Povrzenwich v. Ripepi

In Povrzenwich v. Ripepi, a medical malpractice suit, Plaintiff appealed the judgment entered in her favor. Plaintiff, the verdict winner below, contended that she was entitled to a new trial limited to damages because the trial court erroneously precluded the testimony of her expert life care planner, a nurse, as to Plaintiff’s future medical expenses. Additionally, Plaintiff alleged that the trial court erred in its computation of delay damages by excluding certain time periods from consideration. The Pennsylvania Superior Court agreed with Plaintiff’s arguments and reversed for a limited new trial as to future medical expenses as well as a reassessment of delay damages. The Court found that Plaintiff’s purported expert had sufficient specialized knowledge and experience to offer her expert opinions. The fact that she had little experience with kidney transplant patients did not disqualify her from using her skills and experience to analyze the costs associated with such a procedure and its aftermath. Furthermore, the Court vacated the award of delay damages because, in its analysis under Pa.R.C.P. 238, the trial court made no finding that Plaintiff required extensions because she had not proceeded diligently.

Ripepi