Legal Opinion

Cominsky v. Donovan

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 6, 2004PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBeck, J.

¶ 1 We decide whether the trial court erred in admitting lay witness testimony about the pain and suffering experienced by someone in a persistent vegetative state. We reverse and remand for a new trial on damages only.

¶ 2 Plaintiff-appellee Seymour Comin-sky1 filed this action on behalf of himself and the Estate of Pearl Cominsky, his wife, against defendant-appellant Holy Redeemer Health System, alleging that the appellant’s negligence during post-operative care caused Pearl’s brain injury and ultimate death. Appellee presented evidence that, as a result of the negligence of appellant’s…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. CountermanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
  2. Lewis v. MellorSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
  3. Scattaregia v. Shin Shen WuSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
  4. Collins v. CooperSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
  5. Travellers Insurance v. Heppenstall Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1948

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Harris v. NGK North American, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2011
  2. Bada, J. v. Comcast CorporationSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2015
  3. Com. v. Altawarh, K.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2016
  4. Com. v. Ellison, A.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2018
  5. Com. v. Sanchez, A.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2020

6 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