Martin v. Soblotney

• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court
• Writing for the Court: Author: Shertz
• Citation: Martin v. Soblotney, 442 A.2d 700, 296 Pa.Super. 145 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1982)
• Decision Date: 05 February 1982
• Parties: LaVerne R. MARTIN and George Martin, her husband, Appellants, v. Larry SOBLOTNEY.

442 A.2d 700

296 Pa.Super. 145

LaVerne R. MARTIN and George Martin, her husband, Appellants, v. Larry SOBLOTNEY.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

February 5, 1982

Argued Feb. 11, 1981. [Copyrighted Material Omitted]

John F. Becker, Pittsburgh, for appellants.

S Asher Winikoff, Pittsburgh, for appellee.

Before BROSKY, DiSALLE and SHERTZ, JJ.

SHERTZ Judge:

Appellants George Martin (husband Appellant) and LaVerne R. Martin (wife Appellant) were injured in a two-car accident which occurred when the vehicle operated by Appellee crossed over Pennsylvania Route 51 onto Appellants' side of the road and struck the vehicle being operated by husband Appellant. Appellants thereupon brought this action under Section 301(a)(5) of the Pennsylvania No-Fault Motor Vehicle Insurance Act ^[1] (No-fault Act). Husband Appellant sought damages under Section 301(a)(5)(B) and wife Appellant although pleading a cause of action under Sections 301(a)(5)(B) and 301(a)(5) (D), ^[2] proceeded at trial solely under the latter section.

The trial judge, after directing a verdict for husband Appellant on liability, ^[3] submitted Special Interrogatories to the jury. Based upon the jury's responses ^[4] to the Interrogatories, the trial judge molded a verdict in favor of husband Appellant in the amount of $5000, and in favor of Appellee as to the claim of wife Appellant. Appellants' motions for new trial and judgment n.o.v. were denied and judgment was entered on the verdicts. This appeal followed.

Husband Appellant contends that the trial court erred in refusing to permit proof of the medical expenses incurred by husband Appellant. We agree and therefore reverse the lower court's order denying husband Appellant's motion for a new trial. ^[5] Wife Appellant contends that the trial judge erred in allowing improper cross-examination, in refusing to permit proof of the cost of medical services which had not been and would not be incurred, and in refusing to grant wife Appellant's motion for judgment n. o. v. We disagree and therefore affirm the lower court's order denying wife Appellant's motions for new trial and judgment n. o. v.

George Martin

The sole, and narrow, issue under consideration in husband Appellant's appeal is whether, in a tort action brought pursuant to Section 301(a)(5)(B) of the No-fault Act, evidence of the cost of medical services necessitated by injuries arising out of a motor vehicle accident and incurred as of the time of trial, is admissible. We point out that we are not here concerned with whether expenses for such services may be pleaded as damages, See Zagari v. Gralka, 264 Pa.Super.Ct. 239, 399 A.2d 755 (1979), nor whether they may be pleaded as evidentiary facts, See D'Antona v Hampton Grinding Wheel Co., Inc., 225 Pa.Super.Ct. 120, 310 A.2d 307 (1974).

In the case at bar, husband Appellant's pleading of medical expenses incurred, and to be incurred, ^[6] elicited no objection by Appellee. However, when, at trial, husband Appellant attempted to offer proof of the medical expenses he had incurred as of that time, Appellee's objection thereto was sustained by the trial court. R.R. at 104a-105a, 177a-178a. Husband Appellant argues that the learned trial judge erroneously relied on Zagari, supra, and in so doing committed reversible error.

The logical starting point, in attempting to reach a determination of the instant issue, is the Pennsylvania No-fault Act itself. Although some No-fault statutes specifically preclude proof of such expenses, ^[7] while others specifically allow such proof, ^[8] our No-fault Act does neither. We therefore are obliged, pursuant to the Statutory Construction Act of 1972, 1 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. § 1501 et seq. (Purdon Supp.1981), to apply the canons of statutory construction in order to determine whether the legislature intended to allow or to preclude such proof. ^[9]

a.

The extensive debates which preceded enactment of the No-fault Act have resulted in an explicit legislative history which makes it abundantly clear that the General Assembly intended to permit proof of medical expenses at trial. The original No-fault Bill, H.B.1973, as reported from the Committee on Consumer Protection on May 6, 1974, included, in section 505 thereof, a preclusion of pleadings provision which provided, in pertinent part:

"any person eligible for basic loss benefits is precluded from pleading or introducing into evidence in any tort action to recover damages from another person those damages for which benefits provided have been recovered."

