Wilson v. Metzler

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding in wage claim case that “the issue of good faith was properly a question for the jury”
• noting that an expert “need not use the magic words or phrases such as increased risk of harm; rather, we examine the testimony as a whole, and the substance of the testimony, to determine if it meets this standard”
• affirming trial court’s grant of remittitur that was based on consideration of Pa.R.C.P. 223.3 factors
• expert testimony was sufficient to find causation and noting the expert “also opined that the nursing care was not properly coordinated, documentation and charting ivas incomplete or misleading, and nurses failed to properly monitor” the plaintiff
• “If the expert can opine to a reasonable degree of certainty that the acts or omissions could have caused the harm, then it becomes a question for the jury with regard to whether they believe it caused the harm.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).