Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Litt v. Rolling Hill Hospital
Citations: 437 A.2d 1008; 293 Pa. Super. 97; 1981 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3985Docket: 715
Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania; November 30, 1981; Pennsylvania; State Appellate Court
Michael Litt and Howard Snitow, co-executors of Arlene Litt's estate, filed a suit against Rolling Hill Hospital and Dr. M.H. Alexander, resulting in jury verdicts totaling $2,050,000. The trial court permitted the plaintiffs to amend their complaint to include R.H. Medical Services, Inc. as a defendant, which the Hospital contested based on the statute of limitations. Following the jury verdict, the Hospital filed post-trial motions, while Services did not file any, leading to the plaintiffs seeking judgment against Services. The Hospital's appeal was filed while its post-trial motions remained unresolved. The appellate court quashed the appeal, ruling it was premature because the lower court had not yet decided on the Hospital's motions. The court emphasized that an appeal taken before the disposition of post-trial motions is improper and reiterated that both the Rules of Appellate Procedure and Civil Procedure require such motions to be resolved prior to an appeal. The case was remanded for the lower court to address the Hospital's pending motions. Judge Price did not participate in this decision. In Bergen v. Lit Brothers, the court established that when a corporate defendant requests a new trial, the lower court can independently grant a new trial to individual defendants who did not submit post-trial motions. This principle is supported by case law, including Ferruzza v. Pittsburgh, Sames v. Wehr, Lorenz v. Caste Development Co., Thomas v. DeSabato, and Steckel v. Strickland. Rule 1701(c) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure is noted to be irrelevant to the current appeal; it stipulates that an appeal concerning a specific item or claim does not inhibit the lower court's ability to proceed with other matters unless specified. This rule aims to ensure that an appeal does not disrupt unrelated disputes among different parties or issues. Relevant cases such as Commonwealth v. Baldwin and Commonwealth v. Mazzocone illustrate that certain issues can remain separable during appeal processes. However, the current record does not clarify whether the appeal involves distinct parties and issues separate from those in the Hospital's post-trial motions.