.

Case Law Alerts

Superior Court Reverses New Trial, Finds Expert Testimony Objection Waived by Failure to Re-Raise at Trial

E. Wingate and R. Davis v. McGrath, 2879 EDA 2023, 2025 WL 1090887 (Pa. Super. Apr. 10, 2025)

July 1, 2025

by Brittany E. Bakshi

On appeal, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania reversed an order granting a new trial and remanded the case for entry of judgment in favor of the appellant because the appellee had waived his pre-trial motion to exclude to expert testimony. 

The appellant, Wingate, brought action against the appellee, McGrath, as a result of injuries suffered from a motor vehicle accident where the appellee’s vehicle struck a car occupied by Mr. Wingate and Ms. Davis. 

During discovery, the appellant offered two expert reports from a radiologist, which expressed that the spinal issues purported by Wingate and Davis were likely the result of disc degeneration and not the result of a single acute traumatic event, including the vehicular accident. The appellant filed a pre-trial motion in limine to exclude the doctor’s expert testimony. 

Three days before trial, the court ordered that the motion in limine would be decided at the time of trial. However, the appellant failed to re-raise the motion until after the doctor had testified and after the jury exited the courtroom. 

That court held that issues regarding the appellee’s expert’s testimony had been waived. The appellant filed a post-trial motion requesting a new trial, which was granted. The appellee then filed a timely notice of appeal from the order granting the appellant a new trial, arguing that the appellant had waved his objection to the radiology doctor’s expert testimony. 

Citing Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence, this court agreed with the appellee, holding that issues raised in an undecided pre-trial motion in limine must be re-raised at trial in order to be preserved. 


 

Case Law Alerts, 3rd Quarter, July 2025 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2025 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Affirms Dismissal of Legal Malpractice Counterclaim Against Martin Law Firm

In Martin v. Loury, 2026 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1617 (App. Div. July 15, 2026), Martin Law Firm represented Kirk Loury in an employment matter Mr. Loury filed against his former employer, Concord Equity Group Advisors LLC (“Concord”). The allegations included, among other things, that Loury was not fairly compensated for his employment with Concord. After a bench trial finding in Loury’s favor, the Appellate Division remanded this matter in February 2016 for a second trial. During the second trial, Concord CEO, Lee Argush, testified to lower compensation estimate than first trial. On remand, the second trial judge awarded Mr. Loury the same damages as the first judge, finding Mr. Argush not credible. After the findings during the second trial, Martin Law Firm filed an action against Mr. Loury to recover legal fees and costs of representing Mr. Loury in a second bench trial and Mr. Loury filed a counterclaim against Martin Law Firm for legal malpractice, alleging he should have received an even higher award in the second bench trial. In this allegation, Mr. Loury, through his expert, claimed that Martin Law Firm should have recalled Mr. Loury to the stand to rebut Mr. Argush’s testimony to allege an alternative theory of damages. Mr. Loury’s expert admitted that the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's theory and accepted Loury's damages theory. The trial court barred Mr. Loury’s expert and dismissed Loury's counterclaim with prejudice before convening the collection trial, and the jury ruled in Martin Law Firm’s favor. Mr. Loury appealed the trial court's pretrial rulings barring his liability expert from testifying in support of his legal malpractice counterclaim, denying his motion for summary judgment on that counterclaim, and denying his motion to amend his counterclaim by adding attorney Joseph A. Martin as a codefendant. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly excluded Loury’s expert testimony in the counterclaim against Martin Law Firm because the expert could not explain how calling Loury as a rebuttal witness would have increased damages when the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's testimony and accepted Loury's damages theory, making the expert’s causation opinion speculative. The Appellate Division also held that the trial court properly denied Mr. Loury's summary judgment motion on his malpractice counterclaim because reasonable minds could differ on whether Mr. Martin's alleged failures would have changed the second judge's damages award, given the judge already found Mr. Argush not credible, creating genuine factual disputes precluding summary judgment. Also, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly denied Loury's May 2023 motion to add Joseph Martin individually because the statute of limitations expired in February 2022, six years after the 2016 appellate remand when Mr. Loury incurred new legal costs, and relation back did not apply because Mr. Loury knew Mr. Martin's identity throughout and strategically chose to sue only Martin Law Firm in his 2019 counterclaim.