filed: August 31, 1979.
MINNIE SAKS AND EDWARD SAKS, HER HUSBAND, APPELLANTS,
JEANES HOSPITAL. MINNIE SAKS AND EDWARD SAKS, HER HUSBAND, APPELLANTS, V. WILLIAM Y. INOUYE, M.D., VERERANDO G. JAURIGUE, M.D., RICHARD H. DRISCOLL, M.D. MINNIE SAKS AND EDWARD SAKS, HER HUSBAND, APPELLANTS, V. WIN HTIN CHU, M.D.
No. 2048 October Term 1978, No. 2049 October Term 1978, No. 2050 October Term 1978, Appeals from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Phila. County, Civil Trial Division at Nos. 627 July Term 1975, 3824 Dec. Term, 1975 and 334 March Term, 1976.
Albert S. Fein, Philadelphia, for appellants.
Thomas E. Byrne, Philadelphia, for appellee Jeanes Hospital.
Price, Spaeth and Lipez, JJ.
Author: Per Curiam
[ 268 Pa. Super. Page 579]
Since this case arose before the effective date of Pa.R.Civ.P., No. 4019(i), it was within the discretion of the trial judge to permit the expert witness to testify despite the fact that appellee had not included the witness's name in its answer to an interrogatory propounded by appellants. See Nissley v. Pennsylvania R.R. Co., 435 Pa. 503, 259 A.2d 451 (1969); Moore v. Howard P. Foley Co., 235 Pa. Super. 310,
[ 268 Pa. Super. Page 580340]
A.2d 519 (1975); see also Gill v. McGraw Electric Co., 264 Pa. Super. 368, 399 A.2d 1094 (1979). The trial judge did not abuse his discretion in allowing the witness to testify. Appellee's failure was not willful; appellants were informed before trial that the witness would be called; and the trial judge's offer of a one day continuance so that the qualifications of the witness could be investigated was refused by appellants' counsel.
© 1998 VersusLaw Inc.