H.B.1973, (Session of 1974), Printers No. 3068.

On June 4, 1974, Representative Scanlon introduced an amendment deleting, inter alia, the preclusion from pleadings provision of the bill. Excerpts from the ensuing debate ^[10] demonstrate, beyond peradventure, that the legislators were fully informed, and clearly understood, that the purpose of the amendment was, inter alia, to allow proof of medical expenses to be offered and admitted into evidence at trial. The ultimate passage of the amendment, ^[11] and the subsequent enactment of the No-fault Act, devoid of a preclusion of pleadings provision, transformed the purpose of the amendment into a clear expression of legislative intent, an intent which we are obliged to effectuate.

b.

Proper statutory construction also requires that we give effect to all provisions of a statute. In doing so, we find Section 102(a)(6)(B) of the Act ^[12] instructive when read together with Section 301(a)(5). Section 102(a) (6)(B) "finds and declares" that only very seriously injured victims need become involved in a proceeding intended to determine fault (in order to recover damages for non-economic detriment). In implementation thereof, Section 301(a), inter alia, was enacted, whereby tort liability (and its concomitant requirement of determining fault) is abolished except under certain prescribed circumstances. The circumstances pertinent hereto are set forth in Section 301(a)(5), each of which, given the finding and declaration noted above, is intended to define or to describe a "victim (who) is very seriously injured". Since the exception set forth in Section 301(a)(5)(B) is defined solely in terms of "the reasonable value of reasonable and necessary medical and dental services", it constitutes an express legislative determination that the value of such services is probative of the severity of injuries. Consequently, inasmuch as the fact finder in a tort action brought under Section 301(a)(5)(B) must evaluate the severity of the plaintiff's injuries in calculating the amount of damages for non-economic detriment, proof of the value of medical services incurred, bring probative thereof, is relevant and admissible.

c.

The Statutory Construction Act, in Section 1921(c), indicates that the intention of the General Assembly may be ascertained by considering the items enumerated therein "among other matters". In giving heed to this injunction, we have identified several other matters which we deem to be pertinent and instructive. They consist of questions involving jurisdiction, relevance and the development of an adequate record for appellate review. Careful consideration of each of these factors confirms the correctness of our conclusion regarding the admissibility of the value of medical services.

An insurmountable jurisdictional problem would be created if we were to adopt Appellee's view that the reasonable value of medical services may not be proven at trial. As previously noted, in order for a party to meet the threshold requirement of Section 301(a)(5)(B), he must establish that "the reasonable value of reasonable and necessary medical ... services ... is in excess of seven hundred fifty dollars ...." Absent such a showing, a court is unable to ascertain whether the party's action, grounded in tort liability, falls within or without the class of actions saved by Section 301. That is to say, absent such a showing a court is unable to determine whether it has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action.

It is well established in Pennsylvania that where a tribunal lacks authority to hear a particular type of case, the parties may not supply such authority. Subject matter jurisdiction may not be founded upon waiver, estoppel or agreement of the parties. Department of Public Welfare v. UEC, Inc., 483 Pa. 503, 397 A.2d 779 (1979); Appeal of Kramer, 445 Pa. 238, 282 A.2d 386 (1971); Sarsfield v. Sarsfield, 251 Pa.Super.Ct. 516, 380 A.2d 889 (1977); Gordon v. Pulakos, 48 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 442, 410 A.2d 899 (1980). How then, short of actual proof at time of trial, can the court conclude that it has subject matter jurisdiction? The short answer is that it cannot; ^[13] both logic and law require that such proof be presented to the jury for its consideration.

In a jury trial, the proper role of the jury includes resolution of issues of fact. DeFulvio v. Holst, 272 Pa.Super.Ct. 221, 414 A.2d 1087 (1979); it is for the jury to decide the reasonableness of charges for medical and hospital services. See Yost v. City of Philadelphia, 174 Pa.Super.Ct. 555, 102 A.2d 210 (1954). Therefore, it is the jury alone which must hear the evidence and, based thereon, decide whether all, or any, of the medical services obtained were "reasonable and necessary". Similarly, it is for the jury alone to determine whether the value of such services was "reasonable". Inasmuch as it is within the province of the jury to reject the reasonableness and/or necessity of any or all such services, or the reasonable value thereof, it is clear that a party must be permitted to offer proof of the value of all medical services obtained, as well as the need for, and nature of, those services.

Moving on to the questions of relevance and the development...