# Trach v. Fellin

> Superior Court of Pennsylvania · February 11, 2003 · 2003 Pa. Super. 53

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9692043

## Case

- **Full name:** Allen TRACH, Appellant v. J. FELLIN and Thrift Drug/Eckerd Store, Thrift Drug, Inc. and Eckerd Drug Co.; Allen Trach v. Thrift Drug, Inc. (J. Fellin, Thrift Drug/Eckerd Drug Store, and Eckerd Drug Co.), Appellants
- **Court:** Superior Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** February 11, 2003
- **Citations:** 2003 Pa. Super. 53; 817 A.2d 1102; 2003 Pa. Super. LEXIS 180
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Sole
- **Judges:** Sole, Elliott, Joyce, Stevens, Musmanno, Melvin, Lally-Green, Klein, Bender
- **Cited by:** 88 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/9692043

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- recognizing that Superior Court, as error-correcting court, may not purport to reverse an order where only basis for finding error is claim responsible party never gave trial court opportunity to consider
- recognizing that while we are not bound by the decisions of other jurisdictions, we may "use them for guidance to the degree we find them useful and not incompatible with Pennsylvania law”
- affirming admission of medical testimony as to causation where expert reviewed patient’s medical records and medical literature and extrapolated from the documented adverse effects of Doxepin in recommended doses, which effects were derived from clinical trials and clinical ex…
- recognizing that we are not bound by federal cases but may use them for guidance to the degree we find them useful and not incompatible with Pennsylvania law
- concluding that Frye test to determine admissibility of expert testimony only applies when a party seeks to introduce novel scientific evidence

## Opinion text

DEL SOLE, P.J.,
concurring.
¶ 1 I join the opinion of my colleague, Judge Ford Elliott but write separately to address a point raised in the dissenting opinion of Judge Klein.
¶ 2 I do not view the majority opinion as “takfing] the position that by failing to challenge Dr. Shane’s claim that the literature supported his theories during trial, the defense has conceded that the literature does in fact exist and supports Dr. Shane’s opinion.” Slip Op. at 1106 (Klein, J. dissenting). Rather, once Dr. Shane testified that the literature supported his opinion, he could have been cross-examined regarding the literature. While the defense may have made a tactical decision to forgo that cross-examination, as the dissent surmises, it should not now be granted a second opportunity to do so.
¶ 3 The defense did have an opportunity to explore the literature to challenge the basis of Dr. Shane’s opinion; it chose not to do so.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9692043. Public record. Not legal advice.