.

Case Law Alerts

Pennsylvania Superior Court Affirms Defendant’s Immunity Under the Mental Health Procedures Act

Wunderly v. St. Luke’s Hospital et al., 2023 WL 3993737 (Pa. Super. Jun. 14, 2023)

October 1, 2023

The plaintiff filed wrongful death and survival actions against the defendants, asserting claims of negligence and corporate negligence. The plaintiff alleged that the hospital did not adopt proper protocols and implement appropriate interventions relating to wound care and prevention, which led to the decedent acquiring pressure ulcers that caused his decline and death. 

The defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing they were immune from legal action pursuant to the Mental Health Procedures Act (MHPA) because the decedent was involuntarily admitted to the hospital for mental health treatment. The trial court granted the motion for judgment on the pleadings, concluding that the defendants were immune under the MHPA, unless the conduct was willful or grossly negligent, and the plaintiff’s complaint did not set forth the requisite facts. The plaintiff appealed, and the Superior Court affirmed the trial court. 

In the appeal, the plaintiff argued that the MHPA immunity provisions did not apply to the claims. The plaintiff argued that the wound care could not be considered medical care as contemplated by the MHPA because it has nothing to do with facilitating recovery from mental illness. However, the Superior Court disagreed with this argument, holding that immunity under the MHPA includes medical care that prevents or alleviates both physical and mental illness. The Superior Court held that the treatment of the decedent’s pressure ulcers was incidental to the treatment of his dementia and mental health, and the treatment aided and promoted recovery from a mental illness. The court further reasoned that the allegations in the complaint sounded in ordinary negligence and did not rise to the level of gross negligence, specifically noting there were no allegations relating to the cause of the wound deterioration and no allegations that the nursing staff left the decedent unattended for days or weeks, that he received no care or was ignored, or that any one inflicted harm on him.

The Mental Health Procedures Act (MHPA) provides that, in the absence of willful misconduct or gross negligence, facilities, physicians, and other authorized people are immune from civil liability for decisions related to treatment under the MHPA, which includes medical care coincident to mental health care.
 

 

Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter, October 2023 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent 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. Copyright © 2023 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.

Firm Highlights

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.