.

Defense Digest

Attention All Shoppers! There Is a Blue Light Special on Forum Selection in Pennsylvania Medical Malpractice Cases

Defense Digest, Vol. 29, No. 3, September 2023

September 1, 2023

Key Points:

  • On January 1, 2023, Pennsylvania’s new venue rule went into effect for medical malpractice cases. Plaintiffs may now 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. 
  • Since January 1, 2023, the number of medical malpractice cases filed per month in plaintiff-oriented counties has doubled and, sometimes, even tripled.
  • The revival of forum shopping, coupled with post-COVID nuclear verdicts, is problematic for health care providers and our health care system as a whole.
  • Defendants must continue to litigate inappropriate venues at the trial court level while this issue is challenged on a broader scale.

On January 1, 2023, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania’s decision to unravel a 20-year-old venue rule went into effect. This change empowers plaintiffs to file their medical malpractice cases in venues of their choosing, especially plaintiff-oriented counties, like Philadelphia. Since the rule change, forum-shopping plaintiffs have flocked en masse to Philadelphia to file their medical malpractice claims. The following discusses the impact that the venue rule change has made, thus far, on medical malpractice actions in Pennsylvania and what the future may hold. 

History of Pennsylvania Medical Malpractice Venue Laws
In 2002, Pennsylvania enacted the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error (MCARE) Act, which was passed in order to address dire and concerning issues impacting our courts and our health care system. Prior to the enactment of the MCARE Act, an extremely high number of medical malpractice claims were being filed throughout our Commonwealth. Also, forum shopping was in its prime and, therefore, plaintiff-oriented venues, such as Philadelphia, had a significant backlog. What is more, Pennsylvania became so litigious that it caused insurance carriers to no longer write policies and, in turn, health care providers to leave the state. This ultimately created concerns for our citizens’ access to quality health care. One way that the MCARE Act addressed these concerns was to mandate that medical malpractice actions must be filed only in the county where the care and treatment occurred. Since January 1, 2023, however, plaintiffs may now 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. 

Doing Venue the Old-Fashioned Way
Now that the venue rules are back to the “old-fashioned way,” the statistics seem to be suggestive of our impending return to the pre-MCARE Act days. Shortly after the passage of the MCARE Act, statistics showed a significant drop in medical malpractice claims, especially in Philadelphia County. Since January 1, 2023, however, filings in Philadelphia have skyrocketed. By way of comparison, from 2017–2022, Philadelphia County averaged 31 new medical malpractice cases per month. Last year, a total of 275 medical malpractices were filed in Philadelphia. However, as of the end of May 2023, Philadelphia already had a total of 258 new medical malpractice cases—an average of 52 cases per month. Based on these numbers, Philadelphia is on pace to have well over 600 medical malpractice cases filed in 2023. According to the medical malpractice statistics published by the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts, Philadelphia County has never had over 600 cases since the MCARE Act was enacted in 2002. 

Philadelphia is not the only county feeling the impact of the venue change. Lackawanna County, for example, averaged approximately 35 medical malpractice cases filed per year from 2017–2022. As of June 2023, however, there have already been 32 cases filed. Given the influx of cases in plaintiff-oriented counties, there has likely also been a drastic decrease in the number of cases being filed in conservative venues.

While defendants can challenge forum shopping by seeking to transfer cases to different counties based upon the doctrine of forum non conveniens, the likelihood of success will be low, as courts give significant weight to a plaintiff’s choice of forum. For example, in Hangey v. Husqvarna Pro. Prod., Inc., 247 A.3d 1136 (Pa. Super. 2021), the Superior Court found that venue in Philadelphia was proper for a defendant corporation who did 0.005% of its national business there. In Estate of Quigley v. Pottstown Hospital, et al., 286 A.3d 1240, 1242 (Pa. Super. 2022), the plaintiff alleged that the decedent was sexually assaulted while she was a patient at Pottstown Hospital, located in Montgomery County. The plaintiff filed suit in Philadelphia County and named not only Pottstown Hospital as a defendant but also its owner, Tower Health. The plaintiff acknowledged that Pottstown Hospital did not conduct any business in Philadelphia but argued that its owner, Tower Health, regularly conducted business there because it owned, controlled, and had authority over other Philadelphia subsidiaries, which admittedly were unrelated to Pottstown Hospital. The Superior Court ultimately held that Tower Health’s contacts with Philadelphia were sufficient for venue to remain there. 

