What's an appellate court to do when it's reviewing a bench verdict and the trial judge is no longer available to explain the reasoning behind it?

That's the question the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has agreed to consider in Dolan v. Hurd Millwork, in which the Superior Court found it was forced to vacate a nearly $750,000 judgment and order a new trial because the trial judge who rendered the verdict failed to adequately explain his reasoning and had retired from the bench.

The justices granted allocatur Sept. 11 on two issues: “(1) What is the proper role of an appellate court in reviewing a non-jury decision where it deems the Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion inadequate but the trial judge is no longer available to provide a supplemental opinion? (2) If the appellate court is required to reach the merits of the trial court's decision, what are the appropriate scope and standard of review?”