Appellate Court Finds that Plaintiff's Med Mal Claims Were Sufficiently Stated in Complaint

In its non-precedential decision in the case of Dasilva v. Abington Memorial Hospital, No. 1707 EDA 2025 (Pa. Super. June 2, 2026 Kunselman, J., Nichols, J., and Sullivan, J.) (Op. by Kunselman, J.), the court reversed a trial court’s decision in a medical malpractice case sustaining the Preliminary Objections of the Defendant hospital dismissing the Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint with prejudice.

The trial court had dismissed the Plaintiff’s Complaint due to the alleged insufficiency of the factual allegations in the Second Amended Complaint. Primarily, the Defendants asserted, in part, that the Plaintiff’s allegations of negligence and agency were vague and/or insufficiently specific.

On appeal, the Pennsylvania Superior Court reinstated the medical malpractice action after finding that the Plaintiffs had plausibly alleged that the medical staff failed to properly monitor a patient who was experiencing a psychiatric episode by allowing the patient to leave the emergency room at which point he was then struck by a vehicle.

The appellate court concluded that the Plaintiffs had met the state’s fact-pleading standard by outlining key facts, including the Plaintiff’s mental state, the awareness of the hospital staff of the Plaintiff’s condition, and the alleged failure of the hospital staff to monitor or prevent the patient’s departure from the hospital.

The appellate court otherwise held that a Plaintiff need not identify any specific employees in the medical malpractice case in order to pursue vicarious liability claims against a hospital. The court noted that references contained in the Complaint to the emergency room staff were sufficiently specific to enable the Defendants to respond to the Complaint.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this non-precedential decision of the Pennsylvania Superior Court in the Dasilva may click this LINK.

Source: Article – “Abington Hospital Must Face Med Mal Claims Over Patient’s ER Escape, Pa. Appellate Court Says,” By Riley Brennan of The Legal Intelligencer (June 4, 2026).

Source of image:  Photo by National Cancer Institute on www.unsplash.com.

Court Reviews Whether Attorney Had Client's Authority to Settle For a Particular Amount

In the case of Hwang v. Camagna, No. 2023-01338-PL (C.P. Chester Co. Aug. 23, 2024 Binder, J.), the court denied a Defendant’s Motion to Enforce a Settlement and for Sanctions relative to an alleged settlement of a dental malpractice case for $1,500.00.

According to the Opinion, counsel for the Plaintiff believed he had authority to settle a dental malpractice claim based upon email communications.

After the Defendant filed a Motion to Enforce the Settlement, Plaintiff’s counsel submitted to the court, for in camera review, the purported letter from the client authorizing him to enter into a settlement.

After reviewing the correspondence, the court found that, while the document implied that the Plaintiff verbally authorized counsel for the Plaintiff to settle for some amount, the document reviewed by the court did not show any expressed authority to settle for a particular amount.

Accordingly, the court ruled that it could not find that the Plaintiff had expressly authorized counsel for the Plaintiff to settle the Plaintiff’s claims for $1,500.00. The court reiterated the general rule that attorneys cannot settle a case without the express authorization from a client.

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


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert, www.Law.com (Aug. 14, 2025).

Source of image:  Photo by Sora Shimazaki on www.pexels.com.

Judge Powell of Lackawanna County Rules on Medical Malpractice Pleading Isssues

In the case of Menon v. Geisinger Wyoming Valley Medical Center, No. 2024-CV-7436 (C.P. Lacka. Co. June 23, 2025, Powell, J.), Judge Mark Powell of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas overruled various Preliminary Objections filed by the different medical Defendants to the Plaintiff’s medical malpractice Complaint.

This medical malpractice action arose from the death of a full-term newborn baby.

Relative to the Plaintiff’s claims of negligent infliction of emotional distress related to alleged negligent care during the late pregnancy stage and the delivery, the Defendants filed a demurrer. The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiffs failed to allege a contemporaneous sensory perception of the harm-producing event as required under Sinn v. Burd and Bloom v. Regional Medical Center.