These cases illustrate the difficulty of getting a case transferred out of a plaintiff-oriented venue. The chances of success may be even lower due to the recent increased usage of Zoom and other advanced communications technologies. The ability to reach the oppressive and vexatious standard necessary for witnesses to travel far distances to the county in which suit is filed may hold a lot less water when their appearances can be secured virtually.

Nuclear Verdicts
The recent venue rule change is compounded by the post-COVID nuclear verdicts plaguing Pennsylvania. In September 2022, a Philadelphia jury awarded $19.7 million to a woman who alleged that her primary care physician failed to diagnose her spinal cord lesion, leading to permanent spinal-cord damage, ambulatory dysfunction, and incontinence. In February 2023, a Philadelphia jury took less than three hours to award a former Philadelphia Eagles player $43.5 million in a medical malpractice case involving an alleged career-ending negligent orthopedic surgery. 

These two verdicts are pennies compared to the $182.7 million verdict issued by a Philadelphia jury on April 26, 2023, in a birth-injury case. It was alleged in that case that the minor-plaintiff suffered severe and profound hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy and cerebral palsy, resulting in substantial neurodevelopmental delays, as a result of a negligent delay in performing a C-section and a delay in administering an antibiotic to treat an intra-amniotic infection. The jury’s verdict consisted of $10 million in past non-economic loss, $70 million in future non-economic loss, $1.7 million in future lost earnings, and the remainder for future medical expenses. The verdict became the highest verdict in a medical malpractice case in the history of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

These post-COVID nuclear verdicts are not limited to Philadelphia. We are seeing them throughout the state. For example, in Luzerne County—located, in Wilkes-Barre, which has traditionally been somewhat of a conservative venue—a jury awarded $26 million in a November 2022 trial where the plaintiff alleged a failure to timely and appropriately treat a lower extremity vascular condition, leading to an above-the-knee amputation.

What Does the Future Hold? 
When it comes to our health care system in Pennsylvania, the venue rule change could not have come at a worse time. Hospitals and health care organizations continue to grow on a corporate level through integrations and various mergers and acquisitions. Nursing homes continue to be purchased by large national and regional chains. When applying the current venue rule to the current framework of our health care system, plaintiffs will likely have a relatively easy time establishing that a defendant in a medical malpractice does business in the county of their choosing or could be served there. 

The revival of forum shopping, coupled with post-COVID nuclear verdicts, may be the perfect storm that sends medical malpractice litigation back in time to the pre-MCARE Act ages. In order to correct the recent venue rule change, it will need to be addressed at a high level and on a broad scale. There is hope. There are various organizations and initiatives that continue to push the Civil Procedural Rules Committee, the legislature, and our appellate courts to reconsider the venue rule change. Only time will tell as to whether history will repeat itself. In the meantime, defendants must continue to litigate inappropriate venues at the trial court level by making a detailed record showing why a particular venue is onerous and unnecessarily oppressive or vexatious to the parties and witnesses. 

*Rob is a shareholder in our Scranton, Pennsylvania, office. He can be reached at 570.496.4658 or RJAldrich@mdwcg.com. 

 

Defense Digest, Vol. 29, No. 3, September 2023, is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2023 Marshall Dennehey. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.

Firm Highlights

Result

Summary Judgment Secured, Preserving $750,000 in Coverage for Insured in Major Trucking Liability Dispute

Ray Freudiger and Michael A. Roberts (both of Cincinnati) successfully obtained summary judgment on behalf of their client in a coverage dispute arising from a May 19, 2022, motor vehicle accident. A permissive driver operated a box truck for an interstate trucking company and caused severe injuries to two tort victims. Prior to the accident, the insured had procured a commercial auto policy for the trucking company with stated limits of $1,000,000. Following the accident, the insurer initiated a declaratory judgment action asserting that only reduced bodily injury limits of $25,000/$50,000 applied and later counterclaimed, alleging it would not have insured the driver had he been properly submitted for approval under the policy. After extensive discovery, briefing, and oral argument, the court rejected the insurer’s attempt to shift responsibility for the $750,000 in coverage it was legally required to provide for permissive drivers under Ohio law, granting summary judgment in favor of the insured and preserving $750,000 in liability exposure.

