARMAINE TYLER                         :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                         :        PENNSYLVANIA
                   Appellant             :
                                         :
                                         :
              v.                         :
                                         :
                                         :
 RUTH HOOVER                             :   No. 656 EDA 2022

           Appeal from the Judgment Entered February 17, 2022
           In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
                      Civil Division at No. 190606965

 CHARMAINE TYLER                         :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                         :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                         :
              v.                         :
                                         :
                                         :
 RUTH HOOVER                             :
                                         :
                   Appellant             :   No. 663 EDA 2022

           Appeal from the Judgment Entered February 17, 2022
           In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
                      Civil Division at No. 190606965

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and MURRAY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.:                           FILED MARCH 24, 2023

      This appeal and cross-appeal arise from a judgment in favor of

Charmaine Tyler (Tyler), entered after a jury trial on her successful personal

injury action against Ruth Hoover (Hoover). Hoover appeals the judgment

entered against her. Tyler, in her cross-appeal, challenges the court’s denial

of her post-trial motion for delay damages. Upon careful consideration, we
J-A05037-23

affirm the judgment against Hoover, reverse the denial of Tyler’s post-trial

motion, and remand with instructions.

      The trial court detailed the case history, beginning with the procedural

posture, as follows:

             On June 24, 2019, [Tyler] commenced her civil action by
      filing a complaint in the Court of Common Pleas - Philadelphia
      County. [Tyler] filed an affidavit of service on July 16, 2019. On
      August 20, 2019, [Hoover] filed her answer with new matter to
      [Tyler’s] complaint. A reply to [Hoover’s] new matter was filed on
      September 3, 2019.

             The first discovery motion filed by [Hoover] was a motion to
      compel answers and production of documents dated September
      11, 2019[,] relating to interrogatories sent to [Tyler] on July 24,
      2019. On September 23, 2019, upon consideration of the motion,
      [the trial court] ordered … that [Tyler] provide full, complete, and
      verified answers to interrogatories and requests for production of
      documents within twenty (20) days or risk court sanctions.

            [Hoover] filed a motion for sanctions on November 14,
      2019. On December 4, 2019, certification prerequisite to service
      of subpoenas was filed by [Hoover]. [Hoover] filed a motion to
      compel deposition on December 9, 2019. On December 23, 2019,
      the [trial court] granted [Hoover’s] motion to compel deposition
      and ordered [] Tyler to appear at her deposition or risk sanctions
      by the court.

            [Hoover] filed a motion to compel subpoena compliance on
      January 29, 2020. On February 11, 2020, the [trial court] granted
      [Hoover’s] Motion. [Hoover] filed three discovery motions on
      March 2, 2020. [Hoover] first filed a motion to compel answers
      to interrogatories. [Hoover] further filed a motion to compel
      answers and production of documents[,] and a motion for
      sanctions.

            On the same day, March 2, 2020, [Hover] filed a motion for
      extraordinary relief. Subsequent to [Hoover’s] motion, [Hoover]
      withdrew the motion to compel interrogatories filed that day.
      [Hoover’s] motion for extraordinary relief was granted … that day,

                                      -2-
J-A05037-23

       and a revised case management order was issued, extending
       deadlines by sixty (60) days.

            [Hoover] filed further motions for sanctions on May 15,
       2020[,] and June 22, 2020. On July 8, 2020, [Hoover] filed a
       motion for extraordinary relief. The motion was granted … on July
       23, 2020, once again extending case management deadlines for
       another sixty (60) days.

             On September 28, 2020, [Hoover] filed a motion for
       sanctions against third party medical imaging service Advanced
       Diagnostics.[1] The motion was granted on October 14, 2020. On
       November 19, 2020, a second motion for sanctions against
       [Advanced Diagnostics] was filed by [Hoover]. This motion was
       granted on December 15, 2020[; the trial court ordered Advanced
       Diagnostics to “provide any and all records, including films of
       diagnostic testing from July 2 and July 9, 2018, pertaining to
       Tyler….” Order, 12/15/20.] On January 25, 2021, [Hoover] filed
       a motion for sanctions concerning Advanced Diagnostics’ failure
       to comply with [a] subpoena. The [motion] was denied … on
       February 8, 2021.

             On October 14, 2021, [Hoover] filed two motions in limine
       seeking to preclude both evidence of Advanced Diagnostics’
       cervical MRI dated July 2, 2018[,] and the testimony of [Tyler’s

____________________________________________

1 Advanced Diagnostics performed scans of Tyler’s spine both prior to and
after the May 24, 2018, car accident, via magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).
See Motion In Limine, 10/14/21, Ex. C. Hoover requested discovery from
Advanced Diagnostics. According to Hoover, Advanced Diagnostics “did
produce reports, and MRI films, for multiple evaluations of [] Tyler, but did
not produce” MRI films dated July 2, 2018, and July 9, 2018, which Hoover
repeatedly requested. Id. ¶ 3 (citing Ex. C); see also id. ¶ 7 (stating
Advanced Diagnostics had responded to Hoover’s discovery requests for the
MRI films via correspondence which claimed “Advanced Diagnostics
experienced a system malfunction” in 2018 which “corrupted” certain
“irretrievable” MRI films).

                                               -3-
J-A05037-23

       medical expert,] Gerald Dworkin, [D.O. (Dr. Dworkin).2, 3]
       [Hoover] filed a subsequent motion in limine to preclude the
       testimony of representatives of [medical provider] BalaCare
____________________________________________

2 Dr. Dworkin issued an expert report dated December 2, 2019, after he
treated Tyler and assessed her medical history. Dr. Dworkin detailed his
treatment and the results of medical imaging scans that were performed on
Tyler after the May 24, 2018 car accident. See Dr. Dworkin Report, 12/2/19,
at 1-2 (attached to Hoover’s October 14, 2021, motion in limine with respect
to Dr. Dworkin as Ex. D). Dr. Dworkin opined:

     Tyler suffers from serious and permanent injury to bodily function
     vis-à-vis cervical and lumbar spine segments including but not
     limited to soft tissue, muscle ligament, disc, and nerve roots. These
     impairments are serious, permanent, and secondary [in] their
     entirety to the 05/24/2018 trauma.

Id. at 3; see also id. (stating the above conditions are “associated with
significant physical capacity limitation disability….”). Dr. Dworkin concluded,
“[Tyler] will, in my opinion, [] within [a] reasonable degree of medical
certainty[,] require ongoing medical care as a result of these injuries and their
progression over the next three to five years at a minimum.” Id. at 4.

