Court Finds Venue Selection Clause in Medical Provider's Agreement Valid

In the case of McCarney v. Hahn, No. 25084681 (C.P. Phila. Co. Jan. 15, 2026 Carpenter, J.), the court issued a Rule 1925 Opinion requesting the Superior Court to affirm the trial court’s decision to transfer venue in this medical malpractice case out of Philadelphia and into Chester County based upon a venue selection agreement in the relevant documents existing between the parties.

The trial court noted that it had found that numerous signed medical provider venue selection agreements were valid and enforceable given that the contracts utilized unambiguous language. The court also found that the circumstances of the signing of the relevant documents did not indicate any unconscionability.

In its Opinion, the court noted that the medical provider had provided a written agreement that was clear and unambiguous. It was noted that the venue selection clause was not buried in the document or obscured. Rather, the venue selection agreement appeared in a short form and was prefaced by a bolded underlined heading that read, “Pennsylvania Patient Only-Venue Agreement.”

The court also noted that the Plaintiff had signed six (6) other agreements also containing venue provisions which were set forth in separate forms under a section entitled “Claims.”

The court rejected the Plaintiff’s argument that she had been provided inadequate notice, that there was no opt-out option, that there was allegedly a lack of mutual assent. 

The court also rejected the Plaintiff’s argument of unconscionability based upon the Plaintiff’s alleged physical and mental condition when she signed the documents, including her alleged infertility problems when she signed one agreement and including the Plaintiff being in labor when she signed one of the other agreements.

The court noted that, while the Plaintiff was in labor when she signed one of the agreements, she had previously signed five (5) identical agreements before that particular document. The court also held that the Plaintiff’s infertility struggles did not establish a legal incapacity, mutual mistake, undue influence, or unconscionability.

The trial court sustained the Defendants’ Preliminary Objections and ordered the case to be transferred to Chester County and directed the Plaintiffs to pay the cost related to the transfer. In this Rule 1925 Opinion, the trial court requested the Superior Court to affirm the trial court’s decision.

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


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert, www.Law.com (July 23, 2026).

Source of image:  Photo by Gabrielle Henderson on www.unsplashcom.