Kravinsky v. Glover

¶1dissenting.

¶2I must conclude that the testimony of Dr. L. Michael Ascher was not sufficient to establish causation, Hamil v. Bashline, 481 Pa. 256, 392 A.2d 1280 (1978). Accepting the guidelines of Hamil, supra,it is not enough to note that the word “significant” as used by Dr. Ascher and the word “substantial” as approved in Hamilmean important. (See fn. 12, p. 1357 majority opn.) in common usage. To adopt such reasoning is to further dilute the test required to establish causation. This I refuse to do.

¶3Webster’s Dictionary indeed does couple “important” in both definitions. However, substantial is of or having sub*27stance, real, actual, true, not imaginary, strong, solid, firm and when “important” is used it is immediately followed by “essential.” On the other hand, significant is having or expressing a meaning and when “important” is used it is followed by “weighty” and “notable.”

¶4When Dr. Ascher used the word “significant” I do not accept that word as denoting a professional judgment of reasonable certainty.

¶5I further dissent as to the factor of the improperly admitted medical bills. It is agreed that this is not a claim of an excessive verdict, but it is a challenge to the evidence supporting the verdict. Viewed as such, all agree that the bills of Gershman, Abraham and the American Institute of Hypnotherapy1 were improperly admitted (Majority opn. p. 1357). It is entirely speculation and guesswork to formulate an opinion on the part these improperly admitted bills played in reaching the verdict figure. Were this verdict reached solely on properly admitted specials I would have no difficulty in agreeing that it should not be disturbed. Because it was not I would not allow it to stand.

¶6For both of these reasons I would vacate the entry of judgment and grant a new trial.