HomeMy WebLinkAbout94-4495 CIVILKEITH GEMBUSIA,
Individually and JOSEPH
T. GEMBUSIA and
NANCY J. GEMBUSIA,
Individually,
Plaintiffs
MORTON RUBIN, M. D.,
ORTHOPEDIC
SURGEONS, LTD.,
And PHYSICIANS OF
REHABILITATION
MEDICINE, P. C.,
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 94-4495 CIVIL TERM
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO PA. R.A.P. 1925
Guido, J., March ,2002
Plaintiffs filed this medical malpractice action in September, 1994. Defendants
filed a motion in limine seeking to preclude the testimony of an expert witness who
plaintiffs had identified only a few days before trial. A hearing on the motion was
conducted immediately prior to the scheduled start of jury selection on Monday, January
28, 2002. After hearing the facts and argument thereon, we granted the motion.
Plaintiffs' counsel then advised us that he could not establish medical malpractice
without his expert's testimony. Therefore, we granted defendants' oral motion for
summary judgment. ~
~ See Motion in Limine Proceedings, pp. 22 - 23. In light of our refusal to allow his expert to testify,
plaintiffs' counsel did not oppose the motion. However, he expressly reserved the right to challenge our
ruling which granted the motion in limine.
NO. 94-4495 CIVIL TERM
The parties stipulated to the facts.2 We applied the criteria set forth in Feingold v.
Septa, 512 Pa. 567, 517 A.2d 1270 (1986) and Wolloch v. Aiken, 756 A.2d 5 (Pa. Super.
2000). Applying the law to the facts, we felt that the only appropriate remedy was to
grant the motion and to preclude plaintiffs' newly found expert from testifying.3
DATE:
Edward E. Guido, J.
Charles G. Young, III, Esquire
For the Plaimiffs
Craig A. Stone, Esquire
For the Defendams
:sld
2 See Motion in Limine Proceedings, pp. 2-12.
3 Our analysis of the issues appears on the record. See Motion in Limine Proceedings, pp. 13-21.