The court disagreed and ruled that the Plaintiffs sufficiently pled a continuous traumatic sequence of events that included direct observation of the newborn’s distress and death. The court cited to the case of Neff v. Lasso, for the proposition that concept of sensory perception in this context under Pennsylvania law is not limited to visual observation but also includes awareness through experience and presence.

Judge Powell also overruled the Defendants’ objections regarding the lack of specificity with respect to the allegations of negligence and agency claims contained in the Complaint. The court held that, under Pennsylvania’s fact-pleading standard, Plaintiffs are not required to identify every employee and are not required to site specific hospital policies at issue at the pleadings stage.

Rather, the court found that, in this case, the Plaintiffs’ detailed allegations provided the Defendants with adequate notice of the claims presented. The court noted that the identity of unnamed agents could be ascertained through discovery efforts.

In this regard, the court emphasized that, in medical malpractice cases, Defendants typically control the relevant records and personnel information.

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

Source: Lackawanna Jurist, Vol. 126, No. 27 (July 4, 2025).

Demurrers to Medical Malpractice Complaint Overruled

In the case of Polanco v. Lehigh Valley Health Network, Inc., No. 2023-CV-1001 (C.P. Lacka. Co. June 7, 2024 Nealon, J.), the court addressed various Preliminary Objections filed in a medical malpractice case.

This case involved a case brought by the parents of a child reportedly suffering from cerebral palsy and brain damage due to alleged medical malpractice by various Defendants.

The Defendants filed Preliminary Objections on various grounds including a demurrer to the parents’ vicarious liability claims, allegations of reckless conduct, and claims for punitive damages.

The hospital Defendant also raised challenges to the legal sufficiency of the parent’s vicarious liability claim due to the parents’ failure to identify the hospital’s agents by name and to specify their agency authority.

All of the Preliminary Objections asserted by the various Defendants were overruled by the court.

Generally speaking, the court found that the Plaintiff had alleged specific facts to support the claims presented. The court also found that the factual allegations in the Complaint clearly informed the various Defendants of the claims being asserted, summarize the key facts supporting those claims, and furnished adequate notice so as to enable the Defendant to file a responsive pleading.

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

In Case of First Impression PA Superior Court Rules That A Parent Cannot Waive Child's Right To Jury Trial

In the case of Santiago v. Philly Trampoline Park, LLC, No. 2615 EDA 2021 (Pa. Super. March 21, 2023 Bowes, J., King, J., and Pellegrini, J.) (Op. by Bowes, J.), the Superior Court addressed an issue of first impression in Pennsylvania in these consolidated appeals, that being whether a parent’s role as natural guardian entitles the parent to bind a minor child to an arbitration agreement and waive that child’s right to seek redress for injuries in a court of law.  

In the consolidated appeal, the Superior Court also addressed whether one spouse's signature on a waiver form could bind the other spouse to be limited to only pursuing a recovery at arbitration.

The appellate court affirmed the lower court rulings that answered this question in the negative and concluded that the claims presented were indeed permitted to head to a jury trial as opposed to arbitration.

Overall, the Pennsylvania Superior Court, after reviewing the law of agency and contract law, concluded that the trial courts had properly ruled that no agreements at issue served to bind the children or the non-signing spouses to resolve their negligence claims in arbitration rather than by way of a personal injury lawsuit in the courts.

More specifically, the Pennsylvania Superior Court agreed with the trial court findings that the trampoline facility had failed to meet its burden to show that the signatory spouses were the agents of the non-signing spouses.

The court additionally held that the parent-child relationship did not empower the signatory parents to waive their minor children’s rights to have their claims resolved in a personal injury lawsuit in a court of law as opposed to arbitration.

As such, the lower court's Orders were affirmed.

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


Source: “Pennsylvania Civil Law Case Alerts,” Fastcase.com as provided by Pennsylvania Bar Association.

Source of image:  Photo by Ben Moses on www.unsplash.com.