3In Hoover’s motion in limine with respect to Dr. Dworkin, she claimed his
expert testimony was inadmissible because:

           Dr. Dworkin [] admitted that he relied entirely upon his
     interpretation of reports of diagnostic MRI films dated July 2, 2018,
     and July 9, 201[8], which have never been produced and which
     apparently do not exist. …

          During discovery, the records of Advanced Diagnostics were
     subpoenaed…. There are no reports, much less films, produced by
     Advanced Diagnostics dated July 2, 2018, or July 9, 2018.

                                          ***

           Because the opinions expressed by Dr. Dworkin … are
     dependent upon his interpretation of the non-existing MRI films, all
     such testimony should be precluded from evidence.

Supplemental Memorandum of Law, 11/12/21, at 1-2 (citation to exhibit
omitted).

                                               -4-
J-A05037-23

     Solutions on October 15, 2021[. Hoover claimed such testimony
     would be inadmissible as being “wholly dependent upon
     admissibility of evidence produced through a report of [Dr.]
     Dworkin,” which itself was inadmissible for reasons stated above.
     Motion In Limine, 10/15/21, ¶ 3]. On November 1, 2021, [Tyler]
     filed answers in opposition [to Hoover’s] motions in limine. The
     [trial] court denied these motions.

            The trial began with an eight-member jury on November 15,
     2021. [Dr. Dworkin testified, over Hoover’s objection, consistent
     with his expert report.] The jury returned a 7/8 verdict in favor
     of [Tyler] on November 17, 2021. On November 23, 2021[, Tyler]
     filed a post-trial motion seeking delay damages. [The same day,
     Hoover filed a post-trial motion seeking a new trial, [judgment
     notwithstanding the verdict (Judgment N.O.V.), or a remittitur.]
     [Tyler’s] post-trial motion for delay damages pursuant to
     Pa.R.C.P. 238 was denied by [the trial] court on February 17,
     2022. [The court denied Hoover’s post-trial motion seeking a new
     trial/Judgment N.O.V. by a separate order entered the same date,
     and entered judgment in favor of Tyler in the amount of the jury’s
     award, $188,632.]

                                   FACTS

            … On May 2[4], 2018, [Tyler] was the operator of a motor
     vehicle on the University Avenue I-76 ramp. N.T., 11/15/21, at
     94, 132; N.T., 11/17/21, at 36. On this [Thursday] afternoon,
     traffic was particularly congested. N.T., 11/15/21, at 94-95.
     [Tyler’s] SUV was thereafter rear-ended by [Hoover’s] car. Id.
     The parties exchanged information, took photographs, and left the
     scene. Id. at 95-96. No police report was filed. Id.

            Prior to the motor vehicle accident, [Tyler] participated in
     physical therapy continuously from January of 2018 for various
     left side, back, and neck pain. Id. at 104. [Tyler] would continue
     physical therapy after the accident[, according to Dr. Dworkin,]
     “[b]ecause of the increasing nature of her pain.” [Dr.] Dworkin
     Depo., [11/8/21], at 31. Physical therapy continued for several
     months. Id. [Tyler] also sought out further treatments, including
     an MRI of the neck region on July 2, 2018[,] and an MRI of the
     lower back on July 9, 2018. Id. at 41. [Tyler] had also undergone
     EMG [medical imaging] testing on September 13, 2018[,] and
     September 24, 2018. [Dr.] Dworkin Expert Report, [12/2/19,] at
     2. A physical examination of [Tyler’s] cervical and lumbar regions

                                    -5-
J-A05037-23

        was performed by … Dr. Dworkin on March 9, 2019. Id. On
        December []9, 2019, BalaCare Solutions produced [an expert]
        report[, and a subsequent updated expert report,] representing
        future medical costs [Tyler] would [incur] as a result of the …
        motor vehicle accident. BalaCare Solutions Expert Report[s,
        12/9/19 & 5/4/21 (respectively) (attached to Hoover’s October
        15, 2020, Motion In Limine as Exs. B & C).]

Trial Court Opinion, 8/19/22, at 1-4 (footnotes added; footnote citations

moved to body and modified; emphasis omitted).

        Both parties timely appealed.4           The parties and the trial court have

complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

        Hoover presents nine issues for review:

        1. Whether Judgment N.O.V. is required because [Hoover] is
           clearly entitled to relief where the jury found as a fact that
           [Tyler] did not sustain a serious injury, i.e. a serious
           impairment of bodily function?

        2. Whether Judgment N.O.V. is warranted because the [trial
           c]ourt erred in admitting expert testimony about future medical
           treatment and costs predicated on the admission of testimony
           relying on authenticated reports of non-existent MRI films?

        3. Whether, in the alternative, this Court[] should order a new
           trial at which [Tyler’s] entitlement to future economic losses
           will be litigated?

        4. Whether a new trial is required because the trial court
           erroneously admitted expert medical testimony based on
           unauthenticated MRI reports of non-produced and non-existing
           MRI films?

        5. Whether a new trial is required because the trial court
           erroneously allowed [Tyler’s] medical expert to offer testimony
           beyond the scope of his report?

____________________________________________

4   This Court consolidated the appeals on April 26, 2022.

                                               -6-
J-A05037-23

      6. Whether a new trial is required because the trial court
         erroneously allowed testimony from [Tyler’s] medical cost
         expert relying on the inadmissible testimony of [Tyler’s]
         medical expert based upon an unauthenticated report of MRI
         films which were never produced and which do not exist?

      7. Whether a new trial is required to consider remittitur of the
         future damages awarded?

      8. Whether Judgment N.O.V., or a new trial, is required because
         the trial court in considering motions for post-trial relief did not
         view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict
         winner?

      9. Whether Judgment N.O.V., or a new trial, is required because
         the trial court in considering motions for post-trial relief, failed
         to address the most critical issue in the case, i.e. the
         unauthenticated reports of non-produced and non-existing MRI
         films?

Hoover’s Appellant Brief at 9.

      Tyler, in her cross-appeal, presents a single issue:

      Whether the trial court abused its discretion and otherwise
      committed an error of law when it improperly denied [Tyler’s]
      post-trial motion for delay damages by way of order dated
      February 11, 2022 and supporting opinion dated August 19, 2022?

Tyler’s Cross-Appellant Brief at 7 (capitalization modified).

