The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has agreed to review the Superior Court’s practice of evaluating damages in a piecemeal fashion. The decision to take up the case comes after an Allegheny County jury awarded $500,000 for medical expenses to a man whose feet were partially amputated after he was accidentally electrocuted, but gave him nothing for his pain and suffering.

The justices on Wednesday issued a one-page per curiam order in Mader v. Duquesne Light. According to the order, the court specifically agreed to consider whether it is “within the trial court’s discretion to grant a new trial on all damages when the jury’s verdict as to a significant portion of the damages verdict is so irrational that it shocks one’s sense of justice,” and whether the Superior Court panel that previously heard the case “misapplied the abuse of discretion standard and created new law by requiring a piecemeal evaluation of a clearly improper damages verdict.”

The decision to take up the case comes more than nine months after a three-judge Superior Court panel reversed the trial court’s decision to grant the plaintiff, Steven Mader, a new trial on all damages categories. Instead, the appellate court, led by Judge Mary Murray, determined that Mader should not be able to retry his economic damages claims, and instead should only get a new trial on damages related to economic losses and pain and suffering.

According to Mader’s brief asking the Supreme Court to review the Superior Court’s decision, the intermediate appellate court’s precedential ruling misapplied the abuse of discretion standard.

“The precedent set by the Superior Court panel’s opinion here is unworkable. Rather than defer to the trial court’s discretion, it would require the appellate courts to engage in its own extensive, detailed review of the record for each and every damages category every time the trial court finds the damages verdict to be unconscionable and grants a new trial on all damages,” the brief, filed by Cohen, Placitella & Roth attorney Joel Rosen, said. “This decision concerning the scope of the new damages trial is best left to the trial court, which heard the testimony and the evidence presented.”

The case stems from an incident in 2012 when Mader, then 54, a masonry contractor, was working on a chimney repair project in Pittsburgh. Electrical power lines, according to court documents, were only 11 feet away from the customer’s house, and, at some point, a ladder Mader was carrying contacted the transmission line. Mader suffered severe burns on his arms and feet, and eventually had to have both of his feet partially amputated. Mader sued, alleging the power lines were too close to the ground.

According to court records, after Mader for a period required a wheelchair for mobility, he began walking again, albeit with an altered gait. Mader also suffered a significant loss of earnings, since he was no longer able to work as a mason, court documents said.

At the close of trial, the jury awarded Mader $444,525.56 in past medical expenses and $55,474.44 in future medical expenses, but did not award Mader anything for either lost earnings, or pain and suffering.

The trial court ordered a new trial on all damages, and, although the Superior Court panel said evidence clearly showed Mader was entitled to a new trial on the earnings and pain and suffering issues, he was not entitled to a new trial for either past or future medical damages.

Regarding the past medical expenses, the appellate court noted that the parties had stipulated to the number the jury awarded, and the court rejected the argument that past damages should be retried because Mader will continue to incur medical expenses up through the time of a new trial. On the future medical issue, the court said the jury’s award was within the range provided by the parties’ experts. (Although Mader’s expert had estimated future medical costs to be more than $2 million, the defense’s expert had said he would require little more than $50,000.)

“As with its explanation for disturbing the jury’s award for past medical expenses, the trial court’s belief that a new trial is necessary as to future medical expenses simply by virtue of there being a new trial on other damages categories is unavailing and unsupported by any legal authority,” Murray said.

Rosen, however, said the Superior Court’s decision went against caselaw giving the trial discretion.

“We’re happy we’ll be able to put our case in front of the Supreme Court,” Rosen said.

Tucker Arensberg attorney Gary Hunt, who is representing Duquesne Light, did not return a call seeking comment.