Personal Jurisdiction Over Foreign Corporation Found to Exist Based on Actions of the Distributor for the Corporation

In the products liability case of Merino v. Repak, B.V., No. 135 MDA 2022 (Pa. Super. Dec. 6, 2022 Bowes, J., McCaffery, J., and Stevens, P.J.E.) (Op. by McCaffery, J.), a Defendant company operating out of the Netherlands filed an appeal from a trial court Order overruling its Preliminary Objection to personal jurisdiction. The Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s Order.

In so ruling, the Superior Court rejected the Defendant’s arguments that the trial court had erred and abused its discretion when the trial court exercised personal jurisdiction over the foreign company based upon either the Defendant’s independent contacts with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania or its relationship with a Co-Defendant company.

The Superior Court noted that the trial court properly exercised specific personal jurisdiction over the foreign manufacturer with no minimum contacts of its own within the forum. The court found that, based upon the actions and contacts of the foreign manufacturer’s exclusive distributor, with whom the manufacturer had a close agency relationship, jurisdiction over the foreign manufacturer was warranted.

The Superior Court found that the Co-Defendant distributor had acted as an agent for the foreign manufacturer by selling the manufacturers products to customers in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

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


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Dec. 27, 2022).

Source of image:  Photo by Elena Mozhvilo at www.unsplash.com.

Motion To Dismiss Punitive Damages Claim Granted Where Evidence of Recklessness Was Lacking in "Run-of-the-Mill Intersectional Collision" Case

In the case of Barbarevech v. Tomlinson, No. 18-CV-4821 (C.P. Lacka. Co. March 25, 2022 Nealon, J.), the court addressed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by a Defendant in a motor vehicle accident case seeking to dismiss punitive damages asserted against the Defendant on the ground that the evidence presented by the Plaintiff was insufficient as a matter of law to sustain the Plaintiff’s claims of recklessness.

The employer Defendant also sought to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ direct liability claim for negligent hiring, training, and supervision of the employee under an argument that the employer’s admission that the employee was acting within the scope of her employment at the time of the accident.

Relative to the punitive damages claims, after noting that there was no evidence in the record that the Defendant driver was speeding, driving while impaired or distracted by cell phone use, or otherwise engaged in unreasonable conduct manifesting a conscious disregard of a known or obvious risk posing a high probability of harm to others, the court granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the claim for punitive damages.

The court additionally noted that, based upon the facts of this “run-of-the-mill intersectional collision,” the Plaintiffs’ expert was not permitted to express a legal opinion that the Defendant driver was chargeable with “reckless indifference” as defined by Pennsylvania law, particularly since the record did not contain an adequate basis in fact for that opinion.

The court also rejected the Plaintiffs’ attempt to assert that the Defendant employer’s post-accident investigation of the collision did not cause or contribute to the accident or the harm that the Plaintiff had suffered and, as such, could not serve as a basis for the Plaintiff’s punitive damages claims. Judge Nealon otherwise stated that there was no other evidence in the record that the Defendant employer acted in a willful, wanton, or reckless manner.

As such, the Motion to Dismiss the Punitive Damages Claim was granted.

On the separate claim of direct employer liability for the alleged negligence in selecting, training, and supervising employees and their activities, the court allowed this claim to proceed after finding that Pennsylvania case law provides that a Plaintiff may pursue such a claim against an employer on theories of direct and vicarious liability, either at the same time or alternately, and Plaintiffs need not surround a direct liability claim against the employer if the employer acknowledges an agency relationship with the employee. As such, the employer’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment with regards to the independent claim for negligent hiring, training, and supervision was denied.

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

Judge Williamson of Monroe County Addresses Propriety of Claims in Medical Malpractice Complaint

 

In the medical malpractice case of Hyman v. St. Luke’s Hosp., No. 5565-CV-2021 (C.P. Monroe Co. Dec. 16, 2021 Williamson, J.), Judge David J. Williamson of the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas denied various Preliminary Objections and a Motion to Dismiss filed by the Defendants.