                     Hoover’s Appeal at 663 EDA 2022

      Hoover includes nine issues in her statement of questions, but argues

only five issues in contravention of our Rules of Appellate Procedure. See

Hoover’s Appellant Brief at 9, 28-48; see also Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) (“The

argument shall be divided into as many parts as there are questions to be

argued[.]”). We address Hoover’s five issues because the discrepancy does

                                       -7-
J-A05037-23

not impede review. See Donahue v. Fed. Express Corp., 753 A.2d 238,

241 n.3 (Pa. Super. 2000).

(1)   [Whether] Judgment N.O.V. or a new trial is warranted due to
      the admission of prejudicial and inadmissible expert testimony
      relying on unauthenticated reports of non-existing MRI films.

      Hoover argues the trial court

      wrongly allowed testimony [by Dr. Dworkin] … based on
      unauthenticated reports of MRI films of [Tyler] dated July 2, 2018
      and July 9, 2018[,] which were never produced in discovery by
      [Tyler] and [were] not produced pursuant to a subpoena directed
      to the radiology group Advanced Diagnostics, despite three court
      orders, and which were never properly authenticated. Amazingly,
      the trial court makes no mention of [Hoover’s] repeated objections
      to evidence based on the unauthenticated report of the non-
      produced MRI films and does not mention the word
      “unauthenticated” and makes no reference to Rule 901 of the
      Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence or other rules which would prohibit
      the use of such evidence.

Hoover’s Appellant Brief at 28. Hoover further maintains:

      The error in allowing the testimony of Dr. Dworkin was
      compounded when medical costs projectionist Alisa Dayanim
      [(Dayanim)] was permitted to offer expert testimony concerning
      the costs of future medical care. By relying solely on Dr. Dworkin’s
      report, based upon the unauthenticated report of MRI studies,
      [Dayanim] assigned cost values for projected medical care and
      arrived at a total of $358,490 as the total lifetime cost of care for
      injuries to [Tyler’s] cervical spine, with $231,901 attributable to
      one-time cost for an anterior cervical fusion.

Id. at 30 (record citations omitted). Hoover complains this evidence “was

clearly prejudicial and misled the jury, and it should have been excluded under

Rule 403 and Rule 901 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence.” Id. at 32.

      We begin with our standards of review. We have explained:

                                      -8-
J-A05037-23

      Our standard[s] of review when considering the motions for a
      directed verdict and [Judgment N.O.V.] are identical. We will
      reverse a trial court’s grant or denial of [Judgment N.O.V.] only
      when we find an abuse of discretion or an error of law that
      controlled the outcome of the case. Further, the standard of
      review for an appellate court is the same as that for a trial court.

      There are two bases upon which [Judgment N.O.V.] can be
      entered; one, the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of
      law and/or two, the evidence is such that no two reasonable minds
      could disagree that the outcome should have been rendered in
      favor of the movant. With the first, the court reviews the record
      and concludes that, even with all factual inferences decided
      adverse to the movant, the law nonetheless requires a verdict in
      [its] favor. Whereas with the second, the court reviews the
      evidentiary record and concludes that the evidence was such that
      a verdict for the movant was beyond peradventure.

Hall v. Episcopal Long Term Care, 54 A.3d 381, 395 (Pa. Super. 2012)

(citations omitted).

      Our standard of review regarding a trial court’s denial of a motion for a

new trial is limited: “The power to grant a new trial lies inherently with the

trial court and we will not reverse its decision absent a clear abuse of discretion

or an error of law which controls the outcome of the case.” Maya v. Johnson

& Johnson & McNeil-PPC, Inc. (In re McNeill-PPC), 97 A.3d 1203, 1224

(Pa. Super. 2014) (citation omitted). We employ a two-part analysis: First,

we determine if an error occurred. If so, we ascertain “whether the error

resulted in prejudice necessitating a new trial.”           Czimmer v. Janssen

Pharms.,    Inc.,   122   A.3d    1043,   1051   (Pa.   Super.    2015)   (citation

omitted).   Second, we ascertain whether the error affected the verdict.

Knowles     v.   Levan,    15    A.3d   504,   507   (Pa.    Super.   2011).   The

                                        -9-
J-A05037-23

“[c]onsideration of all new trial claims is grounded firmly in the harmless error

doctrine[.]” Id. (citation omitted).

      We next examine whether Hoover preserved this issue.           See, e.g.,

Tucker v. R.M. Tours, 939 A.2d 343, 346 (Pa. Super. 2007) (explaining

“[t]he fact [a]ppellants filed a timely [court-ordered] Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)

statement does not automatically equate with issue preservation.”).

      Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) provides that a judge entering an order giving
      rise to a notice of appeal “may enter an order directing the
      appellant to file of record in the trial court and serve on the judge
      a concise statement of the errors complained of on appeal [ ].”
      Rule 1925 also states that “[i]ssues not included in the
      Statement and/or not raised in accordance with the
      provisions of this paragraph (b)(4) are waived.” Pa.R.A.P.
      1925(b)(4)(vii). In Commonwealth v. Lord, 553 Pa. 415, 719
      A.2d 306 (1998), our Supreme Court held that “from this date
      forward, in order to preserve their claims for appellate review,
      [a]ppellants must comply whenever the trial court orders them to
      file a Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal pursuant to
      Rule 1925. Any issues not raised in a 1925(b) statement will be
      deemed waived.” Lord, 719 A.2d at 309. This Court has held
      that “[o]ur Supreme Court intended the holding in Lord to operate
      as a bright-line rule, such that ‘failure to comply with the minimal
      requirements of Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) will result in automatic
      waiver of the issues raised.’” Greater Erie Indus. Dev. Corp.
      v. Presque Isle Downs, Inc., 2014 PA Super 50, 88 A.3d 222,
      224 (Pa. Super. 2014) (en banc) (emphasis in original).

U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Hua, 193 A.3d 994, 996-97 (Pa. Super. 2018) (some

citations omitted, emphasis added); see also Greater Erie Indus. Dev.

Corp., 88 A.3d at 224 (“it is no longer within this Court’s discretion to ignore

the internal deficiencies of Rule 1925(b) statements.”).

      In addition,

                                       -10-
J-A05037-23

         Rule 1925 is a crucial component of the appellate process because
         it allows the trial court to identify and focus on those issues the
         parties plan to raise on appeal. This Court has further explained
         that a Concise Statement which is too vague to allow the court to
         identify the issues raised on appeal is the functional equivalent to
         no Concise Statement at all.

Tucker, 939 A.2d at 346 (citations omitted).