News

Veteran Trial Attorney Joseph M. Toddy Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Casualty Department in Philadelphia

Thought Leadership

Vendor Cyber Attack Compromises PII of More Than 3 Million Hunting and Fishing License Holders in Texas

The Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD) announced earlier this month that one of its vendors which handles the sale of state hunting and fishing licenses was the victim of a cybersecurity attack. The threat actor appears to have exfiltrated personal driver’s license information, passport numbers, email addresses, phone numbers and addresses of over 3 million hunting and fishing license holders.  The State Parks Department advised that the attack did not compromise social security numbers, dates of birth or financial information. Texas Cyber Command, the state’s new cybersecurity authority formed to protect critical infrastructure and coordinate threat responses across state and local government, reportedly assisted in detecting and containing the attack. TPWD has already set up free credit monitoring for those impacted through Kroll.  According to press reports, no specific group has yet been identified as the perpetrator of the theft. TPWD also advised that business has not been interrupted and license sales were continuing. This incident once again demonstrates that cybersecurity is only as strong as the weakest link in the supply chain. Businesses must prioritize security across their own environments and those of their vendors and contractors as well.

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

Result

No-Cause Jury Verdict Secured in Wrongful Death Trial

We successfully obtained a no-cause jury verdict in a 13-day wrongful death trial. The decedent, a 59-year-old man, was admitted to the emergency room on February 15, 2019, with complaints of abdominal pain, decreased appetite, and constipation, despite the use of laxatives. The patient did not complain of any nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea. He had a significant medical history including diabetes, hypertension, prior coronary artery stenting, morbid obesity (with past gastric bypass surgery), longstanding ventral hernia, and back pain. A CT scan revealed multiple hernias and a potential closed-loop bowel obstruction, leading to a surgery consultation. Our client, an emergency general surgeon, interpreted that the patient did not have a closed loop or any significant obstruction and recommended non-surgical management. The patient was approved to have clear liquids, and had a vomiting incident shortly after, but our client was not notified. The patient was returned to NPO status, and after improving overnight, he was returned to “clears” and additional medical and renal consults were ordered. Our client did not receive any communications from the residents/nurses of any changes in the patient’s condition. On February 18, 2019, two rapid responses were called due to increased heart rate and vomiting. It is believed that the vomiting resulted in aspiration, causing sepsis, ultimately leading to the patient’s death. During the trial, the plaintiff’s sole medical expert highlighted imaging on the wrong hernia, which called into question all of his opinions in the case. We made key objections related to the expert testimony, limiting what the allegations were, and preventing new allegations from being made. After approximately two and a half hours of deliberating, the jury returned a no-cause verdict. 

Casey Alan Coyle Joins Marshall Dennehey's PA Appellate Practice as a Shareholder in Harrisburg and Philadelphia

News

Marshall Dennehey Expands Leading Pennsylvania Appellate Practice With Addition of Shareholder Casey Coyle

Result

Unanimous Verdict Obtained in a Medical Malpractice Matter in Bergen County, New Jersey

Thought Leadership

The Enforceability of Online Arbitration Agreements Remains Unresolved in Pennsylvania, But the Pennsylvania Superior Court has Provided Substantive Guidance on the Issue

