Legal Opinion

Martin v. Soblotney

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 25, 1983PublishedCited by 97 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*420OPINION

NIX, Justice.

The sole issue presented in this appeal is whether medical bills incurred by a plaintiff injured in an automobile collision are admissible as evidence to measure pain and suffering in an action brought exclusively to recover for non-economic detriment pursuant to section 301 of the Pennsylvania No-fault Motor Vehicle Insurance Act (“No-fault Act”).1 The Superior Court, reversing the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, held that such evidence was admissible. Having considered this question, we conclude that medical expenditures are clearly irrelevant to the…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. Rieck Investment Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1965
  2. Kravinsky v. GloverSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
  3. Martin EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1950
  4. Hochgertel v. Canada Dry Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1963
  5. Kemp v. Philadelphia Transportation Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1976

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

3Cited by97 opinions

  1. Lewis v. Coffing Hoist Div., Duff-NortonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  2. Commonwealth v. SmithSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
  3. Sprague v. WalterSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
  4. Board of Revision of Taxes, City of Philadelphia v. City of PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2010
  5. Majdic v. Cincinnati MacHine Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988

92 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