         Although Hoover filed a Rule 1925(b) statement, she never mentioned

violation of the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence, or alleged violations of Rules

403, 802, 803(6)(D) and 901 identified in her brief. See Hoover’s Appellant

Brief, at 32-33; Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal, 3/15/22, at 1-

6. The trial court did not address this issue in its opinion.5 See generally,

Trial Court Opinion, 8/19/22, at 5-24. Accordingly, Hoover waived her first

issue.

         Even if Hoover had not waived this issue, she provides no legal support.

While Hoover generally cites cases discussing the Rules of Evidence, none of

the cases suggest the Rules of Evidence apply to documents Tyler did not seek

to admit into evidence; the documents were a resource for Dr. Dworkin in

preparing his expert report and testimony. See Coulter v. Ramsden, 94

A.3d 1080, 1088 (Pa. Super. 2014) (“We need not reach the merits of this

issue because the argument section of [the a]ppellant’s brief merely consists

of general statements unsupported by any discussion and analysis of relevant

____________________________________________

5 The purpose of a Rule 1925(b) statement is to afford the trial court the
opportunity to explain its ruling and correct any error. See Tucker, 939 A.2d
at 346.

                                           -11-
J-A05037-23

legal authority.”); In re R.D., 44 A.3d 657, 674 (Pa. Super. 2012) (“[I]t 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.”) (citation

omitted, emphasis added).

      Waiver notwithstanding, we would agree with the trial court’s statement

that its denial of Hoover’s request

      to preclude all references to the July 2, 2018 MRI report [and to
      preclude Dr. Dworkin from testifying] was proper. It is well
      understood that medical experts may rely on reports customarily
      relied upon in their profession. See Primavera v. Celotex
      Corporation, 608 A.2d 515 (Pa. Super. 1992); See Pa.R.E. 703.
      … [N]either did the [trial c]ourt err when permitting BalaCare
      representative Ms. Dayanim to testify about [Tyler’s] future
      medical costs. Ms. Dayanim, a registered nurse, was permitted
      to use Dr. Dworkin’s diagnoses to underlie her report.

                                      ***

            As the Superior Court has stated, “to preclude the testimony
      of a witness is a drastic sanction, and it should be done only where
      the facts of the case make it necessary.” Jacobs v. Chatwani,
      922 A.2d 950, 962 (Pa. Super. 2007).

            Under Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 703, an expert’s
      opinion must be “based on facts or data in a particular case.”
      Pa.R.E. 703. [Hoover] contends that “An expert cannot base his
      opinion upon facts which are not warranted by the record.”
      Collins v. Hand, 246 A.2d 398 (Pa. Super. 1968). However, in
      Primavera, the Superior Court addressed the extent to which an
      expert witness may rely on information generated by other
      professionals who are not subject to cross-examination. See
      Primavera, 608 A.2d 515. As Primavera established, if an
      expert has made faulty assumptions or leaps of judgment in
      relying on certain sources or in forming conclusions based on
      those sources, he should be cross examined about his
      assumptions, etc. Id. at 520.

                                      -12-
J-A05037-23

           As the [Primavera] Court explained:

           []It is well understood that medical experts are
           permitted to express opinions which are based, in
           part, upon reports which are not in evidence, but
           which are customarily relied upon by experts in the
           practice of the profession.... The fact that experts
           reasonably and regularly rely on this type of
           information merely to practice their profession lends
           strong indicia of reliability to source material when it
           is presented through a qualified expert’s eyes.[]

     Primavera, 608 A.2d at 518-[]21.

            In our case, Hoover’s contention is unsupported by the law.
     Dr. Dworkin stated during cross-examination that his reliance on
     MRI reports without MRI films is sound. [Dr.] Dworkin also
     testified that he does not have access to MRI films “80 to 90
     percent of the time,” and that an MRI report authored by a
     neuroradiologist is sufficient to show the July 2, 2018 MRI
     occurred and that its findings are reliable.

            Moreover, the July 2, 2018 MRI report that underlies, in
     part, the factual basis of Dr. Dworkin’s testimony is precisely the
     kind of evidence that Primavera legitimizes. In Primavera, a
     doctor was permitted to use the reports of other doctors who were
     not available to testify in an asbestos action.        There, the
     Primavera Court found that a doctor’s reliance on medical
     records produced by medical professionals not subject to cross-
     examination was proper, where the reports formed only a small
     portion of the data that the expert relied on to form his in-court
     conclusions. Id. at 518. This is especially true when an expert
     relied on his personal observations and firsthand knowledge of
     medical evidence. Id.

           In our case, during direct examination, Dr. Dworkin []
     elaborated that he can form his opinion on “medical conditions”
     without an MRI film, … that having a full report from the
     neuroradiologist is akin to seeing the films on his own, that ample
     data existed on the record to support his opinion in the instant
     case, and that [Tyler’s] physical history, EMG findings and MRI
     reports were sufficient to show [Tyler’s] “clinical picture.” …
     Although Dr. Dworkin admitted that he never saw a film of

                                    -13-
J-A05037-23

      [Tyler’s] July 2, 2018 cervical MRI, he was still able to base his
      opinion on data from a variety of sources.

             In conclusion, the [trial c]ourt did not preclude Dr.
      Dworkin’s testimony for two reasons. First, the Superior Court’s
      ruling in Primavera and [Jacobs] precluded the [trial c]ourt from
      excluding the doctor’s testimony. Second, [Hoover] had an
      opportunity to question and impeach Dr. Dworkin during cross
      examination. Dr. Dworkin was in fact cross-examined about
      the factual underpinnings of his conclusions relating to
      [Tyler’s] cervical spine even though the actual MRI films
      were never presented in [c]ourt.

                                        ***

            [T]he admission of Ms. Dayanim’s testimony relating to
      [Tyler’s] future costs was permissible. … In our case, the
      testimony of Ms. Dayanim relating to [Tyler’s] projected future
      medical costs was not based solely on Dr. Dworkin’s report as
      [Hoover] contends, but rather on a multitude of other sources.
      Ms. Dayanim testified that [Tyler’s] total lifetime cost was based
      on documents she reviewed from various diagnostic and
      treatment clinics and billing records in addition to Dworkin’s
      report.

            In closing, Dayanim’s future cost projection should not be
      precluded because she relied on a variety of information in
      compiling her report. As factual evidence underlies Dayanim’s
      report, and [Hoover] had an opportunity to cross-examine her,
      the [trial c]ourt respectfully requests that this claim also be
      dismissed.

