Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

MICHELE ZVOLENSKY v. DIXIE LEE KING V. LOIS J. RODMAN V. DIXIE LEE KING (06/16/82)

argued: June 16, 1982.

MICHELE ZVOLENSKY, APPELLANT,
v.
DIXIE LEE KING V. LOIS J. RODMAN V. DIXIE LEE KING



No. 1112 Pittsburgh, 1981, Appeal from the Judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Civil Division, at No. GD 79-6984

COUNSEL

Andrew M. Schifino, Pittsburgh, for appellant.

Mark Russell Hamilton, Pittsburgh, for appellee.

Brosky, Johnson and Montgomery, JJ.

Author: Brosky

[ 307 Pa. Super. Page 92]

This action was commenced by appellant, Michele Zvolensky, who seeks to recover damages for injuries she suffered in an automobile accident. Ms. Zvolensky was a passenger in an automobile operated by appellee Lois Rodman which was involved in an accident with a vehicle driven by appellee Dixie Lee King. Appellees sought and obtained compulsory non-suit on the grounds that appellant had failed to meet the $750 threshold amount which the No-Fault Motor Vehicle Act*fn1 imposes as a prerequisite to that recovery. We do not agree with the lower court's conclusion and therefore reverse.

Section 301 of the No-Fault Act provides in relevant part:

(a) Partial abolition. -- Tort liability is abolished with respect to any injury that takes place in this State in accordance with the provisions of this act if such injury arises out of the maintenance or use of a motor vehicle, except that:

(B) the reasonable value of reasonable and necessary medical and dental services, including prosthetic devices and necessary ambulance, hospital and professional nursing expenses incurred in the diagnosis, care and recovery of the victim, exclusive of diagnostic x-ray costs and rehabilitation costs in excess of one hundred dollars ($100) is in excess of seven hundred fifty dollars ($750). For purposes of this subclause, the reasonable

[ 307 Pa. Super. Page 93]

    value of hospital room and board shall be the amount determined by the Department of Health to be the average daily rate charged for a semi-private hospital room and board computed from such charges by all hospitals in the Commonwealth; or

The lower court found that appellant had failed to prove that she sustained medical services the value of which exceeded $750 and therefore granted appellees' motion for compulsory non-suit.

In Adams v. Euliano, 299 Pa. Super. 348, 349-50, 445 A.2d 788, 789 (1982), we cited PeAir v. Home Ass'n. of Enola Legion No. 751, 287 Pa. Super. 400, 403, 430 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.