The court held that the Plaintiff’s Complaint which alleged the dates of care, the places that the care was completed, identified several Defendant medical providers by name and also alleged that certain agents of the Defendant hospital and medical group were unknown to Plaintiff but known to Defendant, possessed sufficient specificity to withstand the Defendants’ Preliminary Objections challenging the Complaint.

Judge David J. Williamson
Monroe County

Judge Williamson noted that practical considerations involved with medical malpractice causes of actions weighed against a rigid application of the specificity requirements found under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court additionally held that the Plaintiff’s claim of corporate negligence directed to the Defendant physician group and health network were not subject to a demurrer asserted by the Defendants under Pa. R.C.P. 1028(a)(4).

The Defendants, St. Luke's Physician Group and St. Luke's Health Network, asserted that the corporate negligence claims levied against them failed because the allegations established that the Defendants did not function like a hospital and that these Defendants therefore did not meet the standard for a finding of liability in this respect.

In this regard, the court applied the functional analysis test noted under the cases of Thompson v. Nason, 591 A.2d 703 (Pa. 1991) and Scampone v. Highland Park Care Center, LLC, 570 A.3d 582 (Pa. 2012), and found that the claims asserted by the Plaintiff against these Defendant entities satisfied the types of allegations necessary for a plaintiff to proceed on a corporate negligence claim.

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


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Jan. 18, 2022).

Source of image:  Photo by Karolina Grabowska from www.pexels.com.

Judge Leeson of Eastern District Court Confirms No Direct Claim of Liability Against Trucking Company Recognized in Certain Cases

In the case of Carson v. Tucker, No. 5:20-CV-00399 (E.D. Pa. March 30, 2021 Leeson, J.), Judge Joseph F. Leeson, Jr. of the Eastern District Federal Court granted a Defendant trucking company’s Partial Motion for Summary Judgment.

This case arose out of a motor vehicle accident involving two (2) tractor trailers.

In the Motion before the court, the trucking Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment was being considered in a case where the Plaintiff filed negligence claims including both vicarious liability and direct liability claims. 

The trucking Defendants sought summary judgment only on the direct liability claims.

Judge Leeson noted that, under Pennsylvania law, in addition to vicarious liability for that actions of its employees, a corporation may also be subject to direct liability for a negligent entrustment, instruction, supervision, monitoring and hiring of its employees. 

However, Judge Leeson noted that, under the standard “nearly universally adopted” by federal district courts applying Pennsylvania law, a Plaintiff’s direct liability claim against the Defendant driver’s trucking company employer could not survive where the employer had admitted an agency relationship with the driver and where the Plaintiff did not have a viable claim for punitive damages. 

The court found that the Plaintiff’s claim of direct liability against the trucking company therefore failed as a matter of law under the circumstances presented in this case.

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


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (April 15, 2021).

Judge Nealon Reiterates the Law of Identifying Agents of Hospital in Med Mal Complaints

In the case of Champi v. Geisinger Community Medical Center, No. 19-CV-1780(C.P. Lacka. Co. Feb. 20, 2020 Nealon, J.), the court denied Preliminary Objections filed by a Defendant hospital in this medical malpractice action.

The Defendants were arguing that, where the Plaintiff alleged negligent care at the Defendant hospital’s Scranton and Wilkes-Barre campuses but neglected to identify by name and with specificity which alleged agents who worked at the hospital were negligent, the Defendant was entitled to a dismissal.

This argument was rejected by the court under recent Pennsylvania Superior Court precedent in which it was held that a Plaintiff asserting a vicarious liability claim need not allege the identity of the agents by name.

As such, the court overruled the Defendant’s Preliminary Objections and directed the hospital to seek the requested information by way of pre-trial discovery efforts.

