Scope of Statutory Employer Doctrine Reviewed

In the case of Hernandez v. Independence Constructors Corp., No. 1911 EDA 2023 (C.P. Phila. Co. Dec. 19, 2023 Foglietta, J.), the trial court issued a Rule 1925 Opinion in case involving a work-related injury sustained by the Plaintiff in a case where he sued certain entities.

The trial court stated in its Rule 1925 Opinion that its judgment should be affirmed where the Defendant, which subcontracted the Plaintiff’s employer for construction work was not a statutory employer entitled to employer immunity under the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act.

In this regard, the court stated that it had concluded that the Defendant employer did not meet the second prong of the test set out in the case of McDonald v. Levinson Steel Co., 153 A. 424 (Pa. 1930). More specifically, the Defendant employer did not control the job site where the Plaintiff was injured.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: “The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert,” Law.com (March 27, 2024).

Complaint Containing Separate Counts Against Separate Defendants Allowed To Proceed Even Though Allegations Substantively Identical

In the case of Gamble v. PACCAR, Inc., No. 23-CV-2147 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 28, 2024 Schwab, J.), the court denied a Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss in which the content of a Plaintiff’s Complaint was challenged.

According to the Opinion, this lawsuit revolved around the mechanisms of a cement truck that had allegedly caused injuries to the Plaintiff.    

The court ruled that, although the Plaintiff’s allegations against three (3) different Defendants were substantively identical, the Plaintiff did not improperly “lump together” the Defendants in the Complaint given that each Defendant was separately sued in separate counts in the Complaint. The court noted that, even more than the Plaintiff, each Defendant should know what it did or did not manufacturer, sell, or distribute, or what liability it allegedly assumed under a successor liability theory.

Accordingly, the court found that the Complaint was not impractical to answer for the Defendants.  As such, the Motion to Dismiss was denied.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


I send thanks to Attorney James Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

Court Denies Summary Judgment For Defendant Claiming Immunity Under the Mental Health Procedures Act

In the case of Redos v. UPMC Susquehanna, No. 19-00528 (C.P. Lyc. Co. Sept. 6, 2023 Carlucci, J.), the court denied Defendant medical providers’ Motion for Summary Judgment on a Plaintiff’s claim alleging professional liability regarding the treatment of a patient who was allegedly suffering from a mental illness.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff’s decedent sought emergency room treatment for symptoms allegedly stemming from his alleged recent drug use. The decedent was transported to another hospital for medical clearance prior to being admitted to a third facility for in-patient psychiatric treatment.

While at the Defendant’s hospital, the decedent was assessed as suffering from delirium. On his third day at that facility, the decedent exhibited bizarre behavior and jumped off the hospital’s roof, resulting in multiple injuries. The decedent died several years later from unrelated reasons.

This lawsuit was brought relative to the care provided to the decedent. After discovery, the Defendants moved for summary judgment based, in part, on the limited immunity afforded under 50 Pa. C.S.A. §7114 of the Mental Health Procedures Act.

 The court denied the Defendants’ motion where the Plaintiff’s expert opined that the Defendants acted in gross deviation from the standard of care for a patient suffering from delirium.

As a result, the court found that the Defendants could be ineligible to assert the limited immunity afforded under the Mental Health Procedures Act.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

Trial Court Requests Affirmance of its Entry of Summary Judgment in a Nursing Home Slip and Fall Case

In the case of Ford v. Cheltenham Nursing and Rehab. Center, No. 2880 EDA 2023 (C.P. Phila. Co. Dec. 14, 2023 Lane, J.), the trial court asserted in its Rule 1925 Opinion to the Superior Court that its granting of a summary judgment motion in a slip and fall case involving a nursing home should be affirmed.

The court noted that the record before it showed that the Defendant had no prior notice of the alleged roof leak that allegedly caused water to puddle next to the Plaintiff’s bed at the facility.

The record before the court showed that the roof was inspected monthly. Also, the first indication in the Defendant’s records of any leak was the entry made just after the Plaintiff was discovered on the floor beside her bed.

Given that the Plaintiff had failed to prove actual or constructive notice of any defect, the court stated the Plaintiff had failed to demonstrate that the nursing facility had breached its duty of care.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Feb. 1, 2024).

SAVE THE DATE -- LACKAWANNA PRO BONO GOLF TOURNAMENT -- JUNE 10, 2024

 

DON'T FORGET - This Wednesday, April 24 is ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT'S DAY

Don't forget to say "Thank you" to your Administrative Assistant(s) on Administrative Professionals' Day this Wednesday, April 24, 2024!

Summary Judgment Granted in MVA Case Where Plaintiff Had Seat Belt Off and Defendant Driver Stopped Short

In the case of Lucykanish v. Flurer, No. 2545-CV-2022 (C.P. Monroe Co. Feb. 1, 2024 Williamson, J.), Judge David J. Williamson granted summary judgment to a Defendant driver in a motor vehicle accident case in which the Plaintiff was a passenger in that Defendant’s vehicle.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff was a rear seat passenger in the Defendant’s truck when another passenger dropped her cell phone in the rear footwell. The Plaintiff removed her seat belt to crawl around in the footwell to look for the phone.

At the same time, another vehicle improperly passed the Defendant’s truck on the right and then cut back into the Defendant’s lane.  In order to avoid a collision, the Defendant forcefully applied the truck’s brakes, which allegedly resulted in the Plaintiff striking her head on the truck’s center console.

After discovery, the Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment arguing that the Plaintiff could not demonstrate that he acted negligently in operating his vehicle and that there was no proximate causation established by the Plaintiff with respect to the Defendant’s actions and the Plaintiff’s alleged injuries.

Judge Williamson granted the Motion for Summary Judgment and held that the Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the Defendant acted negligently or that any alleged negligence on the part of the Defendant was a proximate cause of the Plaintiff’s injuries.

The court noted that the evidence developed during discovery confirmed that the Defendant braked his truck forcefully in order to avoid a collision with another vehicle that had improperly tried to pass the Defendant on the right and then attempted to cut back into the Defendant’s lane of travel. The court noted that Defendant driver’s actions were meant to protect the entire vehicle from a potentially serious motor vehicle accident. The court found that the Plaintiff’s alleged injury, that occurred while the Plaintiff was crawling around the floor in the back seat area, unrestrained, did not impute negligence to the Defendant when the urgent need unexpectedly arose to hit the brakes in a forceful fashion.

The Plaintiff otherwise attempted to argue that the Defendant was negligence per se by speeding in a construction zone. The court noted that this argument failed because, even if the Defendant had violated the Motor Vehicle Code as alleged by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff had still failed to show that the Defendant’s alleged speeding was a proximate cause of the injury.

The crux of the Plaintiff’s claim was that the Defendant had braked too hard or too late. The court stated, however, that the force that one applies the brakes of a vehicle is not grounds for a finding of a negligence under circumstances of this case.

Rather, Judge Wiliamson noted that, here, the Plaintiff would have not been injured if she had simply stayed in her seat with her seat belt on. The court noted that the Plaintiff failed to explain why she had to crawl around the footwell of a moving vehicle, let alone one that she would later claim was driving allegedly dangerously fast.

Overall, the court emphasized that the Defendant had acted appropriately under the circumstances in order to avoid an accident. Accordingly, the court agreed with the Defendant that the Plaintiff had failed to prove negligence or that any alleged negligence on the part of the Defendant was the alleged proximate cause of the Plaintiff’s injuries.

As noted, summary judgment was granted and the case was dismissed.

Anyone wishing to review this decision may click this LINK.

Source: “The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert,” at Law.com (April 4, 2024).