Court Opinion

ID: 9753341
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 19:08:35.239933+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:42:10.398468
License: Public Domain

WIEAND, Judge,
dissenting:
The issue in this appeal is whether one who has been a licensed mortician for 27 years and a county coroner for 15 years is competent to express an opinion regarding the time of death of an accident victim. The trial court disallowed such testimony, holding that only a physician can express an opinion as to the time of death. A majority of this court agrees. *389Because I would hold the trial court’s evidentiary ruling to be erroneous, I respectfully dissent.
In Pennsylvania “[t]he standard of qualification [as an expert] is a liberal one: ‘If a witness has any reasonable pretension to specialized knowledge on the subject under investigation he may testify, and the weight to be given to his [testimony] is for the jury.’ ” Kuisis v. Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton Corp., 457 Pa. 321, 338, 319 A.2d 914, 924 (1974), quoting Moodie v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 367 Pa. 493, 501, 80 A.2d 734, 738-739 (1951). See also: Commonwealth v. Gonzalez, 519 Pa. 116, 128, 546 A.2d 26, 31 (1988); Lira v. Albert Einstein Med. Center, 384 Pa.Super. 503, 509, 559 A.2d 550, 552 (1989), allocatur denied, 527 Pa. 635, 592 A.2d 1302 (1990); McDaniel v. Merck, Sharp & Dohme, 367 Pa.Super. 600, 608, 533 A.2d 436, 440 (1986), allocatur denied, 520 Pa. 589, 551 A.2d 215 (1988); Gottfried v. American Can Co., 339 Pa.Super. 403, 411, 489 A.2d 222, 226 (1985); Packel & Poulin, Pennsylvania Evidence § 702.3. Although a witness must have some specialized knowledge of the subject about which he testifies, he need not have gained his knowledge from formal schooling. McDaniel v. Merck, Sharp & Dohme, supra at 608, 533 A.2d at 440; Commonwealth v. Ellis, 354 Pa.Super. 11, 19, 510 A.2d 1253, 1257 (1986); Gottfried v. American Can Co., supra at 403, 489 A.2d at 226; Packel & Poulin, Pennsylvania Evidence § 702.3. “‘An expert may be qualified in several different ways. An expert may acquire his knowledge through occupational, practical or other experimental training. He is not required to acquire his expertise through academic training.’ ” Commonwealth v. Bulling, 331 Pa.Super. 84, 106, 480 A.2d 254, 265 (1984) (emphasis omitted), quoting Commonwealth v. Daniels, 280 Pa.Super. 278, 287, 421 A.2d 721, 726 (1980). “[Expertise acquired by experience is expertise nonetheless.” Gottfried v. American Can Co., supra at 411, 489 A.2d at 226. See also: McDaniel v. Merck, Sharp & Dohme, supra at 608, 533 A.2d at 440.
In Commonwealth v. Lewis, 472 Pa. 235, 372 A.2d 399 (1977) and Commonwealth v. Johnson, 265 Pa. 491, 109 A. 218 (1920), testimony regarding time of death was received from a *390coroner, but in both instances the coroners were also physicians. Although my research has disclosed no Pennsylvania decision in which a coroner, who was not also a physician, has testified to the time or cause of a decedent’s death, other jurisdictions have allowed such testimony. See: Hunter v. State, 338 So.2d 513, 514 (Ala.Cr.App.1976); Hoback v. State, 338 So.2d 439, 443 (Ala.Cr.App.1976), appeal denied, 338 So.2d 444 (Ala.1976); Engberg v. Ford Motor Co., 87 S.D. 196, 205 N.W.2d 104, 108 (1973).
Moreover, in Simmons v. Mullen, 231 Pa.Super. 199, 331 A.2d 892 (1974), the Superior Court held that non-medical personnel, who are otherwise qualified to testify within a specialized area of medicine, are not to be excluded merely because they are not physicians. In that case a psychologist, who was not a medical practitioner, was permitted to give opinion testimony regarding organic brain disturbances. Similarly, in Commonwealth v. Bulling, supra, a police officer, who had no formal education in the field of chemistry or medicine, was held to be qualified as an expert in identifying drugs and other controlled substances because he had had several years of experience working in a laboratory and had performed numerous tests on controlled substances. In Commonwealth v. Gonzalez, supra, a police officer was permitted to give an opinion on the absorption rate of alcohol into the bloodstream, despite his lack of a medical background, where he had acquired knowledge on that subject from years of experience.
In the instant case, I would hold that plaintiffs witness was qualified by experience to express an opinion as to the time of the decedent’s death. The witness’s duties as coroner had included investigations of numerous deaths and had required that he determine both the times and the causes of deaths for more than fifteen years. This practical experience, in my judgment, was sufficient to qualify him to render an opinion as to the time of death of plaintiffs decedent.
I would also hold that it was an abuse of discretion to exclude the coroner’s testimony on grounds that the witness had not been identified as an expert witness in answers to *391interrogatories. The witness, in fact, had been identified as a fact witness in answers to other interrogatories, and defendants’ counsel was fully aware that plaintiff intended to call the coroner to testify to the circumstances surrounding the death of the decedent.
A technical failure to comply with Pa.R.C.P. 4003.5 may be excused where there has been substantial compliance with the rule, where there has been no bad faith, and where there has been no prejudice to the defendant. Oelschlegel v. Mut. Real Estate Investment Trust, 429 Pa.Super. 594, 597-98, 633 A.2d 181, 183 (1993). See also: Dion v. Graduate Hosp. of the Univ. of Pa., 360 Pa.Super. 416, 428-429, 520 A.2d 876, 882-883 (1987). Where the witness is critical to the plaintiffs case and the defendant has not suffered prejudice, exclusion of an expert’s testimony for a technical failure to comply with a pretrial discovery rule, it has been held, constitutes an abuse of the trial court’s discretion. Linker v. Churnetski Transp., Inc., 360 Pa.Super. 366, 373-374, 520 A.2d 502, 505, allocatur denied, 516 Pa. 641, 533 A.2d 713 (1987).
In the instant case, plaintiffs ability to prove a causal connection between his decedent’s death and the alleged negligence of defendants was impaired by his inability to establish the time of his decedent’s death. Defendants were aware that plaintiff intended to call the coroner as a witness to establish the circumstances of the decedent’s death; and, therefore, there was no danger of surprise or unfair prejudice by allowing the coroner to testify.
Under all of these circumstances, therefore, I would hold that it was prejudicial error to disallow the coroner’s testimony. I would reverse and remand for a new trial.