# Grady v. Frito-Lay, Inc.

> Superior Court of Pennsylvania · December 31, 2001 · 2001 Pa. Super. 382

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9719109

## Case

- **Full name:** Carl R. GRADY and Diana Grady, His Wife, Appellants v. FRITO-LAY, INC., a Foreign Corporation, Appellee
- **Court:** Superior Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** December 31, 2001
- **Citations:** 2001 Pa. Super. 382; 789 A.2d 735; 2001 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3537
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Joyce
- **Judges:** Sole, McEwen, Johnson, Elliott, Eakin, Joyce, Stevens, Musmanno, Melvin
- **Cited by:** 4 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/9719109

## Opinion text

JOYCE, J.,
Concurring and Dissenting.
¶ 1 The majority opinion written by President Judge Emeritus McEwen and the dissenting opinion of Judge Eakin both offer compelling reasons for their respective conclusions. I am however, constrained to write separately.
¶ 2 Initially, I unreservedly join that part of Judge Eakiris dissent that would affirm the disallowance of Dr. Charles Be-roes’ testimony. The trial court correctly granted Appellee’s motion in limine with respect to Dr. Beroes.
¶ 3 Nevertheless, I join that part of the majority that would permit the testimony of Dr. Augusto Delerme. The majority and the dissent correctly set forth the liberal standard for qualifying expert testimony. “The test to be applied when qualifying an expert witness is whether the witness has any reasonable pretension to specialized knowledge on the subject under investigation. If he does, he may testify and the weight to be given to such testimony is for the trier of fact to determine.” Miller v. Brass Rail Tavern, 541 Pa. 474, 480-81 , 664 A.2d 525, 528 (1995) (emphasis in original) (internal citations omitted). The majority recognizes Dr. Delerme is an otolaryngologist, and his testimony was not solely based upon Dr. Beroes findings. Dr. Delerme’s findings also referred to medical literature on the subject, and any lack of specific expertise Dr. Delerme may have in esophageal tears, would go to the weight of Dr. Delerme’s testimony and not its admissibility. See id. Accordingly, I join the majority with respect to the admissibility of Dr. Delerme’s testimony.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9719109. Public record. Not legal advice.