Saks v. Jeanes Hospital

Since this case arose before the effective date of Pa.R.Civ.P., No. 4019(i), it was within the discretion of the trial judge to permit the expert witness to testify despite the fact that appellee had not included the witness’s name in its answer to an interrogatory propounded by appellants. See Nissley v. Pennsylvania R.R. Co., 435 Pa. 503, 259 A.2d 451 (1969); Moore v. Howard P. Foley Co., 235 Pa.Super. 310, 340 A.2d 519 (1975); see also Gill v. McGraw Electric Co., 264 Pa.Super. 368, 399 A.2d 1094 (1979). The trial judge did not abuse his discretion in allowing the witness to testify.…