# Bindschusz v. Phillips

> Superior Court of Pennsylvania · March 27, 2001 · 2001 Pa. Super. 93

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9943865

## Case

- **Full name:** Robbie BINDSCHUSZ, Appellee, v. Elizabeth PHILLIPS and C. Dale McClain, Executors of the Estate of Herman P. Phillips, M.D., Deceased and Paoli Orthopaedic Associates, Appellants
- **Court:** Superior Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** March 27, 2001
- **Citations:** 2001 Pa. Super. 93; 771 A.2d 803; 2001 Pa. Super. LEXIS 372; 2001 WL 290422
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Cavanaugh
- **Judges:** McEwen, Cavanaugh, Cirillo
- **Cited by:** 33 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/9943865

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- affirming trial court’s ruling allowing testimony of anesthesiologist on causes of neurologic pain disorder sustained by patient during surgery by defendant orthopedic surgeon

## Opinion text

¶ 1 I join the majority opinion, but write separately to state that to the extent that *Page 814
it is held that when surveillance tapes are obtained, there must always be an amendment to appropriate interrogatory answers. I disagree. As demonstrated in Dominick, there may be circumstances where supplemental answers are not necessary. Where, as here, it is argued that counsel did not have the tapes until the eve of trial, may be another such circumstance. However, I agree that the trial court did not err in refusing to allow usage of the surveillance tapes because 1) the tapes were recorded on May 19 and trial commenced on May 24 thus providing vigilant counsel ample time to disclose their existence before trial so that opposing counsel could be alerted to avoid any undue prejudice which might flow from usage of the tapes and, 2) the concession by appellant's trial counsel that appellee's trial testimony as to his physical limitations did not differ from his 1995 deposition testimony 8 thus negating any surprise at trial which might have lent the tapes immediate relevance.
8 See trial court opinion page 15.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9943865. Public record. Not legal advice.