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

First Named Insured Must Sign Rejection of Stacking Form For It to Be Valid

In the case of Rodriquez v. Penn National Mut. Ins. Co., No. S-203-16 (C.P. Schuylkill Co. Jan. 14, 2020 Goodman, J.), the trial court addressed the issue of the statutory requirement that a first named insured sign a rejection of stacking form in an underinsured motorist context in order for the rejection to be upheld.

According to the Opinion, in this matter, the wife of the first named insured signed the rejection of stacking form.

Thereafter, the wife was involved in a car accident and made claim for stacked UIM coverage, which Penn National denied.

The wife claimed that the rejection of stacking form was invalid under §1738 of the Motor Vehicle Code.

Penn National attempted to argue that the rejection form was still valid because the first named insured’s wife was acting as an agent of first named insured when she signed the rejection of stacking form.

Judge Goodman of the Schuylkill County Court of Common Pleas adopted the plain statute language requiring that a rejection of stacking form be signed by the “first named insured” rendered the rejection form invalid even though it was signed by the wife of the first named insured.

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

I send thanks to Attorney Scott B. Cooper of the Harrisburg, Pennsylvania law firm of Schmidt Kramer, P.C. for bringing this case to my attention.

Judge Gibbons of Lackawanna County Overrules Preliminary Objections of Health System in Med Mal Case

In the case of Kowalski v. Scranton Hospital Company, LLC, No. 2018-CV-4996 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Jan. 17, 2020 Gibbons, J.), Judge James A. Gibbons overruled Defendants’ Preliminary Objections to a Plaintiff’s Complaint in a medical malpractice action by rejecting a health system’s assertion that it was not involved in the treatment of the Plaintiff or the oversight of the hospital where the Plaintiff treated.

The health system indicated that it was a fictitious creation used for marketing and that it did not own, operate or maintain hospitals, or employ any healthcare providers. The system also asserted that it was not involved in the treatment of the Plaintiff’s decedent.

After discovery was allowed on these issues, the health system filed Preliminary Objections asserting the lack of personal jurisdiction, a failure to state a valid claim due to vague or overbroad agency allegations, combined with a Motion to Dismiss supported by an affidavit of non-involvement.

The court rejected the health system’s argument that it was a fictitious creation simply used for marketing purposes.

The court pointed to evidence in the record, including a press release issued by the health system’s CEO discussing the acquisition of the hospital in question in which it was stated that the system was looking forward to implementing strategies, including capital investments and recruitment with respect to that hospital.

As such, the court noted that, where there was “extensive evidence” from the health system itself that it maintain a significant control over the hospitals that it owns, including the hospital in question.  Judge Gibbons also found that the court found that the contacts that the health system had with the subject hospital were not random or fortuitous.

Overall, the court found that, although the health system had a principal place of business in Tennessee and was incorporated in Delaware, the case was properly filed in Lackawanna County where the Plaintiffs’ claims arose from actions that occurred at the Regional Hospital located in Scranton, Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania.

Judge Gibbons ruled that Pennsylvania has an interest in adjudicating medical malpractice disputes that occur in Pennsylvania hospitals, even if that hospital was controlled by a non-president corporation.

As such, the court held that based upon the record before the court, there was specific personal jurisdiction over the health system as permitted by the law of Pennsylvania. Accordingly, the Preliminary Objections of the health system defendant filed against the Complaint were overruled.

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

Allegations of Liability of Unnamed Agents, Recklessness, and Punitive Damages Allowed to Proceed in a Podiatric Malpractice Action

In the case of Latka v. Rieder, No. 2019-CV-2078 (C.P. Lacka. Co. July 22, 2019 Nealon, J.), the court addressed Preliminary Objections filed in a podiatric malpractice case.  The Defendant sought to strike the agency allegations for failing to identify the actual or ostensible agents by name along with other details.  The Preliminary Objections were also asserted against the Plaintiff’s allegations of recklessness and reckless indifference along with the claim for punitive damages.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff developed an infection after a foot surgery performed by the Defendant.   Treatment of the infection included a partial amputation.  