Trial Court Opinion, 8/19/22, at 5-12 (footnotes omitted, emphasis added).

      The record supports the trial court’s rationale for declining to grant a

new trial or judgment N.O.V. See id. Hoover has not shown the trial court

either abused its discretion or committed an error of law. In re McNeill-PPC,

97 A.3d at 1224; Hall, 54 A.3d at 395. Thus, even if not waived, Hoover’s

first claim would not merit relief.

                                      -14-
J-A05037-23

(2)   [Whether] Judgment N.O.V. or a new trial is required due to the
      admission of testimony of [Tyler’s] medical expert beyond the
      scope of his report.

      Hoover again challenges the trial court’s denial of judgment N.O.V. or a

new trial. She claims the trial court erred in allowing Dr. Dworkin “to offer

testimony that [Tyler] will need future medical care to her low back, including

epidural injections to her low back and ‘the distinct medical possibility that

she would require surgery both in the cervical region and the lumber

region.’” Hoover’s Appellant Brief at 35-36 (emphasis in original).

      Our standard of review is well settled. The admissibility of evidence is

within the sound discretion of the trial court, and we will not reverse absent

an abuse of discretion. Whitaker v. Frankford Hosp., 984 A.2d 512, 522

(Pa. Super. 2009) (trial court’s admission of expert testimony will not be

disturbed absent manifest abuse of discretion).             Expert testimony is

admissible when it “involves explanations and inferences not within the range

of    ordinary   training[,]   knowledge,    intelligence     and   experience.”

Commonwealth v. Walker, 92 A.3d 766, 788 (Pa. 2014) (citation omitted).

      We have further explained:

      [An] expert’s testimony on direct examination is to be limited to
      the fair scope of the expert’s pre-trial report. In applying the fair
      scope rule, we focus on the word “fair.” Departure from the
      expert’s report becomes a concern if the trial testimony would
      prevent the adversary from preparing a meaningful response, or
      which would mislead the adversary as to the nature of the
      response. Therefore, the opposing party must be prejudiced as a
      result of the testimony going beyond the fair scope of the expert’s
      report before admission of the testimony is considered reversible
      error.

                                      -15-
J-A05037-23

Whitaker, 984 A.2d at 522 (citation omitted).

      Hoover’s claim is belied by the record.      In his report, Dr. Dworkin

detailed the injuries to Tyler’s cervical and lumbar regions. See Dr. Dworkin

Report, 12/2/19, at 1-2; see also id. at 19 (diagnosing Tyler with

“posttraumatic low back pain … [Tyler] suffers from serious and permanent

injury to bodily functions vis-à-vis cervical and lumber spine segments[.]”).

Dr. Dworkin stated Tyler would “require ongoing medical care as a result of

these injuries[.]”    Id. at 4 (emphasis added).      Thus, in his report, Dr.

Dworkin opined Tyler would require future treatment for both her cervical

spine and lumbar spine injures.       Dr. Dworkin concluded his report by

predicting future treatment “included but [would not be] limited to”

various treatments. Id. at 4 (emphasis added). The report put the parties

on notice that the list of treatments was not exhaustive.        Dr. Dworkin’s

testimony that Tyler might require future lumber spine surgery was within the

“fair scope” of his expert report. See Whitaker, 984 A.2d at 522. Hoover’s

second issue merits no relief.

(3)   [Whether] Judgment N.O.V. or a new trial is required due to the
      verdict being against the weight of the evidence.

      Hoover argues the jury’s verdict was against the weight of the evidence.

See Hoover’s Appellant Brief at 38-43. Specifically, she contends “the jury

found as a fact that [Tyler] did not sustain a serious injury” but

      returned a verdict for almost $200,000 for economic losses which
      [Tyler] did not sustain, and … will never sustain. It appears the

                                     -16-
J-A05037-23

     verdict was engendered by bias or prejudice against [Hoover],
     perhaps in an effort to punish her for causing the motor vehicle
     accident, or more likely, based upon the testimony of Dr. Dworkin
     suggesting [Tyler] might need future surgery to her lumb[a]r
     spine, which should have been excluded from evidence[.]

Id. at 38-40.

     We recognize:

     The decision to grant or deny a motion for a new trial based upon
     a claim that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence is
     within the sound discretion of the trial court. Thus, the function
     of an appellate court on appeal is to review the trial court’s
     exercise of discretion based upon a review of the record, rather
     than to consider de novo the underlying question of the weight of
     the evidence. An appellate court may not overturn the trial court’s
     decision unless the trial court palpably abused its discretion in
     ruling on the weight claim. Further, in reviewing a challenge to
     the weight of the evidence, a verdict will be overturned only if it
     is so contrary to the evidence as to shock one’s sense of justice.

     ….

     A trial court’s determination that a verdict was not against the
     interest of justice is [o]ne of the least assailable reasons for
     denying a new trial. A verdict is against the weight of the evidence
     where certain facts are so clearly of greater weight that to ignore
     them or to give them equal weight with all the facts is to deny
     justice.

Tong-Summerford v. Abington Mem’l Hosp. & Radiology Grp. of

Abington, P.C., 190 A.3d 631, 659 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citations omitted).

     Our Supreme Court has explained:

     While a jury’s verdict and damages award are generally insulated
     from challenge, the grant of a new trial may be required to achieve
     justice in those instances where the original trial, because of taint,
     unfairness, or error, produces something other than a just and fair
     result, which is the principle goal of judicial proceedings. … [A]
     jury verdict may be set aside as inadequate when it appears to
     have been the product of passion, prejudice, partiality, or

                                     -17-
J-A05037-23

     corruption, or where it clearly appears from uncontradicted
     evidence that the amount of the verdict bears no reasonable
     relation to the loss suffered by the plaintiff. Where the jury’s
     verdict is so contrary to the evidence as to shock one’s sense of
     justice a new trial should be awarded. [The Court] cautioned that
     it was within the province of the jury to assess the worth of the
     testimony and to accept or reject the estimates given by the
     witnesses, and if the verdict bears a reasonable resemblance to
     the proven damages, it is not the function of the court to
     substitute its judgement for the jury’s….

Mader v. Duquesne Light Co., 241 A.3d 600, 612-13 (Pa. 2020) (citations

omitted).

     The trial court correctly and concisely disposed of this issue, stating:

     [T]here was substantial evidence in the record that a [j]ury could
     find favorably for [Tyler].    Dr. Dworkin testified on direct
     examination that [Tyler] suffered from severe traumatic cervical
     and neck injuries and had radiation of pain into both her left and
     right arm. … [Tyler] also had various lumbar injuries documented
     through an EMG [medical imaging scan], a physical examination,
     and an MRI.

