.

Case Law Alerts

The “Newlin” Case: Implications for Long-Term Care Management Companies

Newlin v. Vita Healthcare Group, 2026 Pa. Super. LEXIS 408 (2026).

November 3, 2026

by Michael J. Cadigan Jr.

On August 4, 2026 the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a ruling via a 2-1 majority opinion on hotly contested area of Pennsylvania healthcare law with major implications on long-term health care handling. See Newlin v. Vita Healthcare Group, 2026 Pa. Super. LEXIS 408 (2026).  For the purposes of this article, the main holdings relate to whether long-term care management companies can he held liable under a theory of direct corporate liability pursuant to Thompson v. Nason Hospital, 527 Pa. 330, 591 A.2d 703 (Pa. 1991) and its progeny.

Case Facts and Procedural History:

This matter arose from alleged nursing home negligence brought by the Estate of Patricia O'Donnell following her death in August 5, 2019 at Riddle Hospital allegedly due to multi organ failure due to septic shock caused by infection to a large sacral decubitus pressure ulcer as well as hydromorphone intoxication. The alleged negligence related to a history of falls and pressure related injuries during Ms. O’Donnell’s residency at Brinton Manor March 28, 2018 through July 21, 2019. Relevant to her residency, BM-SNF purchased Brinton Manor from Genesis and contracted with Vita to manage the facility. On July 1, 2019, 21 days prior to Decedent's final day of residency at Brinton Manor, BM Rehab purchased Brinton Manor from BM-SNF and Imperial assumed management responsibilities.

On February 2, 2023, the jury returned a verdict of $4,000,000 in compensatory damages in favor of the Estate. Specifically, the jury awarded the Estate: (1) $600,000 from BM-SNF; (2) $2,400,000 from Vita; (3) $800,000 from BM Rehab; and (4) $200,000 from Imperial. In addition, the trial court awarded punitive damages in the amount of $15,000,000 as follows: (1) $5,000,000 against BM-SNF; $6,500,000 against Vita; (3) $2,000,000 against BM Rehab; and (4) $1,500,000 against Imperial. 

On February 6, 2023, Defendants filed post-trial motions. Vital to the appeal, Plaintiff’s counsel informed the court during a June 6, 2026 hearing that the Estate was only pursuing a theory of corporate negligence against the management company Defendants, and not pursuing a claim of negligence based on vicarious liability. This was in spite of arguing corporate liability claims against all defendants at trial. Against the Operating Company Defendants, the Estate informed the trial court that it was only pursuing a claim of vicarious liability. On this basis, the trial court granted a motion JNOV as it related to the management companies because the Scampone line of cases precluded the Estate as a matter of law from establishing corporate liability against the management company Defendants. Thus, they were entitled to JNOV as a matter of law. The court also remitted the punitive damages award against BM Rehab from $2,000,000 to $385,000.

Following the entry of judgment, the parties filed appeals and cross-appeals. 

Superior Court Opinion Pertaining to Corporate Liability for Management Companies:

Initially, the Pennsylvania Superior court noted that “The Supreme Court agreed that a nursing home could be subject to corporate liability, holding that "a nursing home and affiliated entities are subject to potential direct liability for negligence, where the requisite resident-entity relationship exists to establish that the entity owes the resident a duty of care." See Scampone v. Highland Park Care Center, LLC, 618 Pa. 363, 57 A.3d 582, 584 (Pa. 2012).  Moreover, the Superior court cited to the non-precedential opinion of Hopkins v. Compass Point Healthcare System, LLC  262 A.3d 471, 2021 WL 3465831 at *6 (Pa. Super. filed 2021) stating:

“…as a matter of law, when it is only the operator of a nursing home that has the contractual relationship with the plaintiff, only the operator of the nursing home can be held liable under a theory of corporate liability, even if the operator delegates the performance of its Thompson duties to a management company…”

Holding that the trial court did not err in finding that there could be no theory of corporate liability for the management company, the Superior court focused on the fact that there was no contractual relationship between the decedent, the decedent’s estate, and the Management Company Defendants. In so holding, the Superior court also noted that the Scampone line of cases previously established that the key determination is the contractual relationship between the parties and “[o]nce that entity assumes those duties, that entity is still liable even if it delegates the performance of those duties to a different entity.” (See Scampone III, 169 A.3d at 608).

While the court did not close the door on a Plaintiff’s ability to seek vicarious liability theories against a Management Company, the court refused to consider the same as Plaintiff had expressly abandoned those claims, as stated during the post-trial motions hearing. 