The Plaintiff sued the podiatrist in a malpractice action and also asserted claims against “the agents, ostensible agents, servants, workers and/or employees” of the podiatrist.   Additionally, in her prayer for relief, the Plaintiff sought to recover punitive damages based upon allegations of recklessness.  

The Defendant podiatrist filed Preliminary Objections seeking to strike the Plaintiff’s agency allegations, recklessness allegations and punitive damages claims as lacking sufficient factual specificity.

Judge Terrence R. Nealon
Lackawanna County

In his Opinion, Judge Nealon reviewed the law establishing Pennsylvania as a fact-pleadings state but not requiring that all evidence in support of a claim be set forth in the Complaint.

The court noted that , in the context of Preliminary Objections asserting the lack of sufficient specificity, the test is whether the Defendant has been provided with adequate notice of the claim against which it must defend.  

With regards to the Plaintiff’s general agency complaints against unnamed agents and employees of the named Defendant, the court noted that, under current Pennsylvania appellate law, the failure to identify a Defendant’s agent by name, or the designation of those individuals as a unit, does not justify striking agency allegations in a Complaint.  Judge Nealon also noted that the Defendant’s efforts to strike agency claims for failing to identify the actual or ostensible agents by name in medical malpractice actions has been consistently rejected in Lackawanna County (citing numerous cases).  

In the end, the court noted that the names and responsibilities of the Defendant’s alleged agents can be ascertained during discovery. As such, the Preliminary Objections in this regard were denied.

Relative to the Plaintiff’s allegations of recklessness and the Plaintiff’s punitive damages claims, the court emphasized that punitive damages are only appropriate when an individual’s actions are of such outrageous nature as to demonstrate intentional, willful, wanton, or reckless conduct.   

The court noted that wanton or reckless conduct covers instances where the actor has intentionally done an act or an unreasonable character in disregard of a risk known to him or her or so obvious that he or she must be taken to have been aware of it, and so great as to make it highly probable that harm would result.   The court otherwise noted that allegations of merely negligence or even gross negligence, do not suffice to support a punitive damages claim.   

Judge Nealon turned to Pa. R.C.P. 1019(b), along with case law construing that Rule, to support a conclusion that recklessness is a condition of the mind that may be averred generally in pleadings in appropriate circumstances.

Judge Nealon went on to cite numerous Lackawanna County cases in which Preliminary Objections seeking to dismiss punitive damages claims on the basis of factual insufficiency have been uniformly rejected except in cases where the Complaint generally alleged willfulness, wantonness, or recklessness without supporting facts.   

After a review of the allegations in the Complaint in this matter, the court overruled the Defendant’s Preliminary Objections to the Plaintiff’s allegations of reckless conduct and the Plaintiff’s related claim for punitive damages. 

The court noted that the Defendant retained the right to challenge the validity of these claims by way of a Motion for Summary Judgment.   

The court additionally emphasized that the Plaintiff may not obtain any financial worth discovery from the Defendant doctor under Pa. R.C.P. 4003.7 unless and until the Plaintiff demonstrated a prima facie right to recover punitive damages.  

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

Catch-all Allegations Stricken From Complaint in Monroe County

In the case of Delgado v. Whitestone Care Center, No. 6369-CV-2018 (C.P. Monroe Co. Dec. 12, 2018 Zulick, J.), the court sustained a Defendant’s Preliminary Objections regarding vague catchall language in a Plaintiff’s negligence Complaint arising out of a trip and fall matter.   However, the court overruled the Defendant’s separate Preliminary Objection pertaining to the Plaintiff’s inability to specifically name individual employees at the Defendant’s business relative to the vicarious liability claims.  

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff was allegedly injured when she tripped and fell while visiting her mother at the facility operated by the Defendants.  

The Defendants initially objected to a catchall allegation by the Plaintiff that the conduct of the Defendants was “otherwise careless” and which was “presently unknown to Plaintiff but which may be learned through the discovery” process or at trial.  

