The Pennsylvania Superior Court has ruled a $500,000 jury award to a Pittsburgh man who alleged his leg was burned by the friction of rubbing up against other passengers while riding in an overcrowded limousine was properly considered.

A split three-judge panel upheld Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas Judge Alan Hertzberg's denial of defendant Pittsburgh Chauffeur's post-trial motions contesting the verdict awarded to plaintiff Matthew T. Deivert.

Judges John T. Bender and Eugene B. Strassburger III made up the majority, while Judge Jacqueline O. Shogan dissented.

Deivert was bar-hopping with friends in a Pittsburgh Chauffeur 10-person limousine that was crammed with 19 people, according to Strassburger's majority opinion. During the course of the night Deivert felt an intense pain on his leg, which turned out to be a third-degree burn from rubbing up against other passengers.

He was taken to the hospital and underwent two skin-grafts below the knee. He was left with permanent scarring.

On Nov. 9, 2015, Deivert sued Pittsburgh Chauffeur, alleging it was negligent in providing too small of a limousine to accommodate the 19 passengers, according to Strassburger.

The central point of contention in the case was whether the plaintiff's medical and causation expert, Dr. Gregory Habib, should have been barred from testifying at the May 2017 trial.

The defendant claimed in post-trial motions that Habib “could not support his methodology opinion with medical literature, studies or testing and when his testimony lacked foundation to support his opinion that an injury of this severity could ever be caused in the manner as alleged.”

Adopting the trial court's opinion, Strassburger said in the majority's opinion that Hertzberg did not abuse his discretion by allowing Habib to testify. Strassburger pointed to the section of Hertzberg's decision “explaining that it did not err or abuse its discretion in denying Pittsburgh Chauffeur's motion in limine seeking to exclude Dr. Habib's testimony where Dr. Habib did not employ a novel methodology, and Dr. Habib did not need to support his expert medical opinion with literature or studies.”

However, Shogan disagreed in her dissent.

“Dr. Habib, an orthopedic surgeon, did not treat the plaintiff and did not reference any literature or cases of burns arising from this specific type of situation. In fact, he repeatedly characterized the plaintiff's burn as a 'unique situation,'” Shogan said.

“In extrapolating that the plaintiff's injuries resulted from the same biomechanics as a bed sore or a friction burn, Dr. Habib failed, however, to divulge the underlying scientific foundation for his opinion,” she continued. “Contrary to established scientific methodology, Dr. Habib did not “assemble all of the information,' 'perform a weight of the evidence evaluation,' and decide, 'based on the most credible work, what story is being told' as to the creation of a full-thickness friction burn from a 20-minute ride in a cramped limousine.”

Kathleen S. McAllister of DiBella Geer McAllister & Best represents the limo company and Richard Talarico of Woomer & Talarico represents the plaintiff. Neither responded to requests for comment.