.
Health Care

Legal Updates for Health Care Liability

Forum Non Conveniens Motion Prevails Despite Recent Venue Rule Change

Legal Updates for Health Care Liability – March 13, 2024

March 13, 2024

On January 1, 2023, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania unraveled a 20-year venue rule applicable to medical professional liability cases. Under the previous venue rule, a medical professional liability action may be brought against a health care provider only in a county in which the cause of action arose, i.e., where the care and treatment occurred. Since January 1, 2023, however, plaintiffs have been able to file medical malpractice suits in any county where any defendant could be served or does business, where any transaction or occurrence giving rise to the suit took place, or where any care at issue occurred. 
    
A recent case out of Lackawanna County (Scranton) demonstrates that there is still hope for forum non conveniens motions despite the recent expansion to the venue rules. In Leone v. Gusick, No. 2023 CV 37, 2024 WL 894653 (Lacka. Co. Mar. 01, 2024) (Nealon, J.), the court held that the litigation and eventual trial in a Lackawanna County medical professional liability action commenced by Lycoming County plaintiffs would be too oppressive for the Lycoming County and Centre County physician defendants and their Lycoming County and Montour County defendant employers to remain in Lackawanna County.
    
By way of background, the plaintiffs filed suit on behalf of their son, who were Lycoming County (Williamsport) residents. They named as defendants a Lycoming County physician and his alleged Lycoming County employers, as well as a Centre County physician, who practiced in Clinton County, and his alleged employers, which were situated in Montour County and Clinton County. The plaintiffs alleged that their son had a brain injury dating back to 2001, for which he treated through his early teenage years. He was seen by the defendants from 2013 through 2018, who medically cleared him to play high school football and approved his return to football after head injuries in 2015 and 2017. In August 2018, their son became unresponsive after a helmet-to-helmet hit and was diagnosed with a large acute subdural hematoma with severe mass effect and a severe traumatic brain injury, resulting in paralysis to the right side of his body. 
    
It was undisputed that no care or treatment at issue occurred in Lackawanna County. The sole basis for filing suit in Lackawanna County was that the defendants “regularly, continuously, and systematically conduct business” in Lackawanna County. The court noted that under the recent changes to the venue rules, venue against those defendants was proper given their business contacts with Lackawanna County. The defendants filed a forum non conveniens motion, requesting that the case be transferred to Lycoming County.
    
The court began by outlining the applicable standards, explaining that when considering a petition to transfer venue under Pa.R.C.P. No. 1006(d)(1), the plaintiff's choice of forum is entitled to weighty consideration, the party seeking a change of venue bears a heavy burden in justifying the request to transfer venue, and such a petition will not be granted unless the defendant meets its burden of demonstrating, with detailed information on the record, that the plaintiff's chosen forum is oppressive or vexatious to the defendant. The defendants in Leone did not argue that the plaintiffs’ choice of venue in Lackawanna County was vexatious, i.e., designed to harass them. Instead, they asserted that Lackawanna County was an oppressive forum for them and their anticipated witnesses due to the burden it would impose upon their professional and familial obligations. 
    
Before addressing oppressiveness, the court noted that it must first make a threshold finding that the specific witnesses who assert a hardship will provide testimony that is essential to the defense. In other words, courts should not consider hardships of defense witnesses who are not key to the defense or who do not possess testimony that is relevant and necessary to the defense. The defense identified the two defendant physicians and another provider at one of the defendant’s facilities, all of whom were found by the court to have been intimately involved with the care that was the subject of the lawsuit.
    
Regarding the issue of oppressiveness, the court reviewed the record evidence before it and found that “[t]he record submitted by the parties reflects that the relevant events in this case transpired primarily in Lycoming County and Clinton County, and to a lesser extent in Montour County, and that no pertinent incident or occurrence took place in Lackawanna County. No witness from Lackawanna County has been identified, nor does this county have any connection to [the Plaintiffs, the Defendants, and their trial witnesses].” The court pointed out that “[t]he only conceivable association that this case has with Lackawanna County” was that the plaintiffs’ Philadelphia-based attorneys maintained a Lackawanna County office. 
    
The court found that the three individuals identified by the defense “provided compelling proof of the substantial hardships that will be imposed upon them by a trial in Lackawanna County.” This included the significant burden that would be placed on both their professional and personal responsibilities should they have to travel to Lackawanna County, which was more than 100 miles away. The plaintiffs countered with an argument that the defendants were not burdened given the availability and use of advanced communication technology. In rejecting the plaintiffs’ arguments, the court highlighted its recent opinion in Brooks v. Griffy, No. 22 CV 3250, 2023 WL 6880248, at *6-7 (Lacka. Co. 2023), wherein it held that the use of advanced communication technology only serves to mitigate inconvenience to witnesses in discovery and does not alleviate the hardship imposed upon them by their appearances at trial.
    
