Pennsylvania Supreme Court Addresses No Felony Conviction Rule In Terms of Personal Injury Lawsuits

In the case of DiNardo v. Kohler, No. 22 EAP 2022 (Pa. Nov. 22, 2023)(Maj. Op. by Todd, C.J.)(Dougherty, J., Concurring), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court addressed the “no felony conviction recovery” rule and, in the process, affirmed an Order of the Superior Court barring a medical malpractice claim presented on behalf of a Plaintiff who pleaded guilty to four (4) courts of first degree murder of others.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff, who allegedly suffered from various mental health issues, confessed to killing four (4) individuals and pled guilty to first degree murder.

Thereafter, that Plaintiff filed a Complaint against his treating psychiatrist and his healthcare providers, alleging that his criminal conduct was the result of his psychiatrist’s grossly negligent treatment. The Plaintiff sought compensatory damages along with indemnification for the judgment levied against him by his victims’ families, along with counsel fees.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court noted that the “No Felony Conviction Recovery” rule prohibits an individual from benefiting or profiting, via the civil laws, from his own criminal conduct.

After a review of the case before it, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the Order of the Superior Court finding that the rule barred the Plaintiff’s medical malpractice claim presented in this case.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  Justice Dougherty's Concurring Opinion can be viewed at this LINK.

Source of image:  Photo by Kindle Media on www.pexels.com.

Court Rules that Personal Injury Claims By Parents of a Convicted Criminal Are Barred

In the case of Dinardo v. Kohler, No. 1905 EDA 2020 (Pa. Super. Jan. 26, 2022 Stabile, J., Bowes, J., Musmanno, J.) (Op. by Stabile, J.), the Superior Court reversed in part a lower court’s decision on Preliminary Objections in a case where the parents of a convicted criminal asserted claims against allegedly negligent medical personnel for not preventing their child’s criminal behavior.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court noted that the “no felony conviction recovery rule” is a subpart of the in pari delicto ("in equal part") doctrine, and that the application of this law precluded recovery under the case presented.

The court otherwise noted that the Pennsylvania courts do not assist convicted felons in collecting money damages that would not have occurred absent the criminal conviction.  The Pennsylvania Superior Court further noted that Pennsylvania follows the common law principle that a person should not be permitted to benefit through wrongdoing, particularly through criminal activity. 

As such, Pennsylvania law prevents a Plaintiff from recovering losses which flow from those criminal acts. The court otherwise stated that it would violate public policy to permit a person convicted of a serious crime to collect damages that would not have occurred absent the criminal conviction.

The court additionally noted that a criminal’s emotional distress from being convicted, along with the family’s litigation expenses due to such crimes, are not recoverable under Pennsylvania law.  A Plaintiff’s attempt to call such damages “compensation” is immaterial, since those alleged damages flow from the criminal conduct of the Plaintiff and, therefore, are not recoverable.

The court also noted that there is no medical malpractice exception to the in pari delicto doctrine.

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


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

Source of Images:  Photo by Scott Rodgerson on www.unsplash.com.