701, which states: If a witness is not testifying as an expert, testimony in the form of an opinion is limited to one that is: (a) rationally based on the witness’s perception; (b) helpful to clearly understanding the witness’s testimony or to determining a fact in issue; and (c) not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702. Pa.R.E. 701. A. Dr. McClellan According to- Appellants, Dr. McClellan rendered an expert opinion on causation even though he was not identified as an expert. See Appellants’ Br. at 10-12 (citing in support Pa.R.C.P. 4003.5 (requiring pre-trial disclosure of experts and expert reports “acquired or developed in anticipation of litigation or for trial”); Sindler v. Goldman, 309 Pa.Super. 7, 454 A.2d 1054, 1057 (1982) (<HOLDING>)). Dr. McClellan is a physician specializing in
recognizing rule recognizing that compliance with rule 40035 is critical to prevent unfair surprise holding that substantial compliance with notice is sufficient holding that strict compliance is not required holding that compliance with rule 4a5 is essential to appellate jurisdiction