.

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

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

empty courtroom photo

Result

Summary Judgment Secured for Life Insurance Agent

Thought Leadership

Congress Passes Financial Exploitation Prevention Act

On June 25, 2026, the House passed the Financial Exploitation Prevention Act of 2025 (“the Act”) by a vote of 414 to 2. The Act allows financial advisors and firms to delay suspicious transactions regarding the accounts of clients who are 65 or older, if they believe financial exploitation has occurred or is about to take place. With the advancement of technology and AI, the House’s overwhelming bipartisan passage of the Financial Exploitation Prevention Act represents an important step in strengthening the financial industry’s ability to combat the growing threat of elder financial exploitation. The Act recognizes what advisors have long known that financial professionals are often the first to detect suspicious behavior but have historically lacked clear legal authority to intervene before irreversible financial harm occurs. From the industry’s perspective, the bill accomplishes several important objectives, including the following: (1) Provides a practical “pause button” by allowing financial professionals to temporarily delay certain transaction requests when there is a reasonable belief that a senior or vulnerable adult is being financially exploited; (2) Empowers financial professionals to act by providing greater certainty that firms can act in good faith to protect clients without unnecessary legal risk; and (3) Strengthens investor protection without sacrificing client rights by allowing temporary delays based on a reasonable suspicion of exploitation, which is intended only to allow additional review and not to deny clients access to their money indefinitely. In sum, the Financial Exploitation Prevention Act will equip financial professionals with practical, carefully tailored tools to stop suspected financial exploitation before client assets are lost. By allowing firms to temporarily delay suspicious transactions under defined circumstances, Congress is recognizing the critical role advisors play as the first line of defense against increasingly sophisticated fraud schemes. The Act strikes an appropriate balance between protecting vulnerable investors and preserving individual financial autonomy, while reinforcing collaboration among advisors, families, and law enforcement to combat financial exploitation. The bill now awaits Senate action.

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

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.

Portrait of Carolyn Schweizer, with text below: Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

News

Marshall Dennehey Names Carolyn Schweizer New Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

Thought Leadership

New Jersey Expands Family Leave Protections Effective July 17, 2026

On January 17, 2026, Governor Murphy signed into law legislation expanding the New Jersey Family Leave Act (NJFLA). Beginning July 17, 2026, significant amendments to the NJFLA will expand job-protected family leave to smaller businesses and more employees across the state. The new law broadens coverage by lowering the threshold for private employers from 30 employees to 15 employees, meaning many smaller businesses will now be subject to the NJFLA. Employees of state and local government agencies will continue to be covered regardless of the size of the employer. The amendments also make it easier for employees to qualify for leave. Under the revised law, an employee will be eligible after three months of employment and at least 250 hours worked during the preceding 12 months, replacing the previous requirement of 12 months of employment and 1,000 hours worked. Currently, New Jersey's Temporary Disability Insurance (TDI) and Family Leave Insurance (FLI) programs provide eligible employees with wage replacement while they are on leave but do not independently guarantee job protection. The recent amendments to the New Jersey Family Leave Act (NJFLA) expand these protections by extending job-protected leave to additional employees. Under the amended law, employees receiving TDI or FLI benefits may be entitled to return to the same position they held before taking leave, or to an equivalent position with the same seniority, status, pay, and benefits. Although the legislation also states that it does not expand or modify an employee's reinstatement rights under the NJFLA, the amendments appear to provide job protection to eligible employees receiving TDI or FLI benefits without requiring them to separately satisfy the eligibility requirements of the NJFLA or the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). As a result, some employees may be entitled to longer periods of job-protected leave than were previously available under existing law. With these amendments, New Jersey continues to strengthen workplace protections by expanding access to job-protected family leave for eligible employees. These changes significantly expand access to job-protected family leave and may require employers to update their leave policies, employee handbooks, and HR practices. Notably, employers who were previously not required to administer NJFLA may need to amend their policies and/or create new protocols to come into compliance with the NJFLA. Failure to do so would prove costly, as the penalties for non-compliance are significant.

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. 

Thought Leadership

SIU Gets a Boost: NJ Supreme Court Affirms Insurers' Right to Litigate, Not Arbitrate, Fraud Claims

In a significant win for insurers' Special Investigation Units, the New Jersey Supreme Court clarified that statutory insurance fraud and racketeering claims may proceed in court rather than through PIP arbitration. At issue was whether insurance fraud claims brought under New Jersey's Insurance Fraud Prevention Act (IFPA) and the state's Anti-Racketeering Act (NJ RICO) are subject to mandatory arbitration under the Automobile Insurance Cost Reduction Act’s (AICRA) PIP dispute-resolution framework. Allstate had sued a network of medical practices, physicians, and related corporate entities, alleging a scheme to extract more than $1.7 million in PIP benefits through fraudulent and misleading billing. The trial court dismissed Allstate's complaint and compelled arbitration, reading AICRA's arbitration clause — which covers "any dispute regarding the recovery of... benefits" under PIP coverage, N.J.S.A. 39:6A-5.1(a) — as sweeping in fraud and racketeering claims along with routine benefit disputes. The Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Division's reversal, adopting Judge Gilson's opinion below (480 N.J. Super. 566 (App. Div. 2025)) as its own reasoning. The Court held that IFPA and RICO claims fall outside the scope of AICRA's PIP arbitration mechanism because that "streamlined and specialized" process cannot grant the relief those statutes contemplate — treble damages, injunctive relief, broad discovery, and joinder of third parties — and because arbitrators lack authority to award compensatory or treble damages to an insurer. The Court also rejected the argument that Allstate's own Decision Point Review Plans independently compel arbitration, finding those plan provisions no broader than AICRA's own arbitration clause. Notably, the Court expressly disagreed with the Third Circuit's contrary holding in GEICO v. Mt. Prospect Chiropractic Center, 98 F.4th 463 (3d Cir. 2024), concluding it is not bound by that federal interpretation of New Jersey law. Insurers retain the right to pursue IFPA and RICO claims in the Law Division, with a jury trial. For SIU units and NJ insurance carriers, this decision is a significant win: it forecloses defense clinics' primary procedural tool for shunting fraud investigations into limited-scope PIP arbitration, where treble damages, RICO relief, and meaningful discovery were never realistically available. Carriers building cases against fraudulently structured clinics, straw-owned practices, or coordinated billing networks can now proceed with confidence that a well-pleaded IFPA/RICO complaint stays in the Law Division rather than being diverted to arbitration on a motion to compel. Practically, this strengthens SIU's leverage in settlement negotiations, preserves civil discovery tools (subpoenas, depositions, joinder of related corporate entities) critical to unwinding complex ownership and referral schemes, and resolves the split with the Third Circuit in favor of NJ insurers — at least as a matter of state law. Expect increased reliance on IFPA civil actions, rather than PIP arbitration demands, as SIU's primary enforcement vehicle going forward.