Judge Arthur L. Zulick
Monroe County

Judge Zulick agreed with the Defendants that this particular language of the Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint was too vague and did not constitute a concise statement of material facts as required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure.   The language also found not to prevent a claim for relief. Moreover, the court stated that such language could also lead to late claims with insufficient notice for the Defendants to properly prepare the defense for trial.   As such, Judge Zulick struck these allegations from the Complaint.  

However, the court denied the Defendant’s separate Preliminary Objections relative to the Plaintiff’s vicarious liability claim.   The court rejected the Defendant’s objection that the Plaintiff did not identify or describe the alleged agents or employees who acts or omissions allegedly resulted in her injuries.  

Judge Zulick pointed to Pennsylvania case law involving unnamed employees or agent and noted that, simply because employees or agents were unnamed, or were referred to as a unit, did not preclude a claim against the employer if those unidentified individuals acted negligently during the course and scope of their employment.  

Judge Zulick otherwise stated that the identity of the agents or staff members who were working in a particular patient room on the date of the Plaintiff’s injury were known or ascertainable by the Defendants, or that such information could otherwise be obtained through the course of discovery.   Given that the allegations provided enough facts to enable the defense to prepare a proper answer and defense, the court denied this Preliminary Objection. 

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

Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Jan. 15, 2019).  

Plaintiff Need Not Name Every Actor in a Med Mal Complaint

In the Lycoming County Court of Common Pleas decision in the case of Lutz v. Williamsport Hospital, No. 18-CV-0384 (C.P. Lycoming Co. July 5, 2018 Linhardt, J.), the court reaffirmed the well-settled principle that a Plaintiff was not required to specifically name every potential actor involved in the Plaintiff’s care at a defendant hospital when pleading vicarious liability claims against the hospital.  

As such, the court overruled the Defendant’s Preliminary Objections to the Plaintiff’s vicarious liability claims in this matter.  

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

Source:  “Digest of Recent Opinions,” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Nov. 20, 2018). 

Preliminary Objections Denied in Premises Case on Issues of Agency, Recklessness, and Specificity

The Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas addressed Preliminary Objections to a personal injury Complaint in the case of Rossi v. School Side Builders, Inc., No. 2017-CV-2731 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Nov. 15, 2018 Nealon, J.).   This matter arose out of a premises liability claim.   

The Plaintiff contends that she was a residential tenant on the Defendant’s premises.   The Plaintiff was in the process of cooking french fries in a pan with grease on an electric stove when the pan suddenly caught on fire.   

The Plaintiff alleged that the flames from the fire activated the automatic sprinkler system in the building and water was emitted from the sprinkler head which then allegedly caused a fireball explosion when the water contacted the boiling grease.  This allegedly caused the boiling grease to splash from the pan and burn the Plaintiff on various parts of her body.  

The case came before the court by way of Preliminary Objections filed by the Defendant seeking to strike the Plaintiff’s vicarious liability claim based upon the Plaintiff’s failure to identify the Defendant’s alleged agents by name.    

The Defendants also preliminarily objected to the Plaintiff’s allegations of recklessness and the related claim for punitive damages on the grounds that the Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to support those claims.   

The Defendants additionally asserted a “Connor” objection with regards to the Plaintiff’s references to the Defendant’s alleged failure to comply with certain requirements of the International Building Code and the National Fire Protection Association requirements without specifying which code provisions or requirements were allegedly violated.  

With regards to the Preliminary Objections to the vicarious liability claim, the court addressed various appellate decisions which have repeatedly held that a plaintiff's failure to identify the Defendant’s agents by name, or the designation of those individuals as a unit, does not justify striking agent allegations in a Complaint.   Judge Nealon noted that these appellate court decisions have led to a number of similar decisions in the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas rejecting efforts by Defendant to strike agency claims for failure to identify the actual or ostensible agents by name [usually in the medical malpractice context].   

The court in Rossi also noted that, to rule otherwise, would result in numerous requests for pre-Complaint discovery in virtually every case in order to pre-empt the filing of these types of Preliminary Objections by Defendants.   Accordingly, these Preliminary Objections to the vicarious liability allegations in the Complaint were denied.  