The court ultimately held that the defendants established that Lackawanna County is an oppressive forum and that the litigation and trial of this matter in Lycoming County will provide easier access to necessary witnesses and other sources of proof. The court, therefore, granted the defendants’ forum non conveniens motion and transferred the case to Lycoming County. 

 

Legal Updates for Health Care Liability – March 13, 2024, has been prepared for our readers by Marshall Dennehey. It is solely intended to provide information on recent legal developments and is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We welcome the opportunity to provide such legal assistance as you require on this and other subjects. If you receive the alerts in error, please send a note to tamontemuro@mdwcg.com. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2024 Marshall Dennehey. All Rights Reserved.

Firm Highlights

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

Result

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

graphic announcing our 6 2027 Super Lawyers & Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2027 New Jersey Super Lawyers And Rising Stars

Thought Leadership

Florida Supreme Court Rules Florida Statute §627.70152 Does not Apply Retroactively

In a decision that resolves years of appellate uncertainty and confirms that insurers and insureds alike can rely on the legal framework in place when a policy is issued, the Supreme Court of Florida last week found that Florida Statute §627.70152, which involves an insured’s requirement to provide an insurer with pre-suit notice before filing a suit, cannot be applied retroactively. In Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. Hughes, the Court was presented with the issue of whether the statutory pre-suit notice requirement applied retroactively and whether it would apply to a breach of contract of an insurance policy that was issued before the statute went into effect. Before the Court was an appeal from a homeowner, Ms. Hughes, who sued her insurance carrier, Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company (Universal) for breach of contract under an insurance policy that was in effect from April 24, 2019 through April 24, 2020. During the policy period, Ms. Hughes suffered a loss and, on May 29, 2019, made a claim for water damage. The carrier investigated the loss and issued payment; Ms. Hughes disputed the payment, finding the amount insufficient for repairs. On July 1, 2021, Florida Statute §627.70152 went into effect, which required insureds to provide notice of intent to initiate litigation against the carrier prior to filing a lawsuit; if an insured filed the lawsuit without complying with §627.70152, a court must dismiss the case without prejudice. On August 4, 2021, Ms. Hughes filed her lawsuit against Universal for breach of contract. Universal moved to dismiss based on her failure to comply with §627.70152. Ms. Hughes contended the notice requirement could not be applied retroactively. The trial court disagreed and dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice, and Ms. Hughes appealed. During the appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeal, in Cole v. Universal Property & Casualty, 363 So. 3d 1089 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023), ruled that Florida Statute §627.70152 did apply retroactively to policies issued before the effective date of §627.70152. However, the Sixth District Court agreed with Ms. Hughes and overturned the trial court’s ruling, finding the statute could not retroactively apply to policies issued prior to the statute effective date. Thereafter, the other district courts weighed in, with the Third District Court agreeing with the Fourth District Court, and the First, Second and Fifth District Courts agreeing with the Sixth District Court. In resolving the conflict amongst the district courts, the Supreme Court advised “as a general rule, ‘the statute in effect at the time an insurance contract is executed governs substantive issues arising in connection with that contract.’ Hassen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 674 So. 2d 106, 108 (Fla. 1996). The Court applied the two-step test when deciding whether a statute has retroactive application: “First, the Court must ascertain whether the Legislature intended for the statute to apply retroactively. Second, if such an intent is clearly expressed, the Court must determine whether retroactive application would violate any constitutional principles.” Menendez v. Progressive Exp. Ins. Co., 35 So. 3d 873, 877 (Fla. 2010). In analyzing the Legislature’s intent, the Court must determine whether the Legislature has manifested a clear command for retroactivity in the statutory text.  In review of the statutory text, the Court found nothing in the language of the statute to indicate that the phrase “all suits” was serving another purpose of expanding its reach to suits based on policies that both predate and postdate the enactment of the statute. Buis v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 394 So. 3d 738, 741 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024). Further, the Court noted the statute has an effective date, which has long been considered to be evidence against retroactive application of a statute. The Court concluded that, on its face, no provision of §627.70152 speaks to application of the statute to insurance policies issued before the statute’s effective date and therefore, the Legislature did not clearly command retroactivity of the statute to include insurance policies issued prior to the enactment of the statute. The Court briefly reviewed Universal’s argument that the presuit notice requirement was procedural, not substantive, and therefore should be applied retroactively; however, the Court agreed with the Sixth District Court’s finding that, in its entirety, §627.70152 transformed an insured’s ability to sue an insurance company under a property insurance policy and an insurer’s obligations to respond to and pay insurance claims, thus making the requirement a substantive change. The Court thereby upheld the decision of the Sixth District and disapproved the decision of the Fourth District in Cole.

