Slowey, M. v. Coleman, S.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Slowey, M. v. Coleman, S.

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJune 16, 2026

Docket2302 EDA 2024

StatusUnpublished

AuthorKing

This text of Slowey, M. v. Coleman, S. (Slowey, M. v. Coleman, S.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Slowey, M. v. Coleman, S., (Pa. Ct. App. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

J-S05029-26

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

MICHAEL SLOWEY : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellant : : : v. : : : SEAN COLEMAN : No. 2302 EDA 2024

Appeal from the Judgment Entered August 8, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at No(s): 220401174

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J.E., KING, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E. *

MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.: FILED JUNE 16, 2026

Appellant, Michael Slowey, appeals from the judgment entered in the

Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, in his favor and against Appellee,

Sean Coleman. We affirm.

The relevant facts and procedural history of this matter are as follows.

On June 9, 2020, the parties were involved in a motor vehicle accident in

Philadelphia. Appellant was stopped in his car at a red light when Appellee

rear-ended him. Thereafter, Appellant filed a complaint sounding in

negligence, asserting that Appellant had suffered injuries as a result of the

accident, including sprains and strains of the spine and disc bulging. Appellant

requested compensatory damages.

On August 25, 2022, the court issued a case management order, which

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-S05029-26

stated that all discovery in the matter must be completed no later than July

2, 2023. On June 16, 2023, the court issued a revised case management

order stating that all discovery must be completed no later than October 2,

2023, and that expert reports must be submitted no later than October 2,

2023.

On August 10, 2023, Appellee filed a motion for sanctions, requesting

that the court order 11th Street Family Health, Appellant’s treating physician,

to produce any and all billing and radiology records related to the motor

vehicle accident at issue. Appellee averred that Appellant’s provider had not

responded to subpoena requests. On August 29, 2023, the court ordered 11 th

Street Family Health to produce the requested records.

On September 21, 2023, Appellant filed a motion for extraordinary

relief, requesting a 90-day extension of discovery deadlines and asserting that

he still needed to complete various treatment courses and obtain various

medical records generated by his chiropractor, as well as additional time to

secure expert reports. On September 25, 2023, the court denied Appellant’s

motion for extraordinary relief. Ultimately, the case was listed for the

February trial pool.

In January 2024, in anticipation of trial, the parties filed numerous

motions in limine.1 On January 29, 2024, Appellee filed a motion seeking to

preclude Appellant from introducing any evidence and expert reports produced

1 We discuss only the motions relevant to the instant appeal.

-2- J-S05029-26

after the discovery deadline. In Appellee’s motion, he noted that Appellant

had not filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s denial of his motion

for extraordinary relief. Appellee also noted that Appellant had attempted to

produce an addendum report from his treating physician, as well as

correspondence from an orthopedic and spine doctor indicating that Appellant

would be undergoing additional injection treatment in January 2024. Appellee

argued that Appellant had not produced any evidence of treatment, or any

expert reports, and averred that he would be prejudiced if Appellant was able

to introduce such evidence at trial. Appellant filed a response in opposition,

arguing that the probative value of such evidence outweighed any unfair

prejudice to Appellee.

On January 30, 2024, Appellant filed a motion in limine seeking to

preclude evidence of his history of drug and alcohol use. Appellant argued

that nothing in Appellee’s expert report suggested that he was under the

influence at the time of the accident, and that such evidence would be

prejudicial. Additionally, Appellant argued that Appellee’s expert report, which

suggested that Appellant’s prior drug and alcohol use could have caused

neuropathy along the dorsum of Appellant’s feet, was prejudicial because

Appellant was not claiming that neuropathy was an injury sustained as a result

of the accident.

On March 25, 2024, Appellee filed a further reply in support of his motion

seeking to preclude Appellant from introducing evidence and reports produced

after the discovery deadline, as well as any evidence of excess medical bills.

-3- J-S05029-26

Appellee averred that Appellant had produced an additional addendum report

from his expert on March 14, 2024. Further, Appellee argued that the report

attempted to essentially “back door” the opinions and diagnoses of other

experts beyond the discovery deadline and in violation of the Rules of Evidence

regarding expert reports. Appellee argued that the admission of such reports

would cause him undue prejudice. Finally, Appellee averred that Appellant

had produced a claim summary on behalf of the Department of Human

Services, for $772.36 of treatment that was not related to the accident, as

well as an additional $35.00 charge for services rendered by Penn Medicine

that was not related to the accident. Appellee sought to preclude this evidence

at trial.

On March 26, 2024, the matter proceeded to a jury trial. Prior to trial,

the court considered oral argument on the various motions in limine filed by

the parties. First, the court granted Appellee’s motion to preclude Appellant

from introducing evidence of an unpaid $25,000.00 medical bill for injection

therapy because it had been submitted on the eve of trial, far past the

discovery deadline. (See N.T. Trial, 3/26/24, at 15-24). In denying the

motion, the court noted “that’s too far out of time.” (See id. at 24). Second,

the court denied Appellant’s motion to preclude evidence of his drug and

alcohol use. (Id. at 36-46). The court noted that there was evidence in the

record where Appellant had discussed nerve pain or numbness, and the

defense expert was allowed to opine that Appellant’s own admissions of drug

use could have caused such numbness. (Id. at 45-46). Ultimately, the court

-4- J-S05029-26

concluded that whether drug use had caused some of Appellant’s medical

complaints was a question for the jury to decide. (Id. at 46).

On April 5, 2024, following trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of

Appellant. The jury awarded Appellant $1,511.33 for past medical expenses

and past pain and suffering, and $0 for future pain and suffering and future

medical expenses. That same day, Appellant filed a post-trial motion

requesting a new trial, arguing that the court had erred by 1) allowing the

introduction of evidence of Appellant’s drug and alcohol use; 2) precluding

Appellant from introducing evidence of his outstanding medical bills; and 3)

denying Appellant’s motion for a mistrial after closing arguments, where

Appellee had stated that a medical record reported Appellant’s attorney had

suggested Appellant undergo injection therapy, inferring to the jury that the

treatment course was not reasonable or necessary. Appellee filed a response

in opposition, arguing that the jury’s award was not against the weight of the

evidence and the court had appropriately admitted the disputed evidence.

On April 17, 2024, the court granted Appellant’s post-trial motion in part

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI