Pennsylvania Supreme Court Addresses Issues of Indemnification and Contribution in Context of Medical Malpractice Claim

In the case of McLaughlin v. Nahata, No. 7 WAP 2022 (Pa. July 28, 2023) (Op. by Brobson, J.)(Wecht, J., Concurring), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, found that a hospital and a dialysis clinic were determined to be vicariously liable for the negligence of the doctors, and Pennsylvania law permitted the hospital to seek contribution from the dialysis clinic.
However, the Court was evenly divided on the question as to whether the hospital could also seek indemnification from the dialysis clinic.

Given the decision on contribution and the inability to reach a decision on the indemnity issue, the Superior Court decision was affirmed.

In this case, the issue presented to the court was whether, as a matter of law, the hospital could seek contribution and/or indemnity from a dialysis clinic for negligence allegedly committed by the doctor employees of the dialysis clinic.

The trial court and the Superior Court had both previously concluded that, although the judicial principles for contribution and indemnity did not apply cleanly to these particular circumstances, equitable principles of law permitted the hospitals to seek both contribution and indemnity from the dialysis clinic. As noted above, the Supreme Court agreed on the issue of indemnification but split on the issue of contribution.

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


Justice Wecht's Concurring Opinion can be viewed HERE.


The Supreme Court's Per Curiam Order can be viewed HERE.

Source: “Justia Daily Opinion Summaries” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (July 29, 2023).

Source of image:  Photo by Camilo Jiminez on www.unsplash.com.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Addresses Issues of Contribution And Indemnity in a Med Mal Case

In the case of McLaughlin v. Nahata, No. 7 WAP 2022 (Pa. July 28, 2023) (Op. by Brobson, J.), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether, as a matter of law, the hospital could seek contribution and/or indemnity from a dialysis clinic for negligence allegedly committed by the doctor employees of the dialysis clinic.

The trial court and the Superior Court had both concluded that, although the judicial principles for contribution and indemnity did not apply cleanly to these particular circumstances, equitable principles of law permitted the hospitals to seek both contribution and indemnity from the dialysis clinic.

In a unanimous decision, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court found that a hospital and a dialysis clinic were determined to be vicariously liable for the negligence of the doctors involved in this matter.  The Court also ruled that Pennsylvania law permitted the hospitals to seek contribution from the dialysis clinic. However, the court was evenly divided on the question as to whether the hospital could also seek indemnification from the dialysis clinic.

Given the decision on contribution and the inability to reach a decision on the indemnity issue, the Superior Court decision was affirmed on those questions.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK and the related Order HERE.

Source: “Justia Daily Opinion Summaries” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (July 29, 2023).

Judge Brann Review Rules of Evidence Regarding Admissibility of Evidence and Expert Testimony in a Trucking Accident Matter

In the case of Cleveland Brothers Equip. Co. v. Vorobey, No. 4:19-CV-01708 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 10, 2023 Brann, J.), the court addressed numerous pre-trial Motions in Limine in a contribution action arising out of a trucking accident.

In ruling on the various pre-trial Motions in Limine at issue, Judge Brann provided a detailed recitation as to the current law regarding the general the admissibility of certain evidence at trial.

With regards to one of the issues raised in this case, in which Cleveland Brothers was seeking contribution against a Co-Defendant relative to a Cleveland Brothers’ payment of a settlement in an underlying personal injury matter, the court ruled that evidence regarding a Defendant’s lack of participation in a Mediation that led to the settlement of the underlying action would be excluded as irrelevant to the negligence issues presented in this contribution case. 

The court reasoned that whether and why a party did or did not participate in an underlying legal proceeding had no bearing on whether that party owed a duty of law or breached that duty relative to the underlying motor vehicle accident. The court also noted that the reference to any litigation strategy by the parties in the underlying case was inadmissible as it would likely confuse and distract the jury in this subsequent contribution action.

Chief Judge Matthew W. Brann
M.D. Pa.

In this decision, the court also addressed issues regarding the qualifications and competency of a defense accident reconstruction expert to testify with regards to certain issues relevant to the accident. In his Opinion, Judge Brann set out the applicable law as to the admissibility of an expert witness as an expert in detail.  After reviewing that law, Judge Brann limited the Defendant's accident reconstruction expert’s testimony in certain respects.

