.

Legal Updates for Health Care Liability

New Guidance from Pennsylvania’s Superior Court for Establishing Factual Basis to Transfer Venue

Legal Updates for Health Care Liability – October 17, 2023

October 17, 2023

by Daniel Dolente

Since the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania’s August 25, 2022, order changed the venue rules in medical malpractice cases—from requiring that cases be filed “only in a county in which the cause of action arose” to applying the same venue standards that apply to all other types of cases—motions to transfer due to forum non conveniens have taken a much more prominent position in medical malpractice litigation. Now that the new venue rule has been in effect since January 1, 2023, defense practitioners must place more emphasis on what needs to be established factually in order to transfer a case from one county to another.

The Superior Court’s October 11, 2023, opinion in Tranter v. Z&D Tour, Inc., 2023 Pa.Super. 200, --- A.3d --- (Pa. Super. Oct. 11, 2023) once again reaffirmed what practitioners are required to do in order to support a forum non conveniens motion. The Tranter case arises out of a bus accident that occurred in Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania. After the bus rolled over and became disabled, it was hit by multiple tractor trailers, which resulted in five fatalities and multiple other injured parties. The scene following the crash included multiple EMS personnel and first responders who came to attend to those involved in the accident.

A civil action lawsuit was eventually filed in Philadelphia County. Certain defendants filed motions to transfer venue based upon forum non conveniens. In support of these motions, “eleven affidavits from first responders and others who lived and worked in and around Westmoreland County” were included with the motions. Additionally, the parties conducted depositions of the affiants, which provided another opportunity to develop a sufficient record for the motion to transfer venue. The trial court granted the motion to transfer venue, concluding that, because the potential witnesses would have to travel over 200 miles if called to testify at trial, the defendants established that Philadelphia County was an “oppressive and vexatious venue.”

On appeal, however, the Superior Court reversed. In so doing, the court commented that there was no on-the-record discussion or other evidence to establish the significance of these proposed witnesses that was relied upon for the transfer to the defense of the case. Without establishing why the proposed witnesses were significant to the defense of the case, the court said that there was no reason to even examine the potential hardship.

Accordingly, moving forward, when defense practitioners attempt to transfer venue based upon forum non conveniens, the first step is to determine the “key witnesses” to the defense. Once those witnesses are identified, an affidavit must be procured that first sets forth how each witness is relevant and necessary to establish or refute a specifically enumerated claim and/or defense. Second, after the affiant’s relevance to the defense has been established, specific facts that prove a hardship for the witness should also be set forth. The Superior Court has warned that “nearly identical claims of oppressiveness” are not viewed favorably. Thus, to the extent that the various affidavits set forth different facts showing hardship, it will serve to strengthen the motion to transfer. Finally, as demonstrated by the Tranter case, do not miss out on an opportunity to develop witnesses’ significance to the defense and hardships/oppression through deposition. Should the trial court allow depositions to take place, use them to further develop the record in support of the motion to transfer venue. 

 

 

Legal Updates for Health Care Liability – October 17, 2023, 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. © 2023 Marshall Dennehey. All Rights Reserved.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

A Unified, Single Claim for Damages Requires Apportionment in a Joint Proposal: What the Decision in 'Trace Elements' Means for Property Insurance Claims

Kimberly and Seth, shareholders in the Insurance Services Practice in our Fort Lauderdale office, break down the Florida Supreme Court's decision in 'Trace Elements v. MacKensen' and what it means for property insurance claims in the state. Read the article here.

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

News

Marshall Dennehey Names Carolyn Schweizer New Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

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.

empty courtroom photo

Result

Summary Judgment Secured for Life Insurance Agent

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Affirms Dismissal of Legal Malpractice Counterclaim Against Martin Law Firm

In Martin v. Loury, 2026 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1617 (App. Div. July 15, 2026), Martin Law Firm represented Kirk Loury in an employment matter Mr. Loury filed against his former employer, Concord Equity Group Advisors LLC (“Concord”). The allegations included, among other things, that Loury was not fairly compensated for his employment with Concord. After a bench trial finding in Loury’s favor, the Appellate Division remanded this matter in February 2016 for a second trial. During the second trial, Concord CEO, Lee Argush, testified to lower compensation estimate than first trial. On remand, the second trial judge awarded Mr. Loury the same damages as the first judge, finding Mr. Argush not credible. After the findings during the second trial, Martin Law Firm filed an action against Mr. Loury to recover legal fees and costs of representing Mr. Loury in a second bench trial and Mr. Loury filed a counterclaim against Martin Law Firm for legal malpractice, alleging he should have received an even higher award in the second bench trial. In this allegation, Mr. Loury, through his expert, claimed that Martin Law Firm should have recalled Mr. Loury to the stand to rebut Mr. Argush’s testimony to allege an alternative theory of damages. Mr. Loury’s expert admitted that the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's theory and accepted Loury's damages theory. The trial court barred Mr. Loury’s expert and dismissed Loury's counterclaim with prejudice before convening the collection trial, and the jury ruled in Martin Law Firm’s favor. Mr. Loury appealed the trial court's pretrial rulings barring his liability expert from testifying in support of his legal malpractice counterclaim, denying his motion for summary judgment on that counterclaim, and denying his motion to amend his counterclaim by adding attorney Joseph A. Martin as a codefendant. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly excluded Loury’s expert testimony in the counterclaim against Martin Law Firm because the expert could not explain how calling Loury as a rebuttal witness would have increased damages when the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's testimony and accepted Loury's damages theory, making the expert’s causation opinion speculative. The Appellate Division also held that the trial court properly denied Mr. Loury's summary judgment motion on his malpractice counterclaim because reasonable minds could differ on whether Mr. Martin's alleged failures would have changed the second judge's damages award, given the judge already found Mr. Argush not credible, creating genuine factual disputes precluding summary judgment. Also, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly denied Loury's May 2023 motion to add Joseph Martin individually because the statute of limitations expired in February 2022, six years after the 2016 appellate remand when Mr. Loury incurred new legal costs, and relation back did not apply because Mr. Loury knew Mr. Martin's identity throughout and strategically chose to sue only Martin Law Firm in his 2019 counterclaim.

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

Jason Banonis Holds PDI Attorney of the Year Award with the PDI President

News

Jason Banonis Named Attorney of the Year by the Pennsylvania Defense Institute

Event

Pennsylvania Appellate Update 2025-2026

On August 21, 2026, Casey will serve as a panelist for the live webcast program, “Pennsylvania Appellate Update 2025-2026” presented by the Appellate Advocacy Committee of the Pennsylvania Bar Association and Pennsylvania Bar Institute. The program is divided into three parts—Criminal, Civil, and Administrative. Casey will serve as a panelist for the Civil portion, along with Christina McKinley of Blank Rome, Ben Baer of Injury Law Partners, John Masslon of Keller Postman, Jonathan Bruno of Bruno Litigation LLC, and moderator, Ezza Ahmed of Buchanan Ingersoll.  Registration and more information: https://www.pbi.org/product/pennsylvania-appellate-update-2025-2026/

Thought Leadership

Fla. Workers' Comp Physician Dispensing Ruling Could Produce New Legislative Fight

In a significant decision issued on February 25, 2026, the First District Court of Appeal (DCA) ruled in Publix Super Markets, Inc., et al. v. Department of Financial Services, et al., 430 So. 3d 252 (Fla. 1st DCA 2026), that while injured workers have an absolute right to choose their own pharmacy or pharmacist, that right does not extend to physicians who dispense medications directly to their patients.  Read Blake's article in Insurance Journal: https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/southeast/2026/08/05/880229.htm.