Consolidation Order Vacated on Appeal

In the case of DLP Conemaugh Mem. Medical Center v. Doe, 2026 Pa. Super. 107 (Pa. Super. May 26, 2026 Stabile, J., King, J., Sullivan, J.) (Op. by Stabile, J.), the Superior Court vacated a trial court Order consolidating various actions involving alleged sexual abuse by a Defendant physician, which case involved different Defendants and different alleged assaults over a 16 year period.

The Superior Court vacated a trial court Order of consolidation after finding that there is a danger of prejudice to Defendants and a danger of confusion among the jury. The appellate court noted that, although common questions of law existed in this case, there were no common questions of fact. As such, consolidation was found not to be warranted.

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

Source: “Court Summaries” by Timothy L. Clawges in the Pennsylvania Bar News (July 6, 2026).

Source of image: Photo by www.kaboompics.com on www.pexels.com.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules that Sexual Abuse Exception To Governmental Immunity Only Applies to Minor Victims

Capitol Building
Pennsylvania Supreme Court

In the case of City of Philadelphia v. J.S. Sr., No. 34 EAP 2024 (Pa. March 26, 2026) (Op. by McCaffery, J.), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court considered the parameters of the sexual abuse exception to the general governmental immunity from tort claims as set forth in Section 8542(b)(9) of the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act.

This matter arose out of claims by an adult Plaintiff alleging that the Plaintiff was subjected to sexual abuse or assaults while the Plaintiff was incarcerated. The record before the court confirmed that the Plaintiff was not a minor at the time of the alleged abuse.

The more specific issue addressed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is whether this waiver of the immunity afforded to governmental agencies under the sexual abuse exception applies when the victim of the sexual abuse is an adult, or whether the waiver of immunity is limited to only those cases involving sexual abuse committed against a minor.

As noted in Justice Wecht's Concurring Opinion, "[t]he sexual-abuse exception to the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act applies to '[c]onduct which constitutes an offense enumerated under Section 5551(7).'  The offenses enumerated in Section 5551(7), in turn, require that 'the victim was under 18 years of age at the time of the offense.'"

In the end, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that the unambiguous language of Section 8542(b)(9) waives immunity in favor of political subdivisions or their employees only if the Plaintiff was a minor at the time of the sexual abuse.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of the Majority decision may click this LINK.  Justice Wecht's Concurring Opinion can be viewed HERE.


Source: The Legal Intelligencer State Appellate Case Alert, www.Law.com (April 14, 2026).



Source of image: Photo by Lacey Reapsome on www.unsplash.com.

Attorney's Sexual Misconduct Towards a Client Found to Constitute Viable Basis for Legal Malpractice Claim

In the case of J.C. v. Fanucci & Kolcharno, No. 2022-CV-3490 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Feb. 4, 2025 Nealon, J.), the court addressed various Preliminary Objections filed in a case where a client sued her former attorney and his law firm for wanton and reckless legal malpractice, intentional infliction of emotional distress, breach of fiduciary duty, along with claims for vicarious liability, negligent hiring, supervision, and retention relative to claims that an attorney at the law firm pressured and extorted the client to engage in sexual activity with him as a condition of his continued representation of the client relative to criminal court matters. 

Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas, in a 56 page Opinion, held, in part, that an attorney’s sexual misconduct toward a client constituted a viable basis for a legal malpractice action.

The court rejected the defense claims that the Plaintiff would need to have alleged that she had been found innocent in her underlying criminal matter in order to pursue legal malpractice claims against her attorney. The court rejected that argument, in part, because the Plaintiff did not claim that she had been wrongfully convicted relative to the underlying matter.

In this decision, the court overruled the attorney’s Preliminary Objections to the Plaintiff’s claim of malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and with regard to the claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The court additionally overruled objections by the Defendant attorney’s law firm with respect to the Plaintiff’s claims against the firm for vicarious liability and negligent hiring.

The court additionally allowed the Plaintiff to proceed with the claims of recklessness and punitive damages. In ruling in this regard, the court cited, in part, to a Pennsylvania Bar Quarterly article by Daniel E. Cummins that provided an overview of recent Pennsylvania jurisprudence on the viability of claims of recklessness in personal injury matters based on claims of negligence.

