# Zitelli v. Dermatology Education & Research Foundation

> Superior Court of Pennsylvania · January 13, 1992 · 409 Pa. Super. 219

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9647950

## Case

- **Full name:** John A. ZITELLI, M.D., v. DERMATOLOGY EDUCATION AND RESEARCH FOUNDATION a Nonprofit Corporation, and the University of Pittsburgh, a NonProfit Corporation, Appellant; John A. ZITELLI, M.D. v. DERMATOLOGY EDUCATION AND RESEARCH FOUNDATION a Nonprofit Corporation and the University of Pittsburgh a Nonprofit Corporation. Appeal of DERMATOLOGY EDUCATION AND RESEARCH FOUNDATION a Nonprofit Corporation
- **Court:** Superior Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** January 13, 1992
- **Citations:** 409 Pa. Super. 219; 597 A.2d 1173
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Montgomery
- **Judges:** Tamilia, Popovich, Montgomery
- **Cited by:** 5 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9647950

## Opinion text

MONTGOMERY, Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. I strongly disagree with the factual determinations, the legal conclusions and the decision of the majority in this case.
In my view, the majority has improperly substituted its own factual judgments for those reached by the chancellor, despite the fact that the chancellor’s findings were well-supported by adequate evidence. It is clear that the findings of a chancellor are controlling, and the trial court’s decree should not be reversed on appeal, unless it appears either that the court abused its discretion or that its findings lack evidentiary support, or if it is evident that the chancellor capriciously disbelieved the evidence. Davis v. Buckham, 280 Pa.Super. 106 , 421 A.2d 427 (1980). A detailed review of the record mandates the conclusion that the chancellor had more than sufficient evidence to support his factual findings.
Moreover, the chancellor’s conclusions of law were clearly correct and provide no basis for reversal. I disagree with the legal conclusions reached by the majority to support its order, and in particular, cannot join in the majority’s “Public Policy Considerations” discussion and analysis.
I would affirm the trial court’s decree.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9647950. Public record. Not legal advice.