The court also addressed whether or to the Defendant in this contribution action could attempt to introduce evidence that the settlement of the underlying personal injury case was allegedly influenced upwards by the fact that punitive damages claims were pled.

Judge Brann found that the Defendant in this contribution case had not developed any factual basis to support a claim that the punitive damages pled in the underlying case did serve to influence the settlement for which Cleveland Brothers was seeking a contribution in this matter.

The court also noted that an affirmative defense, such as the one at issue regarding the punitive damages issue, raised by a Defendant can be dismissed prior to trial for lack of proof. The court found that the Defendant’s proof in this regard was woefully insufficient and, as such, the Defendant was precluded from referencing at the trial of the contribution claims the fact that punitive damages may have been at issue in the underlying personal injury matter.

Relative to the actions of the Defendant truck driver, Judge Brann noted that, since the negligence of that driver was conceded, evidence of that driver’s conviction for traffic violations would be precluded as being more prejudicial then probative under an application of the Federal Rules of Evidence.

Judge Brann also addressed whether or not Cleveland Brothers could proceed with affidavits and/or testimony from the Plaintiff’s attorneys for the original Plaintiffs in the underlying litigation in the effort by Cleveland Brothers to establish that the damages paid in the underlying settlement were reasonable and necessary. 

The court analogized this evidence as being similar to office notes or reports by treating physicians. Judge Brann stated that, in the same way that treating physicians need not submit expert reports concerning their treatment in order to testify at trial, the attorneys for the original Plaintiffs in this same litigation would be permitted to testify as to the fairness of settlement without submitting expert reports under F.R.C.P. 26.

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


I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm in Philadelphia for summarizing this case in his monthly newsletter.  For full disclosure purposes, I note that I represented an Additional Defendant in this case.

Defendant Township Found Not to Be a Joint Tortfeasor With Co-Defendant Given Township's Immunity from Suit

In the case of Owens v. Huffman, No. 10612 of 2021, C.A. (C.P. Lawr. Co. July 8, 2022 Motto, P.J.), the court ruled that a Defendant Township was not a joint tortfeasor with its Co-Defendants in this lawsuit involving alleged property damages related to septic system issues.

The Court ruled that the Township was not a joint tortfeasor with the Co-Defendants due to the Township’s standing as a governmental agency and concomitant immunity.

As such, the court ruled that the Co-Defendants could not recover on or pursue a claim of indemnity or contribution from the Township. In light of this ruling, the courts sustained a Defendant Townships Preliminary Objections in this case involving damages claims arising out of issues with a septic system on the property involved.

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


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Aug. 30, 2022).

Motion To Bifurcate Trial Denied in Federal Middle District Court

In the case of Cleveland Brothers Equipment Co., Inc. v. Vorobey, No. 4:19-CV-01708 (M.D. Pa. June 23, 2020 Brann, J.) (Mem. Op.), Judge Matthew W. Brann denied a Plaintiff’s Motion to Bifurcate a trucking accident litigation with respect to the issues of liability and damages.

This matter actually involves a contribution action filed by the Plaintiff trucking company against Co-Defendants after the underlying personal injury cases were resolved.  The trucking company was a defendant in the underlying matter, which was settled, and then began this contribution action against a co-defendant.

In addressing the Motion to Bifurcate, Judge Brann noted that, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(b), a federal district court is permitted to order the bifurcation of trials for convenience, to avoid prejudice, or in the interests of judicial economy. 

Applying his broad discretion, Judge Brann denied the Motion to Bifurcate after finding that judicial economy would be served by keeping the cases together. 

In so ruling, Judge Brann noted that the Third Circuit has held that “separation of issues for trial is not to be routinely ordered.” See Op. at 2. 

Also, as a side note with respect to this decision is that the court used footnotes for all of its case citations as well as for some commentary. Here is to hoping that this does not become the norm in terms of Opinions as it is tedious to go from the body of the Opinion to look down at the citation and come back up to continue to reading the Opinion. I realize that others may prefer the perhaps more fluid reading of an Opinion when the case citations are instead put in footnotes.


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