J-A32039-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
SHANTICE TILLERY, IN HER OWN RIGHT IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
AND PARENT AND NATURAL GUARDIAN PENNSYLVANIA
ON BEHALF OF HER MINOR SON,
SHAMIR D. TILLERY
v.
THE CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL OF
PHILADELPHIA, CHILDREN’S
HEALTHCARE ASSOCIATES, INC.,
MONIKA GOYAL, M.D., JOEL FEIN, M.D.,
KYLE NELSON, M.D.
APPEAL OF: THE CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL
OF PHILADELPHIA AND MONIKA GOYAL,
M.D.
No. 1823 EDA 2016
Appeal from the Judgment Entered April 15, 2016
in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Civil Division at No.: December Term, 2011 No. 02168
BEFORE: DUBOW, J., RANSOM, J., and PLATT, J.*
JUDGMENT ORDER BY PLATT, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 28, 2017
Appellants, The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) and Monika
Goyal, M.D., appeal from the judgment entered on April 15, 2016.1 We
quash.
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A32039-16
Appellants filed a timely appeal from the judgment at docket number
1508 EDA 2016, in which they alleged both trial and judgment errors. (See
Tillery v. CHOP, No. 1508 EDA 2016, at *4-5 (Pa. Super. filed February
____, 2017)). In this appeal, at docket number 1823 EDA 2016, they again
seek to challenge the judgment. (See Appellants’ Brief, at 4).
This Court conducted an exhaustive merit review of the claims raised
challenging the judgment at docket number 1508 EDA 2016, and our
conclusions are the law of the case. See Signora v. Liberty Travel, Inc.,
886 A.2d 284, 290 (Pa. Super. 2005), appeal denied, 919 A.2d 958 (Pa.
2007) (“Under [the] law of the case doctrine, a court involved in the later
phases of a litigated matter should not reopen questions decided by another
judge of the same court or by a higher court in the earlier phases of the
matter.”) (citations omitted).2 Appellants are not entitled to a “second bite
at the apple” to challenge the judgment again. We quash.
_______________________
(Footnote Continued)
1
Appellants purport to appeal from the order entered on May 12, 2016
denying their emergency motion to vacate the judgment. However, an
appeal properly lies from the final order, which “disposes of all claims and of
all parties[.] ” Pa.R.A.P. 341(b)(1); see also Pa.R.A.P. 702(a). We have
changed the caption accordingly.
2
Appellants raise three of the same issues that we thoroughly addressed
previously, namely the reduction of future medical expenses to present
value, whether that claim was properly preserved, and delay damages.
(See Tillery, supra at *21-25, *21 n.6; Appellants’ Brief, at 4). Their issue
regarding post-judgment interest, (see Appellants’ Brief, at 4), was not
raised in either a timely post-trial motion or in the original appeal to this
Court, and is waived.
-2-
J-A32039-16
Appeal quashed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 2/28/2017
-3-