Kevin Majernik

Pennsylvania Superior Court holds that trial court correctly entered nonsuit on plaintiff’s corporate negligence claim for failing to show actual or constructive knowledge.
Corey v. Wilkes-Barre Hosp. Co., LLC, 2023 PA Super 262, 307 A.3d 701 (Pa. Super. 2023)

The trial court entered nonsuit on the plaintiff’s corporate negligence claim as the case did not involve any kind of systemic negligence on the part of the hospital. The trial court found that the plaintiff’s sole expert gave only generalized, non-specific terms of what the expert believed “they” should have done, but failed to identify who was “they.” The plaintiff’s expert was only critical of “they,” which the court could only assume was the nurse and the attending emergency room physician, not the defendant hospital. Even assuming arguendo that “they” referred to the defendant hospital, the only testimony concerning knowledge for corporate negligence concerned issues with alarms on monitoring equipment, which fell well short of what is required for actual or constructive knowledge necessary for a claim of corporate negligence. Accordingly, the court found that there was no testimony and/ or evidence demonstrating actual or constructive knowledge. This is beneficial to support arguments made in preliminary objections, judgment on the pleadings, summary judgment and nonsuit for corporate negligence claims where a plaintiff fails to allege or sufficiently allege actual or constructive knowledge.

 

Pennsylvania Superior Court holds that, under Section 311 of MCARE, matters reviewed do not require a document be specifically reviewed by a patient safety committee.
Lahr v. Lehigh Valley Hosp., Inc., 2023 WL 8665017 (Pa. Super. Dec. 15, 2023)

The trial court had ordered production of patient safety reports which were (i) prepared in accordance with MCARE, (ii) intended to be confidential, and (iii) contained information identical to that conveyed to the Pennsylvania Patient Safety Authority protected by Section 311(d) of MCARE. The defendant-hospital claimed that the documents were privileged pursuant to MCARE, as they were patient safety event reports created in accordance with an adopted patient safety plan created in accordance with MCARE.

The Superior Court, on appeal, reversed the trial court’s determination, finding that “matters reviewed,” as stated in Section 311(a) of MCARE, do not require the purportedly privileged document under Section 311(a) if they have been reviewed by a patient safety committee or governing board in order to establish protection. Rather, at a minimum, based on the statutory interpretation of Section 311 of MCARE, a party only needs to demonstrate that the document “arose out of matters reviewed by a patient safety committee or a governing board pursuant to their Section 311(b) responsibilities.” While this decision is unreported, it will still be beneficial in asserting patient safety privileges under Section 311 of MCARE.

 

Pennsylvania Supreme Court holds that No Felony Conviction Recovery Rule barred medical malpractice and indemnification claims.
Dinardo v. Kohler, 304 A.3d 1187 (Pa. 2023)

Both the trial court and the Superior Court found that the plaintiff’s claims were barred by the No Felony Conviction Recovery Rule. The plaintiff filed a medical malpractice suit against his prior treating psychiatrist and health care providers, claiming that his criminal conduct—murdering four individuals—was a result of their gross negligence and sought compensatory damages and indemnification against judgments by the families of the four victims. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court found that any recovery was barred by the No Felony Conviction Recovery Rule as the plaintiff was barred from profiting and/or beneficiating via civil laws off of his own criminal conduct. Specifically, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court found that the complaint, when read as a whole, sought damages that flowed from his own homicidal conduct.

This is a major application of the No Felony Conviction Recovery Rule in the medical malpractice realm and can serve as a basis for further preliminary objections or dispositive motions wherein a plaintiff’s claims stem from criminal conduct. 

---

 

_{The Quarterly Dose – May 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.}