J-A14043-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
JARED IMSCHWEILER AND RACHEL IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
IMSCHWEILER, HUSBAND AND WIFE, PENNSYLVANIA
Appellants
v.
ILENE KATZ WEIZER, M.D., AND A
WOMAN’S CARE OB-GYN, P.C.,
Appellees No. 1697 MDA 2015
Appeal from the Order Entered September 2, 2015
in the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County
Civil Division at No.: S-218-2010
BEFORE: BOWES, J., OTT, J., and PLATT, J.*
JUDGMENT ORDER BY PLATT, J.: FILED JULY 28, 2016
Appellants, Rachel and Jared Imschweiler, appeal from the trial court’s
order granting the motion in limine filed by Appellees, Ilene Katz Weizer,
M.D., and A Woman’s Care OB-GYN, P.C., in this medical malpractice case.
We quash.
This case returns to this Court after we remanded for a new trial on
September 16, 2014. Relevant to the instant appeal, in advance of the new
trial, Appellants’ medical expert, Dr. Victor Borden, submitted a
supplemental report dated June 4, 2015. Appellees filed a motion in limine
objecting to certain portions of the report. On September 2, 2015, the trial
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A14043-16
court entered its order granting the motion in limine and, inter alia, limiting
the scope of Dr. Borden’s testimony. This timely appeal followed.
Preliminarily, we must consider the propriety of this appeal. The trial
court determined that Appellants have improperly appealed from an
interlocutory order. (See Trial Court Opinion, 10/02/15, at 1). Upon
review, we agree.
“An appeal lies only from a final order unless otherwise permitted by
rule or statute.” Shearer v. Hafer, 135 A.3d 637, 641 (Pa. Super. 2016)
(citation omitted). Generally, a final order is any order that: “(1) disposes of
all claims and of all parties[.]” Pa.R.A.P. 341(b)(1). “[A]n order is not final
and appealable merely because it decides one issue of importance to the
parties. Rather, for an order to be final and ripe for appeal, it must resolve
all pending issues and constitute a complete disposition of all claims
raised by all parties.” AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Does, 81 A.3d 921,
927 (Pa. Super. 2013), appeal denied, 97 A.3d 742 (Pa. 2014) (citation
omitted; emphasis in original). A trial court’s decision to preclude expert
testimony is an interlocutory ruling, reviewable after entry of a final
judgment in the matter. See Snizavich v. Rohm & Haas Co., 83 A.3d
191, 194 (Pa. Super. 2013), appeal denied, 96 A.3d 1029 (Pa. 2014).
Here, the trial court’s order does not dispose of any claim or any party.
See Pa.R.A.P. 341(b)(1); (Order, 9/02/15). Instead, it is an interlocutory
decision on its face, and is not appealable until entry of final judgment.
-2-
J-A14043-16
Consequently, we lack jurisdiction at this time to review Appellants’ appeal
on the merits.1 Accordingly, we quash this appeal.
Appeal quashed. Case remanded. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 7/28/2016
____________________________________________
1
We find no merit to Appellants’ contention that the trial court’s pre-trial
ruling is immediately appealable as a collateral order. (See Appellants’
Brief, at 18); Pa.R.A.P. 313(a)-(b) (setting forth requirements for collateral
order). “Rule 313 must be interpreted narrowly, and the requirements for
an appealable collateral order remain stringent in order to prevent undue
corrosion of the final order rule.” AmerisourceBergen Corp., supra at
927 (citation omitted). Appellants have not met these stringent
requirements and may seek review of the court’s ruling after final judgment
has been entered. See Snizavich, supra at 194.
-3-