Legal Opinion

Siegal v. Stefanyszyn

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 15, 1998PublishedCited by 31 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SCHILLER, Judge:

Appellants, Gail and Richard D. Siegal, bring this appeal from the order entered by the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia denying their post trial motions and entering judgment in favor of appellees. We reverse and remand for a new trial.

FACTS:

In 1981, appellant Gail Siegal was diagnosed with Graves’ disease. By 1982, the disease had affected her ability to close her eyelids. In January of 1983, Dr. Barrett Haik and Dr. Kenneth 0. Rothaus performed eyelid surgery and a frontal brow lift to allow better lid closure in order to prevent corneal abrasions. However, she…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Dilliplaine v. Lehigh Valley Trust Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
  2. Kiser v. SchulteSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
  3. Holden v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
  4. Saxton v. Pittsburg Railways Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1908
  5. Wagner v. Hazle TownshipSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1906

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by31 opinions

  1. Mount Olivet Tabernacle Church v. Edwin L. Wiegand DivisionSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
  2. Mirabel v. MoralesSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2012
  3. Maya v. Johnson & JohnsonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
  4. Pioneer Commercial Funding Corp. v. American Financial Mortgage Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  5. Poust v. HyltonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2007

26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API