Washington v. Klieforth
admin / 06.Oct, 2010
In Washington v. Klieforth, Phila. Ct. Comm. Pl., No. 10-3190 (September 15, 2010) (Massiah-Jackson, J.), the defendant sought a new trial, objecting to the order of presentation of evidence at trial. Specifically, the videotape trial testimony of certain defense medical witnesses was taken weeks prior to the taping of plaintiff’s treating physician. However, the Court noted that it was not error for counsel to elicit and anticipate rebuttal testimony from plaintiff’s treating physician. Additionally, the Court noted that Rule 611(a) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence provided the trial court discretion to exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of the presentation of witnesses and evidence. The Court further held that there was no prejudice arising from the introduction of medical records that were submitted beyond the discovery deadline, but five months before trial and prior to the videotape depositions. Accordingly, the Court denied the defendant’s motion for a new trial.