            Furthermore, [Tyler’s] future medical expenses were
     projected to amount to $306,226.35. This projection was based
     upon specific timeframes and intervals wherein [Tyler] would need
     to seek further medical treatment over time resulting from her
     injuries in the instant action.

            It is evident that the damages awarded to [Tyler] were not
     the result of mere speculation, but rather based on the evidence
     the [j]ury considered at [t]rial. … [L]arge verdicts are not
     necessarily excessive verdicts. Gillingham v. Consol Energy.
     Inc., 51 A.3d 841, 857 (Pa. Super 2012). As such, there was
     sufficient evidence to warrant the [j]ury’s verdict, so as to not
     shock one[’]s sense of justice and render a new trial imperative.

Trial Court Opinion, 8/19/22 at 19-20 (footnotes omitted).

     The record supports the trial court’s analysis.       The court did not

“palpably abuse its discretion” in denying Hoover’s weight of the evidence

                                     -18-
J-A05037-23

claim. Tong-Summerford. 190 A.3d at 659. Hoover’s third issue does not

warrant relief.

(4)    The trial court applied an incorrect standard of review in denying
       [Hoover’s] motion for post-trial relief.

       Hoover complains the trial court’s opinion is deficient.         Hoover’s

Appellant Brief at 43-45. She specifically argues, “The court below failed to

recognize that [Hoover], not [Tyler] was the verdict winner.” Id. at 45. She

contends that because she was the verdict winner, the trial court “was

required to view the evidence in the light most favorable to [Hoover].” Id.

       Hoover waived this claim because she did not raise it in her Rule 1925(b)

statement.6 See Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal, 3/15/22, at

1-6; see also U.S. Bank, N.A., 193 A.3d at 996-97 (waiving issues not raised

in Rule 1925(b) statement).

(5)    [Hoover] is entitled to a remittitur due to the grossly excessive,
       inconsistent and unwarranted award of future medical costs to
       [Tyler] who was not seriously injured and incurred no past
       medical expenses.

       Hoover claims she is entitled to remittitur, because “there is no rational

explanation for the grossly excessive award of economic losses based on

____________________________________________

6 Regardless, we are unable to ascertain the factual basis for Hoover’s
contention that the jury rendered a defense verdict. The record indicates the
verdict was “Jury [v]erdict for [Tyler].” Trial Work Sheet, 11/19/21, at 1. The
verdict slip likewise indicates the jury found Hoover’s negligence “a factual
cause of the harm to [Tyler].” Verdict Slip, 11/17/21, at 1 (unnumbered).
The jury awarded damages to Tyler for future medical costs of $188,632. Id.

                                           -19-
J-A05037-23

supposed future medical expenses.”       Hoover’s Appellant Brief at 47.   She

asserts:

     This is particularly so in a case where the undisputed evidence
     demonstrates [Tyler] sustained no out-pocket losses, no past
     medical expenses, no time lost from employment, and had not
     received any medical treatment whatsoever for two and a half
     years preceding trial in this matter.

     Id.

     As to the denial of remittitur,

     [o]ur standard of review … is circumspect and judicial reduction of a jury
     award is appropriate only when the award is plainly excessive and
     exorbitant. The question is whether the award of damages falls within
     the uncertain limits of fair and reasonable compensation or whether the
     verdict so shocks the sense of justice as to suggest that the jury was
     influenced by partiality, prejudice, mistake, or corruption. Furthermore,
     the decision to grant or deny remittitur is within the sole discretion of
     the trial court, and proper appellate review dictates this Court reverse
     such an Order only if the trial court abused its discretion or
     committed an error of law in evaluating a party’s request for
     remittitur.

Renna v. Schadt, 64 A.3d 658, 671 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citations omitted and

formatting altered, emphasis added).

     The trial court explained its decision to deny remittitur:

     In the case at bar, [Tyler’s] own expert, Dr. Dworkin, testified
     about [Tyler’s] injuries and how they were objectively supported.
     … Dr. Dworkin characterized [Tyler’s] injuries shown by the EMG
     reports, physical examination, and MRI reports as “devastating”
     and “difficult.” Finally, he concluded that [Tyler’s] condition was
     subject to future “decline.”

           Based on Dr. Dworkin’s assessment, a future medical cost
     projection was created by [Tyler’s] expert [Dayanim] on behalf of
     BalaCare solutions.    After considering [Tyler’s] future care
     requirements, Ms. Dayanim calculated that [Tyler’s] total lifetime

                                       -20-
J-A05037-23

       cost totaled $306,226.00. This included costs for diagnostic
       testing, epidural injections, physical therapy, and surgery.

              In support of the medical testimonies, [Tyler] herself
       testified that her condition subsequent to the May 2018 motor
       vehicle accident changed drastically.    She said that her pain,
       particularly in her lower back, worsened considerably.        Her
       testimony clearly corroborated the objective evidence Dr. Dworkin
       presented. The [j]ury could consider all of this evidence in their
       deliberations.

             [Hoover’s] arguments supporting her motion for remittitur
       bare striking resemblance to those made by the [d]efense in
       Guirlene v. Ryan, 2020 WL 886048, *14 (Pa. Super. 2020)
       [(unpublished memorandum)].[7] Indeed, Guirlene forms the
       basis of [Hoover’s] motion for post-trial relief concerning the
       damages awarded. [The trial court] will now explain that while
       the guidance in Guirlene is well taken, distinguishing facts and
       circumstances did not allow this [t]rial [c]ourt to grant [Hoover’s]
       motion for remittitur.

             The Superior Court in Guirlene affirmed the [t]rial [c]ourt’s
       decision to grant a new trial, where the verdict in a negligence
       action was considered excessive. Id. Like the instant action, the
       [j]ury in Guirlene found that the plaintiff did not suffer a serious
       impairment of a bodily function. Id. at *9. Nonetheless, the
       [j]ury awarded the [p]laintiff $600,000 where future medical costs
       were projected to cost as much as $695,000. Id. at *12. In
       affirming the [t]rial [c]ourt’s finding [that] the verdict [w]as
       excessive, the Superior Court analyzed factors that could render
       a damages award improper and warrant a new trial.