Key Points: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court confirms that an order compelling arbitration is not immediately appealable as collateral orders. The outcome of Chilutti II has generally left the substantive enforceability issues with browsewrap agreements unresolved in Pennsylvania. Until this issue is resolved by the Pennsylvania courts, companies operating in the Commonwealth should strive to ensure that their registration websites and/or application screens conspicuously present arbitration agreements in manners which ensure their users and consumers assent to the terms of the agreements by following the standards set forth in Chilutti I. Browsewrap agreements have been defined as agreements “‘in which a website offers terms that are disclosed only through a hyperlink and the user supposedly manifests assent to those terms simply by continuing to use the website,’ and typically do not require an electronic signature.” See, Cobb v. Tesla, Inc., 2026 WL 458470, at *1 n. 2 (Pa. Super. Feb. 18, 2026) (citation omitted). They are largely regarded as the “if you keep using this, you agree to everything buried in this link” terms embedded into almost every online agreement consumers and users sign before proceeding with purchases of goods and/or services. While consumers are generally aware of them, many almost never click on the link, nor read them in their entirety. This leaves many consumers and users ignorant of the terms and impact of such agreements. However, one’s ignorance of the otherwise neatly-tucked-away terms rarely renders them unenforceable. The issue of the enforceability of browsewrap agreements has been up for debate for some time in many jurisdictions, including Pennsylvania. Indeed, Pennsylvania had a brief grip on this issue for a period in time. Specifically, in 2023, an en banc Superior Court set forth heightened standards for companies to meet in order to secure assent and enforce browsewrap arbitration agreements. See Chilutti v. Uber Techs., Inc., 300 A.3d 430 (Pa.Super. 2023) (en banc) (“Chilutti I”) Chilutti I involved a husband and wife who sued Uber and its subsidiaries after the wife, a wheelchair bound passenger using Uber’s rideshare service, fell, struck her head, and lost consciousness due to her uber driver failing to provide a seatbelt and making an aggressive turn during the trip. The Chilutti’s filed a negligence lawsuit against Uber and its subsidiaries. In response, the defendants moved to compel arbitration, arguing that “the couple’s conduct on the company’s website and application — when they registered for the ridesharing service — signified that they agreed to be bound by the mandatory arbitration provision found in the hyperlinked terms and conditions.” The trial court granted the defendants’ petition and stayed the proceedings pending the results of arbitration, and the Chilutti’s appealed. On appeal, the Superior Court addressed two issues. First, it addressed the issue of whether it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal. A divided Superior Court determined that it did, with its basis for the holding being that the order from which the Chilutti’s appealed was a collateral order. Next, the Superior Court set out to address the merits of the Chilutti’s substantive claim. The Superior Court concluded that the parties lacked a valid agreement to arbitrate. Its rationale was that Uber’s website and application did not provide reasonably conspicuous notice of the terms to the Chiluttis. In reaching this decision, the en banc Superior Court held that browsewrap arbitration agreements are enforceable in Pennsylvania only if the registration website and application screens explicitly inform consumers that they are waiving the right to a jury trial, the registration process cannot be completed until the consumer is fully informed of this waiver, and, when the agreement is available via hyperlink, the waiver appears at the top of the first page of the terms in bold, capitalized text. Since the ruling, Pennsylvania courts have applied Chilutti I to determine if browsewrap agreements are enforceable.  For instance, the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas invoked Chilutti I to reject an agreement that lacked an express jury-trial waiver on the assent screen.  See Miller v. Festival Fun Parks, LLC, 92 WDA 2025 (C.P. Alleg. Cnty. Mar. 24, 2025). Similarly, the Superior Court has held that notice which failed to explicitly state the consumer was waiving a jury-trial right did not “me[e]t the strict burden set forth by our en banc Court in Chilutti I.” Pierce v. FloatMe Corp., 348 A.3d 1077, 1088 (Pa. Super. 2025). While the issue of enforceability of browsewrap agreements appeared to have been resolved by Chilutti I, Pennsylvania courts’ grip on this issue has been slackened by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s January 21, 2026, opinion in Chilutti II. See Chilutti v. Uber Techs., Inc., 349 A.3d 826 (Pa. 2026) (“Chilutti II”). Therein, the Supreme Court did not address the merits of the Chiluttis’ substantive claim, but rather the issue of whether the Superior Court had appellate jurisdiction to immediately review the orders staying litigation pending arbitration. The Court ultimately vacated the en banc opinion on jurisdictional grounds, holding that the Superior Court did not have appellate jurisdiction because the trial court’s order from which the Chiluttis appealed did not qualify as a collateral order and, thus, the Superior Court erred in holding to the contrary and lacked jurisdiction to entertain the merits” of the Chiluttis’ substantive claim. As such, Chilutti II has rendered Chilutti I nonbinding, and the issue of enforceability of online arbitration agreements remains unresolved. However, in light of the fact the Supreme Court did not address or comment on the merits of the Chiluttis’ appeal, Chilutti I is still meaningful. Specifically, it provides guidance as to the standards a company should strive to meet to ensure they have obtained users’ assent so that they are able to enforce online arbitration agreements. Additionally, it may serve as persuasive authority in judges’ evaluations of petitions and/or motions to compel browsewrap arbitration agreements until this particular issue is properly put before our appellate courts. Keanna works in our Pittsburgh, PA office. She can be reached at (412) 803-1174 or KASeabrooks@MDWCG.com.