Relative to the allegations of recklessness and the claim for punitive damages, the court reviewed the requirements for this type of cause of action and held that, based upon a review of the allegations in the Complaint, the Plaintiff had sufficiently pled these claims under the current status of the law.  As such, these Preliminary Objections were denied as well.  

With regards to the Defendant’s Connor objections regarding the Plaintiff’s allegations pertaining to violations of co-provisions and requirements, the court ruled that the Plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to implicate the Code provisions and noted that the issue of which sections of the application Codes were applicable could be developed and determined during the course of discovery and thereafter addressed and resolved in Pre-Trial Motions In Limine.   As such, these Preliminary Objections were denied by the court as well.

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

Claims of Parental Liability for Acts of Adult Child Against Pennsylvania State Police Officers Allowed to Proceed

In the case of Dickson v. Frein, No. 16-CV-4887 (C.P. Lacka. Co. June 1, 2018 Nealon, J.), Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas addressed issues of parental liability for their son’s act in gunning down members of the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) during a tragic shooting that occurred in Pike County, Pennsylvania on September 12, 2014.  

In this matter, there are three (3) civil actions arising out of an incident which resulted in the death of a PSP Corporal and serious physical injuries and emotional harm to two other members of the PSP.   

The adult shooter’s parents, who are named Defendants in these cases, filed Preliminary Objections in the nature of demurrers seeking to dismiss the negligence claims against them on the grounds that they did not know any recognized duty to the shooting victims to the actions of their adult son.   The shooter’s father also filed a demurrer to one Plaintiff’s claim that the father was vicarious liable for the tortious conduct of his son.  

Applying the demurrer standard, the court denied the Defendants’ Preliminary Objections in this regard.  

Judge Nealon noted that, in cases involving firearms that are owned or controlled by parents and located on their property, Pennsylvania law recognizes a parental duty to exercise reasonable care in controlling or restricting access to those fire arms by a minor child, or even an adult child who suffers from mental illness or a cognitive disability, such that the child’s use of a firearm may create an unreasonable risk of harm to others.  

Judge Nealon also noted that, even in the absence of a special relationship between the parents and the shooter, the parents have a duty to refrain from committing an affirmative act that is likely to affect the conduct of the shooter in such a manner as to pose an unreasonable risk of harm to others.  

In this matter, the Complaints filed contained allegations that the parents knew that the shooter suffered from mental illness, cognitive disabilities, delusions, and an inability to distinguish fantasy from reality since the time that the shooter was a child.   

The Plaintiffs also alleged that, rather than seek warranty mental health treatment for their son, the parents fostered the child’s fantasies by allegedly financing their adult son’s military simulation hobby, providing him with fire arms training, and furnishing him with a text on sniper techniques.   

The Complaints also contained allegations that the parents otherwise psychologically manipulated their son’s vulnerable mental health state and compromised his cognitive condition in other ways, including positions on ending the misuse of power by police, which allegedly caused the adult son to allegedly develop a strong antipathy towards the police.   

The Plaintiffs’ Complaints also alleged that the parents knew that the adult son had been threatening to kill others who had wronged him or others. 

Overall, the Plaintiffs alleged in their Complaints that, despite their knowledge of their son’s wayward thoughts, the parents failed to contact police or any mental health professionals regarding their son’s intentions and actions and, to the contrary, granted him unfettered access to the firearms that the parents owned or controlled at their residence, including the weapons their son used during his attack on the Pennsylvania State Police.  

Given that the Defendant’s parents had not established that it was free and clear from doubt that they owed no duty of care under Pennsylvania law to the Plaintiffs, the court denied the Preliminary Objections filed by the parent Defendants.  

Judge Nealon did otherwise dismiss the separate vicarious liability claim against the father for the criminal conduct of his son as insufficient as a matter of law due to the absence of the requisite agency relationship between the father and the shooter.  

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