In Kathryn Manning v. Peter J. Bellafiore, M.D., 991 A.2d 399 (April, 2010), the court affirmed a Superior Court decision granting plaintiff's motion for a new trial following a verdict for the defendant. In that case, plaintiff's decedent had a claustrophobic reaction to an MRI/MRA, and he did not complete the test, which exam may have been crucial to enable the doctor to timely diagnose and treat his condition. At trial, Dr. Bellafiore testified that the patient had rejected his frequent offers to administer conscious sedation to him to reduce his anxiety so he could tolerate the test. Dr. Bellafiore had failed to disclose this version of events in either his interrogatory answers or his deposition testimony. The Court held: "In the midst of a lengthy, hotly contested medical malpractice case, the failure to disclose such an important defense was not only critical, it left the court in the midst of a dilemma for which there was no just resolution (not to mention the disarray to the extensively prepared plaintiffs' case). At trial, the court suspected that the credibility of Dr. Bellafiore would be significantly lessened when such an obvious, pivotal fact was not disclosed in sworn answers. Apparently, the jury did not recognize the gravity of this flagrant discovery abuse. In hindsight, the injustice was never cured. The court only precluded the fact finder in its quest for the truth, when its proper role was to accommodate the fact finder within the confines of the rules and fairness."