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

LINK to Copy of J.C. v. Horizon Medical Corp. Decision From Yesterday's Post Regarding Statute of Limitations in Sex Abuse Civil Claims

In the case of J.C. v. Horizon Medical Corp., No. 20-CV-1222 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Oct. 8, 2021 Nealon, J.), Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas addressed a number of issues relating to sex abuse claims in a civil litigation matter.

According to the Opinion, an allergist allegedly sexually abused a student in his medical practice office.

After Section 5533(b)(2) of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa. C.S.A., was amended effective November 26, 2019, to extend the applicable statute of limitations to the Plaintiff’s 30th birthday, the student filed a Complaint against the allergist and his corporate employer.

The corporate employer filed a demurrer asserting that the student’s claims were time barred since the statute of limitations period that was extended by the amendment go the law should only apply to the individual perpetrators and not their employers. The employer also argued that the amendment to the loss could not be applied retroactively to revive her lapsed claim.

Judge Nealon disagreed and noted that the plain language of §5533, and its legislative history, supported the conclusion that the expanded statute of limitations period was intended to apply not only to the individual offenders, but also their alleged institutional enablers and principals.

The court otherwise ruled on other issues that the Plaintiff’s allegations in support of her fraud and punitive damages claims were sufficiently specific to provide the allergist and his employer with adequate notice of the claims against which they must defend.

Judge Nealon also noted that allegations in the Plaintiff’s Complaint regarding alleged issues between the allergist and another student were relevant to the issue of whether the employer knew or should have known of the necessity for greater supervision and monitoring of the doctor. As such, Judge Nealon denied the argument that such allegations constituted scandalous or impertinent matter and allowed those allegations to proceed.

In the end, the court overruled all of the Preliminary Objections asserted.

Anyone wishing to review this decision may click this LINK.

I send thanks to Attorney Robert T. Moran of the Moran Law Group, LLC in Scranton, PA for bringing this case to my attention.

Source of image:  Photo by Edgar Moran on Unsplash.com.

Court Finds Extension of Statute of Limitations in Sex Abuse Civil Cases Also Applies to Related Employers of Perpetrators

In the case of J.C. v. Horizon Medical Corp., No. 20-CV-1222 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Oct. 8, 2021 Nealon, J.), Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas addressed a number of issues relating to sex abuse claims in a civil litigation matter.

According to the Opinion, an allergist allegedly sexually abused a student in his medical practice office.

After Section 5533(b)(2) of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa. C.S.A., was amended effective November 26, 2019, to extend the applicable statute of limitations to the Plaintiff’s 30th birthday, the student filed a Complaint against the allergist and his corporate employer.

The corporate employer filed a demurrer asserting that the student’s claims were time barred since the statute of limitations period that was extended by the amendment go the law should only apply to the individual perpetrators and not their employers. The employer also argued that the amendment to the loss could not be applied retroactively to revive her lapsed claim.

Judge Nealon disagreed and noted that the plain language of §5533, and its legislative history, supported the conclusion that the expanded statute of limitations period was intended to apply not only to the individual offenders, but also their alleged institutional enablers and principals.

The court otherwise ruled on other issues that the Plaintiff’s allegations in support of her fraud and punitive damages claims were sufficiently specific to provide the allergist and his employer with adequate notice of the claims against which they must defend.

Judge Nealon also noted that allegations in the Plaintiff’s Complaint regarding alleged issues between the allergist and another student were relevant to the issue of whether the employer knew or should have known of the necessity for greater supervision and monitoring of the doctor. As such, Judge Nealon denied the argument that such allegations constituted scandalous or impertinent matter and allowed those allegations to proceed.

In the end, the court overruled all of the Preliminary Objections asserted.

Anyone wishing to review this decision may click this LINK.

I send thanks to Attorney Robert T. Moran of the Moran Law Group, LLC in Scranton, PA for bringing this case to my attention.

Source of image:  Photo by Edgar Moran on Unsplash.com.