Thought Leadership

Commonwealth Court Reaffirms the Constitutionality of Act 111's IRE Provisions

In this case, the claimant sustained a work injury of January 6, 1994, which was acknowledged by Notice of Compensation Payable (NCP). After the claimant’s receipt of 104 weeks of temporary total disability benefits, the employer filed a Request for an Impairment Rating Examination (IRE). The IRE was performed in May 2023 and the IRE physician found that the claimant had a 5% whole person impairment, under the AMA Guides. The employer filed a Petition based on the IRE results, and the Petition was granted by the WCJ. During litigation, the claimant argued that the IRE provisions of Act 111 (Section 306(a.3) of the Act) were not applicable to her injury, since it predated June 24, 1996, the date Act 57 went into effect, and that the IRE provisions were unconstitutional. The Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ)) granted the Petition and the Board affirmed. On appeal to the Commonwealth Court, the claimant argued that Act 111 violated the nondelegation doctrine and that its retroactive application to the claimant’s injury was unconstitutional. The court rejected the arguments on the basis that they had already found the same arguments without merit in multiple, prior cases. The court also addressed an argument made by the claimant that Act 111 was procedurally defective under the Pennsylvania Constitution because it was only considered on two days in each House after having undergone amendments and reassignments. The court noted that the Pennsylvania Constitution requires every bill to be considered on three different days in each House. The claimant maintained that, according to the legislative history, the bill did not receive three separate days of consideration from each House when it was assigned a new bill number. The court pointed out, however, that the bill number, H.B. 1840 remained constant and was considered on three occasions by the House. Further, the court concluded that minor amendments to the bill were germane to its original subject, which was to modify the Act’s IRE process, in accordance with Protz II.

Event

CLM 2026 Focus Conference

Allison joins three insurance industry leaders to discuss how cyber coverage disputes, the growing impact of social inflation on bodily injury claim valuation, and the use of artificial intelligence are reshaping the bad faith landscape. The panel will examine emerging sources of extra-contractual exposure, including evolving cyber insurance coverage issues and the challenges of accurately valuing bodily injury claims. Practical approaches to claim evaluation using AI, along with defense strategies designed to help prevent or successfully defend against bad faith litigation, will also be addressed. 

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

Result

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

business meeting photo

Result

Summary Judgment Obtained in Insurance Coverage Case

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

News

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

News

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

Thought Leadership

The Tolling Trap: Filing Alone Will Not Toll the Statute Without Good-Faith Service

The Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently reinforced a critical limitation on bad faith claims, holding that a timely filing alone will not preserve a cause of action absent a good-faith effort to serve the original process. The plaintiff had presented a claim for underinsured motorist benefits to his auto insurer. The insurer evaluated the claim and determined that the plaintiff’s accident-related damages did not exceed the bodily injury liability insurance limits of the at-fault driver and denied his claim. Among other claims, the plaintiff sought to present a claim for insurance bad faith under 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 8371, to which a two year statute of limitation applies. He first filed a praecipe for writ of summons before the expiration of the statute of limitation. However, the plaintiff did not attempt to serve the praecipe or writ until after the statute of limitations had expired. Additionally, the service failed as the plaintiff had mailed the original process to an incorrect address. Despite receipt of the Postal Service’s failure to deliver the original process, the plaintiff did not attempt to re-serve the writ. Two months later, the plaintiff filed a complaint and then successfully served that complaint. The insurer sought to dismiss the plaintiff’s bad faith claim as time-barred by the statute of limitations. The district court agreed. Though the plaintiff had filed a praecipe for a writ of summons prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations, the statute is only tolled if there is a good faith effort to serve that original process. In this case, the court determined that the plaintiff had failed to perform a “good faith effort to serve the original process”. Additionally, though the filing and service of a complaint can serve as alternative original process when the lawsuit is commenced by the filing of a praecipe for a writ of summons, the plaintiff filed his complaint after the statute of limitations had expired. The plaintiff’s bad faith claim was therefore determined to be barred by the statute of limitations and dismissed by the court, with prejudice. A key takeaway for the defense is not to assume that the statute of limitations has been successfully tolled by a plaintiff merely because a praecipe for a writ of summons or complaint has been filed prior to the expiration of the statute. A filed complaint or writ is only part of the equation. The defense should carefully review the docket and filings to confirm that the plaintiff also performed the requisite good faith effort to serve that original process. A thorough review of the docket may reveal that the plaintiff failed to make the good-faith service efforts necessary to toll the statute of limitations.