              One factor that should be considered is the specificity of
       required future medical care. The Superior Court in Guirlene held
       that relief was not due where, in part, the [p]laintiff failed to offer
       a clear estimation of how frequently - and for how long - such
       treatments will likely occur. Id. at *12. The testimony of
       [p]laintiff’s expert did not describe how often the [p]laintiff would
       need epidural injections, nor did it specify which of the surgeries

____________________________________________

7 Pa.R.A.P. 126(b) provides that unpublished Superior Court decisions filed
after May 1, 2019, may be cited for persuasive value.

                                           -21-
J-A05037-23

      discussed during trial would be recommended for treatment. Id.
      at *12.

             In our case, the report provided by BalaCare Solutions,
      specifically the summary of costs, depicts various potential future
      medical costs, including medical imaging, physical therapy, and
      other costs. Furthermore, unlike the [p]laintiff’s expert medical
      witness in Guirlene, Dr. Dworkin has identified one specific
      potential surgery for [Tyler] rather than two general surgeries not
      tailored to the actualities of the [p]laintiff. Id. at *13. Therefore,
      the facts of Guirlene are quite distinct from those in the instant
      case. For the foregoing reasons, the [trial c]ourt did not err when
      denying [Hoover’s] motion for remittitur[.]

Trial Court Opinion, 8/19/22, at 21-24 (footnotes omitted, one footnote

added).

      We have reviewed the record and the pertinent law. Because the trial

court committed neither an abuse of discretion nor an error of law, Hoover’s

final claim does not merit relief. Renna, 64 A.3d at 671.

                    Appeal of Tyler: No. 656 EDA 2022

(1)   Whether the trial court abused its discretion and otherwise
      committed an error of law when it improperly denied [Tyler’s]
      post-trial motion for delay damages by way of order dated
      February 11, 2022 and supporting opinion dated August 19,
      2022

      Tyler argues the trial court “abused its discretion when it denied [her

claim for] delay damages.” Tyler’s Appellant Brief at 12. Tyler observes that

delay damages are a “means to sanction defendants for unreasonably refusing

to settle meritorious claims” and the trial court, while acknowledging Hoover

did not engage in settlement negotiations or make a written settlement offer,

failed to address “this consideration.” Id.; see id. at 12-13. Tyler further

                                      -22-
J-A05037-23

alleges the trial court made erroneous factual findings, including (a) finding

that two continuance requests made by Hoover were joint requests; and (b)

attributing delays to Tyler that were caused by a third party. Id. at 15-16.

After a thorough review of the law and record, we agree.

     Pa.R.C.P. 238 provides:

     (1) At the request of the plaintiff in a civil action seeking monetary
     relief for bodily injury, … damages for delay shall be added to
     the amount of compensatory damages awarded against each
     defendant or additional defendant found to be liable to the plaintiff
     in the verdict of a jury ….

     (2) Damages for delay shall be awarded for the period of time
     from a date one year after the date original process was first
     served in the action up to the date of the award, verdict or
     decision.

                                     ***

     (b)(1) The period of time for which damages for delay shall be
     calculated under subdivision (a)(2) shall exclude the period of
     time, if any,

        (i) after the defendant made a written offer which complied
        with the requirements of subdivision (b)(2), provided that
        the plaintiff obtained a recovery which did not exceed the
        amount described in subdivision (b)(3), or

        (ii) during which the plaintiff caused delay of the trial.

Pa.R.C.P. 238(a)(1)-(2) and (3)(b)(1) (emphasis added).

     Instantly, the trial court opined:

     [Tyler’s] request for delay damages is unwarranted. The instant
     civil action commenced on June 24, 2019. Throughout the [t]rial,
     [Tyler] was the target of numerous discovery motions seeking
     compliance with discovery procedures. [Tyler’s] noncompliance
     with discovery rules does not warrant an award in her favor with
     regard to delay damages.

                                     -23-
J-A05037-23

            [Tyler] does not recognize that case management delays
      were stipulated to by both parties in two separate Motions for
      Extraordinary Relief. This constitutes a delay of trial that cannot
      be attributed solely to [Hoover]. Under Rule 238(b)(2), this
      period may not be used to calculate delay damages against
      [Hoover].     Nonetheless, [Tyler] does not take this into
      consideration when calculating her delay damages. In fact, it is
      unclear what basis underlies [Tyler’s] formulation for delay
      damages.

             [Tyler’s] estimation of delay damages are not properly
      calculated to reflect the lengthy pre-trial journey of the instant
      case. [Tyler] calculates the amount of delay damages on a per
      diem rate from July 16, 2020 to November 17, 2021. November
      17, 2021, the date the [j]ury successfully found a verdict in favor
      of [Tyler], is readily ascertainable from the docket. July 16, 2020,
      the date inputted to determine the start of delay, is not a relevant
      date in this litigation. This [trial c]ourt assumes [Tyler] intended
      to cite the date [Hoover] was given service, July 16, 2019. On
      this standing alone, it would be patently unjust and an abuse of
      discretion to award a wholly arbitrary amount of delay damages.

             [Tyler] has not provided an adequate basis to justify the
      [t]rial [c]ourt awarding delay damages. [Tyler] has not identified
      delays attributable to [Hoover], nor has [Tyler] offered a proper
      calculation of damages to the [trial c]ourt. In keeping with the
      [Pennsylvania] Supreme Court’s decision in [Craig v. Magee
      Memorial Rehab. Ctr., 515 A.3d 1350, 1353 (Pa. 1986)], the
      [trial c]ourt does not believe that the delays in this case were
      solely attributed to [Hoover]. Contrarily, there was evidence that
      [Tyler] herself was at fault for the delays.

Trial Court Opinion on Cross-Appeal, 8/19/22, at 6-7.

      The trial court misconstrues the law concerning delay damages and its

purpose. Under Rule 238, a plaintiff does not have to justify an award of delay

damages; the award is mandatory. See Pa.R.C.P. 238(a)(1). Further, the

trial court’s finding that Tyler’s calculation of the damages from July 16, 2020,

was “not a relevant date in this litigation,” is incorrect. Trial Court Opinion on

                                      -24-
J-A05037-23

Cross-Appeal, 8/19/22, at 6.    Rule 238 provides that delay damages start

accruing one year from the date of service of process. Pa.R.C.P. 238(a)(2).

Therefore, July 16, 2020, one year from the date of service of process, is the

correct date for calculating delay damages under Pa.R.C.P. 238(a)(2).

