Feldman v. Ide - Superior Court - January 9, 2007
http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Superior/out/a33037_06.pdf
For an order to be deemed collateral and subject to interlocutory review
- The order must be separate and distinct from the main cause of action
- The right involved must be too important for review to be denied, i.e., the right is deeply rooted in public policy such that it goes beyond the controversy at hand, such as privacy.
- The question presented must be such that if review is postponed until judgment, the claim will be irreparably lost.
In a discovery controversy, there must be no effective means of review if the order were to be carried out. An order directing a doctor hired by the insurer of a tort plaintiff to produce documents about his income in worker's comp. and personal injury cases was held to be collateral and thus subject to interlocutory. However, the discovery order was upheld pursuant to the decision in Cooper v. Shoffstall, 905 A.2d, 482 (Pa. 2006).