Thought Leadership

Featured Conversations... Key Takeaways from A.M. Best’s Webinar on the Misuse Defense in Product Liability Claims, Featuring Michael Salvati

Michael Salvati, shareholder in our Philadelphia office, was a panelist for the April A.M. Best webinar, “The Misuse Defense: Strategic Approaches to Defending Product Liability Claims for Insurers.” During the program, Michael and his fellow panelists offered practical, jurisdiction‑specific guidance on how misuse and failure‑to‑warn theories intersect in modern product liability litigation. Michael emphasized the unique challenges these claims present—particularly in states like Pennsylvania, where evidentiary rules diverge sharply from those applied in many other jurisdictions. Failure to Warn as the “Flip Side” of Misuse Salvati explained that failure‑to‑warn allegations often arise as a direct counter to a misuse defense. As he noted, “If our misuse defense is that the plaintiff didn't use a product properly or safely, then the failure to warn claim is that we didn't tell them how to use it properly.” He emphasized that these claims can stem from either the absence of warnings or criticisms of existing warnings, such as insufficient specificity or lack of clarity about risks. Pennsylvania’s Unique Evidentiary Landscape One of Salvati’s most notable points was the stark difference in how Pennsylvania treats evidence of compliance with industry standards. He highlighted that Pennsylvania is “one of the only states…where that evidence is not admissible” in strict liability cases. Manufacturers cannot rely on compliance with ANSI, UL, ISO, or even federal safety standards to defend the product against a strict liability claim—because the focus is solely on the product itself, not the manufacturer’s conduct. Salvati acknowledged the challenge this creates for defense counsel and clients who expect such compliance to carry weight. Understanding the Three Defect Theories Salvati also walked through the three primary defect theories recognized in many jurisdictions: - Design defect – a flaw in the product’s intended design - Manufacturing defect – a deviation affecting a specific unit - Failure to warn – inadequate instructions or warnings He noted that warnings claims are increasingly significant and sometimes stand alone when design or manufacturing theories are weak. As he put it, plaintiffs often default to warnings claims because “the default position seems to be, ‘If I got hurt, there must be something wrong.’” Warranties and State‑by‑State Variations Salvati addressed how breach‑of‑warranty claims fit into the broader framework, explaining that implied warranties—such as merchantability—often overlap with strict liability in Pennsylvania. He emphasized the importance of understanding local nuances, as warranty law and admissibility rules vary widely across states. Looking Ahead: The Growing Importance of Warnings In his closing remarks, Salvati stressed that warnings should never be treated as an afterthought in product liability defense. He observed that warnings‑only claims are becoming more common and urged manufacturers and insurers to continually evaluate the clarity and completeness of their instructions and warnings. His takeaway: “We should always be talking about what are the instructions that come with our products…to bolster a misuse defense.” Listen to the complete webinar here: https://www3.ambest.com/conferences/events/eventregister.aspx?event_id=WEB1074.

Congratulations to our 2026 Florida Super Lawyers & Rising Stars: Elizabeth Ferguson, A.C. Nash, Taylor Naughton, Sophia Philor, Amara Rodriguez

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Florida Super Lawyers & Florida Rising Stars