NO. 242 Philadelphia 1982, Appeal from the Judgment entered of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Civil, at No. 80-11172
Roger S. Spalding, Philadelphia, for appellant.
A. Arthur Hanamirian, Philadelphia, for appellee.
Cercone, President Judge, and Johnson and Montemuro, JJ.
[ 326 Pa. Super. Page 340]
This is an appeal from the judgment entered on the order of Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, per the Honorable Mason Avrigan, denying appellant's motion for new trial and motion in arrest of judgment. We find that the trial court erroneously applied the law and therefore grant a new trial.
The appellant herein instituted a medical malpractice action on August 3, 1978, by filing a complaint in Trespass with the Administrator of the Arbitration Panels for Health Care in accordance with the Pennsylvania Health Care Services Malpractice Act*fn1 (hereinafter "Act").
In May of 1980, a hearing was conducted before a three member arbitration panel as required by Section 402 of the Act. 40 P.S. § 1301.402. The arbitrators decided unanimously to award the appellant $140,000.00. Thereafter, the appellee, Dr. Manrico Troncelliti, took an appeal de novo to
[ 326 Pa. Super. Page 341]
the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County in accordance with Section 509 of the Act. 40 P.S. § 1301.509.*fn2
On September 15, 1980, the case was called to trial, but after jury selection, appellee's counsel became ill and a mistrial was declared. On September 22, 1980, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided Mattos v. Thompson, 491 Pa. 385, 421 A.2d 190 (1980), in which Section 309 of the Act, 40 P.S. § 1301.309,*fn3 was found to be unconstitutional.
The instant case proceeded to trial on September 29, 1980, before a judge and jury. At the close of the case in chief, appellant made a motion to read into the record the findings of fact and the decision of the arbitrators as provided by Section 510 of the Act, 40 P.S. § 1301.510.*fn4 The appellee objected to the introduction of such evidence on the basis of Mattos and the trial court sustained the objection. At the close of the trial, a verdict was returned in favor of the appellee. The appellant's post-verdict motions were denied and this appeal followed.
Appellant raises only one question for our consideration. Did the trial court err in refusing to permit the appellant to introduce the decision and findings of fact of the arbitrators at the de ...