radial nerve, and even then Dr. El-Daief testified at his deposition that this could have occurred other than at surgery. He testified that in December of 2000 he did not consider an injury to the radial nerve to be on his differential diagnosis because he did not consider that her symptoms were suggestive of a radial nerve injury (Record 220a, El-Daief N.T. 95). He further stated that he had ruled out an injury to the radial nerve by September 2001 (Record 224a, El-Daief N.T. 111). Brief for Appellant at 26-27. Appellant places her case within a category of cases in which an injured person may suffer pain but be unable to detect an actual injury and/or its cause, analogizing her circumstances to the surgical-sponge cases. See, e.g., Ayers v. Morgan, 397 Pa. 282, 154 A.2d 788 (1959) (<HOLDING>). She suggests the necessity of understanding
holding that jury could not logically award all costs for the surgery and no damages for future pain and suffering holding that alj may not base adverse credibility finding on his perceptions of claimants pain at the hearing where record shows objective evidence of claimants pain holding that a plaintiffs medical malpractice action filed nine years after a surgery was not timebarred although he suffered longstanding pain as a result of a sponge inadvertently left in his body after surgery where the plaintiff could not have known the source of his pain recognizing as an element of pain and suffering holding that evidence relied on by alj was insufficient to undermine pain allegations where medical records were replete with claimants reports of pain and of prescriptions