Court Addresses Medical Charting Issues in a Medical Malpractice Case

In the case of Creech v. Piotr F. Zembrzuski, No. 2024-CV-9004 (C.P. Lacka. Co. July 21, 2025, Nealon, J.), the court overruled Preliminary Objections filed against a medical malpractice Complaint in a wrongful death litigation.

According to the Opinion, a mother commenced this lawsuit against various healthcare providers for treating her daughter. The mother alleges that the healthcare providers failed to timely and properly diagnose the Plaintiff’s decedent’s deteriorating medical conditions.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff-mother asserted, among other claims, that the healthcare providers failed to timely and appropriate document the daughter’s findings and that their violation of the medical records documentation obligation prevented the mother from identifying in the Complaint each hospital agent who allegedly negligently treated the daughter.

The hospital Defendants filed a demurrer to the medical record charting allegations on the ground that the mother did not cite any statute, regulation, or other law that was allegedly violated or that supported the imposition of civil liability for untimely or inadequate medical entries.

The medical providers also sought to dismiss one hospital Defendant on the basis that it was merely a holding company which cannot be liable unless the mother pierced the corporate veil.

The court overruled the Preliminary Objections.

Judge Nealon noted that, under Pennsylvania law, physicians are obligated to make timely entries in a patient’s medical record that accurately, legibly, and completely reflect specific information regarding patient evaluation and treatment. The court noted that those charting requirements have been recognized as establishing standards of care and conduct for physician.

Accordingly, the court found that the mother’s allegations related to the hospital Defendants’ alleged violations of those medical records documentation standards were relevant to the Plaintiff’s negligent claims.

With regard to the claim against the alleged holding company, the court ruled that the mother had specifically alleged that the alleged holding company owned and operated the subject hospitals, employed the physicians and other professionals who treated the decedent, and provided medical care and services to the decedent.

Under the standard of review that requires the court to accept the Plaintiff’s factual allegations as true, and which prohibits the hospital Defendants from presenting a speaking demurrer, the court held that the Defendant’s Preliminary Objections should be overruled.

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

Allegations of Recklessness Continue to Be Upheld

In the case of Celli v. Endless Mountain Extended Care, LLC, No. 2023-CV-5141 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Sept. 12, 2024 Nealon, J.), the court addressed various issues regarding the pleadings in a trip and fall case.

According to the Opinion, a Lackawanna County Plaintiff was undergoing in-patient treatment at a Wyoming County facility when he fractured his ankle during recreational activities on the Plaintiff’s sports field.

The court addressed various Preliminary Objections filed by the Defendant clinic and the Defendant landowner.

With regard to one of the Preliminary Objections, the court denied the objection to the allegations of recklessness and continued to trend of cases holding that recklessness can be pled in any case where negligence is alleged.  Judge Nealon again referenced the rationale that, given that recklessness is an allegation as to a state of mind, under Pa.R.C.P. 1019 and appellate precedent reviewing the same, allegations of recklessness are permitted to be generally pled under Pa. R.C.P. 1019.  

As part of its analysis of this issue, the court pointed, in part, to the article entitled "Pleading for Clarity:  Appellate Guidance Needed to Settle the Issue of the Proper Pleading of Recklessness in Personal Injury Matters" by Daniel E. Cummins, 93 Pa. B.A.Q. 32 (Jan. 2022).

The court also separately allowed the claims of punitive damages to proceed after finding that sufficient facts were pled to support that claim..

Judge Terrence R. Nealon
Lackawanna County

With regards to other issues raised, the court found that, given that the patient had charged the owner of the premises with misfeasance for personally participating in the tortious activity, the Plaintiff did not need to pierce the clinic’s corporate veil in order to sue the owner. 

Rather, the court found that the Plaintiff may instead impose the individual liability on the owner under a participation theory where it is alleged that the owner of the premises allegedly directed the drilling and digging of the various holes in that field as part of a proposed facility expansion.  It was also noted that the landowner had also encouraged the clinic’s patient to participate in recreational activities on that field even though the owner knew that other patients had been previously injured due to the numerous holes the field that were allegedly concealed by overgrown grass.

Lastly, the trial court rejected any venue challenge by the Defendants after finding that the venue in Lackawanna County was proper as to the owner given that the owner resided in Lackawanna County and was served with original process in Lackawanna County.  Judge Nealon also reasoned the venue was proper as to all Defendants where the patient was asserting joint and several liability against the clinic and the owner. Accordingly, the court found that the venue was proper as against both Defendants under Pa. R.C.P. 1006(c).

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

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rejects Effort by Plaintiff To Pierce Corporate Veil

In the case of Mortimer v. McCool, No. 37 MAP 2020 (Pa. July 21, 2021)(Maj. Op. by Wecht, J.)(Concurring Op. by Donohue, J.), the Pennsylvania Supereme Court addressed the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil to impose liability in a personal injury matter.

This matter arose out of an accident during which the Plaintiff was injured when a drunk driver hit her car.  A Dram Shop claim was pursued against multiple defendants.  

After the Plaintiff secured a substantial verdict, her attorney took steps in an effort to pierce the corporate veil of certain Defendants in an effort to realize a monetary recovery on the verdict.

In this regard, the Plaintiff sought to utilize a doctrine known as "singe-entity," "enterprise," or "horizontal" liability.  Generally speaking, the doctrine holds that, just as a corporation's owner may be held liable for judgments against the corporation when justice so requires, so may affiliate or sister corporations be held liable for each other's judgments where those various corporations have a shared ownership or engage in a single commercial enterprise.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that the application of the enterprise liability theory to pierce the corporate veil of the defendant was not precluded per se under Pennsylvania law.  However, the Court found that the attempt to pierce the corporate veil in this case under that theory was rejected when the entities lacked identical ownership.

The Court also noted that, if the Plaintiff was allowed to invoke enterprise liablity in this case, an innocent Defendant would have been exposed.  The Court noted that piercing the corporate veil may only occur when the rights of innocent parties are not prejudiced.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of the Majority Opinion by Justice Wecht in this case may click this LINK.  The Concurring Opinion by Justice Donohue may be viewed HERE.


Source: “Court Summaries” by Timothy L. Clawges. Pennsylvania Bar News (August 16, 2021).

Source of image: Photo by Yan Krukov from Pexels.com.