.

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

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.

Event

29th Annual FDLA Florida Liability Claims Conference

Jim and Erica will team up to present, "Supporting the Next Generation: Connecting with Associates." This panel-style presentation will explore communication best practices from the perspective of a senior shareholder and newer associate. The discussion will focus on the communication styles of different generations and effective strategies to avoid communication breakdowns. Topics to be discussed include the hiring process, perceptions of defense work among newer lawyers, work-life balance issues after hiring, and mentoring.

Thought Leadership

U.S. Supreme Court Decides Key Issue Regarding Interstate Freight Broker Liability

Freight brokers are intermediaries.  They connect shippers of goods with trucking companies that transport those goods.  Freight brokers match a load of freight with a trucking company and oversee the logistics of the transportation. For a number of years there has been a division among the Federal Circuits regarding the potential liability of freight brokers when the trucking companies that they retain for interstate loads are involved in accidents.  At the center of this division was the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (FAAAA).  Some Federal Circuit Courts have held that state law negligent hiring claims against freight brokers were preempted by the FAAAA .  Other Federal Circuits Courts have held that even if preemption applied, the “safety exception” in the FAAAA saved state law negligent hiring claims from federal preemption.  On May 14, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the conflict in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, et al, No24-1238. In that case freight broker C.H. Robinson selected Caribe Transport to haul an interstate load. The commercial truck driver employed by Caribe Transport allegedly caused an accident and the plaintiff, Montgomery, was seriously injured. Montgomery brought an action against the driver, Caribe Transport and C.H. Robinson. The allegation against C.H. Robinson was that it negligently retained Caribe Transport when it knew, or should have known, that it was an unsafe company. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that Montgomery’s claims against C.H. Robinson were preempted by the FAAAA. The plaintiff appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.  The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision focused primarily on the safety exception in the FAAAA.  That provision provides that the FAAAA preemption “…shall not restrict the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles.” C.H. Robinson argued, as freight brokers historically have, that their function was not “with respect to motor vehicles” because they do not own trucks or employ drivers. They are merely intermediaries, connecting entities who need freight moved with entities who can do that job. Therefore, C.H. Robinson argued that preemption applied, not the safety exception. The U.S. Supreme Court did not accept that argument. The Court focused on the meaning of the phrase “with respect to” in the safety exception. The Court held that it means “referring to”, “concerning” or “regarding”. Therefore, writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Barrett concluded that “[r]equiring C.H. Robinson to exercise ordinary care in selecting a carrier therefore “concerns” motor vehicles—most obviously, the trucks that will transport the goods. So, Montgomery’s negligent-hiring claim falls within the FAAAA’s safety exception, which saves it from preemption.” Justice Kavanaugh, in his concurring opinion, noted the effect this ruling may have on freight brokers and their insurers throughout the country: Importantly, the Court's decision today should not be read to mean that brokers will routinely be subject to state tort liability in the wake of truck accidents. As even plaintiff's counsel stressed, brokers should be able to successfully defend against state tort suits if the brokers have acted reasonably and arranged transportation with reputable trucking companies. Tr. of Oral Arg. 27-29. In plaintiff's counsel's words, the brokers "just have to hire carriers that actually have a reasonable policy," and "the broker is not going to have a problem if it's asking the hard questions of the carrier." Id., at 42, 45. In addition, the proximate-cause requirement in typical state tort law should help protect brokers from excessive liability. Id., at 25. That said, the brokers rightly caution against naivete. In the real world, as the brokers forcefully respond, state tort law can be unpredictable, and the costs to brokers of litigation and insurance may be significant even when brokers prevail in lawsuits. Moreover, the costs of litigation and insurance, as well as the costs of brokers' conducting more substantial inquiries into trucking companies, will cascade through the economy and be paid in part by American consumers in the form of higher prices. The concerns expressed by the brokers are legitimate and weighty. The key point here is that freight brokers can no longer claim they are protected from negligent retention claims by the FAAAA (in cases involving interstate transportation). The challenge will be to determine what is considered ”reasonable efforts” used by brokers when retaining transportation companies. 

Thought Leadership

Marijuana Legalization and Workplace Risk: What New Jersey Employers Need to Know

While the legalization of recreational marijuana usage poses a risk of increased work-related accidents for younger workers, employers can work to curb this increase by investing in education, effective drug policies, and employee assistance programs.

News

Marshall Dennehey Again Earns Recognition in Distinguished Chambers USA

News

Christina Gonzales To Speak at the Women of Color Roundtable at DRI’s Diversity and Inclusion Seminar

graphic with Maria Granaudo photo text announces she has joined the firm as a shareholder in the Health Care Dept.

News

Maria R. Granaudo Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Wilmington Office As a Shareholder in the Health Care Department

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. 

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

Thought Leadership

PA Middle District Dismisses Claims Against School District and its Superintendent, Principal, Special Education Director, and Classroom Teacher

A five-year-old special education student was enrolled in the Wyoming Valley West School District and attended the State Street Elementary School during the 2024-2025 school year. The student refused to clean up classroom toys at dismissal. When his teacher allegedly grabbed him by the wrist to walk him back to his seat, the student dropped to the floor and began crying. The teacher then allegedly grabbed the student by the ankle and dragged him across the floor. Following an investigation, criminal charges were not advanced by the county DA, and the school permitted the teacher to return to the classroom. The student’s parents sued, lodging thirteen legal counts under both state and federal law, which sought monetary damages from the teacher, the school district, the superintendent, the principal, and the director of special education. The plaintiff’s 42 USC 1983 claims were dismissed as to the school district for failure to allege a policy or custom violation, and the failure to alleged deliberate indifference in the failure-to-train context. As to the superintendent, building principal, and special education director, the Section 1983 claims were also dismissed for failure to allege personal involvement on the part of the individuals. Regarding an equal protection claim asserted against all defendants, the motion to dismiss was also granted for a failure to advance a plausible equal protection claim, holding that “plaintiffs' single-act allegations do not include a factual basis to even infer that the act was motivated by discriminatory animus rather than some other non-discriminatory impulse.” The court further dismissed the plaintiff’s negligence-based claims including negligence against the teacher and district administrators, NIED, and vicarious liability under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act (PSTCA). The federal claims under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA were also dismissed in various respects. The IDEA claim was dismissed against all defendants with prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Section 504 claims against the individual defendants were also dismissed with prejudice, as districts, not individuals, are the recipients of federal funds under Section 504. However, the Section 504 and ADA claims were dismissed without prejudice as to defendant Wyoming Valley West, and the plaintiff was permitted leave to amend.