Wage-Loss Claim Preclusion of Expert Testimony Crimen Falsi Evidence
Crespo v. Hughes, PICS Case No. 17-1227 (Pa. Super. July 18, 2017) Ransom, J. (35 pages).
Trial court erred in precluding plaintiff's conviction for receipt of stolen property, where crimen falsi evidence was per se admissible, and where evidence of the conviction was relevant to plaintiff's wage-loss claim. Judgment reversed in part and affirmed in part, case remanded for new trial on damages.
Dr. William Hughes, Hughes & Hensell Associates, P.C., and Temple University Hospital, Inc., appealed from the judgment entered in favor of appellees Antonio Crespo and Edward Torralvo in their medical malpractice action filed against appellants. Appellees went to the Temple University Hospital emergency room after experiencing complications due to skin exposure on their hands to hydrofluoric acid solution. Dr. Hughes, the attending burn specialist, created a treatment plan for appellees, which included injections of lidocaine for pain management and calcium gluconate to counteract the hydrofluoric acid. However, Crespo's hand became discolored and started bleeding from the injections; Torralvo terminated treatment after seeing the effects on Crespo's hand. Crespo ultimately required partial amputation of some of his fingers, while Torralvo required surgery to remove necrotic tissue.
At trial, appellees' expert testified that while calcium gluconate was the standard treatment, injection of the solution, rather than using a topical gel, was outside the standard of care in appellees' case due to the risk of increased pressure cutting off blood flow. Further testimony revealed that Crespo lost the ability to play guitar, from which he derived significant income as a musician. The jury ultimately determined that Crespo lost future earnings in the amount of $2.262 million, with the remainder of its verdict awarded to Crespo for pain, suffering, disfiguration, and future medical care, and to Torralvo for pain, suffering, and disfiguration.
On appeal, appellants challenged the denial of their pretrial motion to preclude Crespo's wage loss claim, and the grant of Crespo's pretrial motion to preclude evidence of his marijuana use and child support orders. Appellants further challenged various orders relating to expert testimony. In sum, appellant contended that the verdict was so excessive that a new trial was warranted.
In their motion to preclude Crespo's wage-loss claim, appellants had argued there was no documentary evidence support Crespo's claim that he worked as a musician in the years prior to his injury, as he never filed tax returns reporting such income. The trial court denied the motion, ruling that appellants could use Crespo's lack of income reporting to defend against the claim. The court held that Crespo presented sufficient evidence that his ability to work as a musician had been shortened due to his injury to permit the wage-loss claim to go forward.