      Lastly, this Court has explained:

      Rule 238 seeks to encourage settlement and achieve a prompt
      disposition of cases so as to unclutter the [c]ourt[s’] dockets. The
      Rule also serves to compensate a plaintiff for the delay in
      receiving funds rightly due to him, but which remain in the
      defendant’s hands during the litigation process. … [I]n
      essence, Rule 238 delay damages are an extension of the
      compensatory damages necessary to make a plaintiff whole.

Grimm v. Universal Medical Ser., Inc., 156 A.3d 1282, 1289 (Pa. Super.

2017) (citations omitted, emphasis added).

      Our review discloses no support for the trial court’s finding that Tyler

“herself was a fault for the delays.”     Trial Court Opinion on Cross-Appeal,

8/19/22, at 7.

      While Hoover filed two motions to compel discovery against Tyler, those

motions were filed in 2019, prior to the period when delay damages began to

accrue. There is nothing of record demonstrating that the motions delayed

the start of trial. Rather, the record indicates that later discovery extensions

and trial delay were caused by issues with obtaining discovery from Advanced

Diagnostics. See Motion for Extraordinary Relief, 7/8/20 at 2 (unnumbered).

      As Tyler discusses in her brief, Hoover in 2020 filed two motions for

extraordinary relief requesting continuances. Tyler did not oppose the first

                                     -25-
J-A05037-23

motion but opposed the second motion. See Tyler’s Appellant Brief, at 15-

16; Motion for Extraordinary Relief, 3/2/20, at 2 (unnumbered); Motion for

Extraordinary Relief, 7/8/20 at 2 (unnumbered).

      Hoover served discovery requests on Tyler with less than 30 days

remaining in discovery and requested some of the relief in the first motion

prematurely. See Tyler’s Appellant Brief at 17-18; Case Management Order,

2/10/19, at 1 (unnumbered); Motion for Extraordinary Relief, 3/2/20, at 2

(unnumbered). The second motion sought a continuance based on Covid-19

limitations and the problems Hoover had in obtaining discovery from Advanced

Diagnostics.   Motion for Extraordinary Relief, 7/8/20 at 2 (unnumbered).

Thus, the trial court’s finding that Tyler bore some responsibility for these

delays is unsupported in the record.

      Nonetheless, the Comment to Rule 238 makes clear that discovery

delays caused by a plaintiff are not necessarily a basis for reducing, or in this

case, declining to award delay damages:

      With respect to delay of the trial, not every procedural delay is
      relevant to the issue of delay damages, but only such
      occurrences as actually cause delay of the trial.              For
      example, failure by the plaintiff to answer interrogatories within
      thirty days should not affect the award of damages for delay
      unless the trial was delayed as a result.         Otherwise, the
      introduction of the fault concept and its attendant hearing would
      create a large new field of court hearings revolving around
      evidence of dilatory compliance with discovery procedures, the
      evidence of which would consist almost entirely of the attorneys
      testifying against each other and could be years old before the
      hearing. It is felt that present Rule 4019 provides a vehicle,
      although little used at present, which can timely dispose of delay
      due to discovery noncompliance regardless of whether or not it

                                       -26-
J-A05037-23

      delays the trial. The note under proposed Rule 238(b)(2) is a
      reminder of this alternative remedy to halt delay damages and to
      expedite preparation of the case for trial.

Pa.R.C.P. 238, comment (emphasis added).

      Regarding delays caused by the Covid-19 judicial emergency, this Court

recently stated:

      Th[e Covid-19] issue requires us to interpret and apply the
      Supreme Court’s Order and [Pa.R.C.P.] 238. Thus, it presents us
      with a pure question of law. …

      Sitting en banc, this Court explained the drafters of Rule 238
      “specified two, and only two, periods of time to be excluded
      from the calculation of delay damages ….” King v. SEPTA,
      383 Pa. Super. 420, 557 A.2d 11, 12-13 (Pa. Super. 1989) (en
      banc). Those two excluded periods are “(1) any periods of time
      after which the defendant has made a written offer of settlement,
      the offer is continued in effect for at least ninety days or until the
      commencement of trial, whichever first occurs, the offer is
      rejected by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff does not recover more
      than 125 percent of the offer; and (2) any periods of time during
      which the plaintiff caused delay of the trial.” Id. (quoting Miller
      v. Wise Bus. Forms, Inc., 381 Pa. Super. 236, 553 A.2d 443,
      446 (Pa. Super. 1989)). Thus, we concluded that Rule 238 has
      “not allowed for the exclusion of periods of delay not caused by
      either party.” Id. at 13 (emphasis in original).

      ….

      COVID-19 and the judicial emergency it created did not diminish
      the rights of plaintiffs to be made whole, nor did they prohibit
      defendants from engaging in settlement negotiations or making
      reasonable offers to help alleviate court dockets. … [S]imply
      because the flow of cases had temporarily stopped, it does not
      follow that all legal practice had also ceased. [The defendant] was
      free at all times during the judicial emergency to increase its offer
      to induce the [plaintiffs] to settle and thereby avoid delay
      damages.

      … We do not read the March 18, 2020 Order of the Supreme
      Court as permitting tortfeasors to reap unjust windfalls from a

                                      -27-
J-A05037-23

      five[-]month delay that was clearly beyond the control of their
      victims. … [T]he [defendant] must compensate the [plaintiffs] for
      using their money during the judicial emergency to the fullest
      extent of Pa.R.C.P. 238.

Getting v. Mark Sales & Leasing, Inc., 274 A.3d 1251, 1261-62 (Pa. Super.

2022) (emphasis omitted and added).

      It is undisputed that Hoover did not make any written settlement offer.

See Trial Court Opinion on Cross-Appeal, 8/19/22, at 5; Tyler’s Appellant Brief

at 13-14; Hoover’s Brief on Cross-Appeal at 5-6 (recounting the procedural

history of the case without reference to any settlement negotiations or offers).

As discussed above, the record demonstrates Tyler did not request any

continuances and trial delays were caused by Hoover’s last-minute discovery

requests and problems with obtaining discovery from a third party, Advanced

Diagnostics.   Consistent with our decisions in Getting and Miller, delays

caused by third parties are not attributable to Tyler, and Tyler is entitled to

delay damages.      Getting, supra at 1261-62; Miller, supra at 446.

Therefore, we are constrained to reverse the order denying Tyler’s motion for

delay damages.

      In sum, we vacate the trial court’s judgment and remand for the trial

court to mold the verdict to include delay damages and interest.

      Judgment affirmed in part and vacated in part. Case remanded with

instructions. Jurisdiction relinquished.

                                      -28-
J-A05037-23

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 3/24/2023

                          -29-