The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court because “the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a mistrial based on a single, unanswered question proposed to an expert witness.” Steltz sued Dr. Meyers and alleged the doctor was negligent in failing to diagnose and disclose the existence of a muscle tear, which Dr. Read diagnosed. At the trial, Dr. Meyers’ attorney asked one of Steltz’s experts if he knew that Steltz had found no experts to support Dr. Read’s diagnosis. Steltz objected, and the trial court sustained the objection but denied the motion for a mistrial. The jury returned a verdict for Dr. Meyers, and Steltz filed a post-trial motion asserting that the court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial. The trial court agreed and ordered a new trial. Dr. Meyers appealed, and the Superior Court affirmed. Dr. Meyers appealed again, and the Supreme Court reversed. The Court ruled that the trial court’s initial decision to deny Steltz’s motion for a mistrial was correct. And because this was the only basis the trial court specified as grounds for a new trial, the Court reversed. “The trial court cannot order a new trial in the absence of a mistake.”