.

Case Law Alerts

Pennsylvania Superior Court Finds the Treatment of a Dog Bite Undeniably “Arises Out of” the Dog Bite and Medical Negligence Claims Related to the Treatment Are Barred by Plain Language of the Release

Early v. Patient First Medical Group, et al., 311 A.3d 608 (Pa. Super. Dec. 26, 2023)

July 1, 2024

The plaintiff was bitten by a dog and treated by the defendants. She later filed a medical malpractice action against the providers who treated the dog bite. But before that, the plaintiff, who was unrepresented at the time, signed a release with the owners of the dog and their insurer as part of her settlement with them. The release language was broad and released the dog owners, as well as their: 

“…heirs, executors, administrators, insurers, successors and assigns, and any and all other persons, firms, corporations, associations, of and from any and all causes of action, suits, rights, judgments, claims and demands of whatsoever kind, in law or in equity, known and unknown, which I/we now have or may hereafter have, especially the claimed legal liability of releasee(s), arising from or by reason of any and all bodily or personal injuries and/or property damage known and unknown, foreseen and unforeseen which heretofore has/have been or which hereafter may be sustained by me/us arising out of the accident…” [emphasis in opinion].

The defendant providers filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting the release the plaintiff signed with the dog owners barred the claims against them. The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff appealed, arguing that she was unrepresented and only intended to release the dog owners, not the medical providers. The Superior Court found this argument unconvincing, along with the plaintiff’s attempt to invoke the discovery rule, claiming the injuries were not discovered until after the release was signed, even though the dog bite was treated on the same day as the incident. The Superior Court found that the treatment of the dog bite undeniably “arises out of” the dog bite and the claims related to the treatment are barred by the plain language of the release. 

If you represent health care providers that are sued following treatment of an injury that arises out of an incident, such as a dog bite or slip and fall, always make sure to request signed releases in discovery and assert the appropriate affirmative defenses. 


 

Case Law Alerts, 3rd Quarter, July 2024 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 © 2024 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.