Allegations of Recklessness and John/Jane Doe Allegations Allowed To Proceed

 THIS IS THE 300th TORT TALK BLOG POST IN WHICH JUDGE TERRENCE R. NEALON HAS BEEN REFERNCED, MOST OF WHICH BLOG POSTS INVOLVED A SUMMARY OF A JUDICIAL OPINION OF HIS.

In the case of Webb v. Scranton Quincy Hospital Company, No. 21-CV-4073 (C.P. Lacka. Co. June 10, 2022 Nealon, J.), Judge Terrence R. Nealon issued the following notable rulings regarding preliminary objecctions filed by Defendants in a medical malpractice case:

-Overruling preliminary objections to claims of recklessness on the grounds that such claims may be generally pled under Pa.R.C.P. 1019 and given that the facts pled in the Plaintiff's Complaint supported such claims in any event;

-Overruling preliminary objections asserting that the Plaintiff's allegations are too vague after finding that the Plaintiff's lengthy Complaint provide the Defendants with adequate notice of the corporate liability, negligence, and recklessness claimss against the Defendants, as well as with respect to the averments regarding the hospital's corporate owner and with respect to the regional hospital system.

-The court also found that the Plaintiff's Jane/John Doe averments in the Complaint satisfied the requirements of Pa.R.C.P. 2005 in order to properly designate an unknown defendant by a Doe designation.

As such, all of the Defendants Preliminary Objections were overruled.

Anyone wishing to review this Opinion may click this LINK.

New Rule Pertaining to John Doe Designations in Pleadings Recently Went Into Effect - Pa.R.C.P. 2005

On April 1, 2019, Pa.R.C.P. 2005, which governs the use of “John Doe” or “Jane Doe” designations in pleadings, took effect.

According to the Comment to the Rule, the Rules of Civil Procedure were silent as to this issue prior to the implementation of Pa.R.C.P. 2005.

The rule allows a plaintiff or a defendant joining party to designate an unknown defendant by use of a Doe designation provided certain conditions are met. Under the Rule, the Doe defendant’s actual name must be unknown to the plaintiff or the defendant joining party after the completion of a reasonable search for the person using due diligence.

According to the Comment, an effort to list as parties, “Defendants John Doe 1-10 is frowned upon.

The Rule also requires a specific allegation in the pleading confirming that the Doe designation is a designation of a fictitious person or entity.  Also included in the pleading must be a factual description of the unknown defendant which must contain sufficient particularity for identification.
 

Moreover, the plaintiff or defendant joining party must aver that a reasonable search to determine the actual name of the Doe defendant has been conducted.

Any named defendant in the action is granted authority under Rule 2005(e) to file Preliminary objections on the grounds of nonconformity with this Rule 2005 by the Plaintiff or on the grounds of prejudice.

The Rule additionally provides that once the actual name of the unknown defendant is determined, the plaintiff or joining party must file a motion to amend the Complaint pursuant to this Rule 2005 and in accordance with Pa.R.C.P. 1033, by replacing the “Doe” designation with the defendant’s actual name.  Such a motion must be supported by an affidavit explaining the nature and extent of the investigation utilized to determine the Doe defendant’s actual identity and to provide the date that the identity was determined.

Under the Rule, it is also provided that subpoenas in aid of discovery relating to an unknown Defendant may not be issued or served without leave of court.

Rule 2005 also confirms that a judgment may not be entered by the court against an unknown Defendant.

Source:  Article “New Rule of Civil Procedure Governing Unknown Defendants Took Effect April 1, 2019” by Matthew E. Salmasska, Esq. in the PBA’s Civil Litigation Sections Civil Litigation Update Newsletter at p. 13 (Spring, 2019).  See also Pa.R.C.P. 2005.