Outside of this instant holding, the Superior court remanded the matter to determine the amount of compensatory damages to which the Estate is entitled from the Operating Company Defendant. It is anticipated that there will be additional appeals to this matter and the case remains one to be monitored.

Firm Highlights

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

News

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

Thought Leadership

Pennsylvania Supreme Court to Review Whether Legal Malpractice Claims May Be Recast as Breach of Contract Claims

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently granted allowance of appeal to consider whether a plaintiff may pursue a breach of contract claim against an attorney based on allegations that the attorney failed to provide competent legal services. The issue is significant in professional liability litigation because it concerns whether a plaintiff may avoid the statute of limitations applicable to professional negligence claims by characterizing the alleged misconduct as a breach of contract. Antoine Poteat retained attorneys Gary Asteak and Nino V. Tinari to represent him in a criminal matter. After his conviction was subsequently overturned through a Post Conviction Relief Act proceeding, Poteat filed suit against his former attorneys alleging that they breached their retainer agreements by failing to provide competent legal services. The attorneys argued that the claims sounded in professional negligence, rather than breach of contract, and were therefore time-barred. The trial court dismissed Poteat’s complaint, but the Superior Court, sitting en banc, reversed. The Superior Court held that the gist-of-the-action doctrine did not bar Poteat’s breach of contract claim because the alleged failure to provide competent legal services could constitute a breach of the parties’ agreement. The Court further held that a legal-services agreement contains an implied duty requiring an attorney to provide competent legal services, even where the agreement does not contain an express provision requiring such services. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review in July 2026 and will consider whether the Superior Court’s decision conflicts with Pennsylvania precedent distinguishing contract and tort claims, including Bruno v. Erie Insurance Co. The Supreme Court will also address whether a plaintiff may maintain a breach of contract claim based on an implied duty to provide competent legal services without identifying a specific contractual provision that was breached. The Supreme Court’s decision could have significant implications for professional liability litigation in Pennsylvania, particularly where plaintiffs seek to characterize claims arising from alleged professional negligence as contractual claims.

business meeting photo

Result

Summary Judgment Obtained in Insurance Coverage Case

Event

CLM 2026 Focus Conference

Allison joins three insurance industry leaders to discuss how cyber coverage disputes, the growing impact of social inflation on bodily injury claim valuation, and the use of artificial intelligence are reshaping the bad faith landscape. The panel will examine emerging sources of extra-contractual exposure, including evolving cyber insurance coverage issues and the challenges of accurately valuing bodily injury claims. Practical approaches to claim evaluation using AI, along with defense strategies designed to help prevent or successfully defend against bad faith litigation, will also be addressed. 

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

News

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

Marshall Dennehey Shareholders Recognized as Florida Trend Legal Elite Notable Women Leaders in Law

News

Marshall Dennehey Shareholders Recognized as Florida Trend Legal Elite Notable Women Leaders in Law

Thought Leadership

The Search-Incident-to-Arrest Doctrine Does Not License Strip Searches

In Beatty v. Gardner, No. 25-2860 (3d Cir. Sept. 16, 2026), Kyle Beatty sued police officers Clinton Gardner and Calvin Irvin under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after they stopped, arrested, and searched him three times during a drug investigation in Williamsport, Pennsylvania. The officers initially smelled marijuana coming from the car in which Beatty was sitting and observed marijuana residue, giving them probable cause to arrest him. Beatty consented to the first pat-down, and the second search was conducted incident to his lawful arrest; neither search uncovered weapons or contraband. The officers then transported Beatty to the police station solely to strip-search him, but the strip search also revealed nothing. The District Court granted the officers summary judgment, concluding that the initial stop, arrest, and first two searches were reasonable and that qualified immunity protected the officers from liability for the strip search. The Third Circuit affirmed, but held that the strip search itself violated the Fourth Amendment. The court concluded that the search-incident-to-arrest doctrine does not automatically permit officers to strip-search an arrestee outside the jail or prison setting. Because strip searches are highly intrusive and the traditional justifications for searches incident to arrest (officer safety and preservation of evidence) did not justify the search of Beatty, the officers generally needed either the arrestee’s consent, exigent circumstances, or a warrant supported by probable cause to believe that a search beneath the clothing would reveal weapons, contraband, or evidence. Here, the officers had none of those justifications. Nevertheless, the court held that qualified immunity barred damages liability because, at the time of the search, the right against a warrantless strip search of an arrestee outside the institutional setting was not clearly established by Supreme Court or Third Circuit precedent. The court likewise upheld qualified immunity on Beatty’s First Amendment retaliation claim and affirmed summary judgment for the officers.

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

Result

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

Result

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

Thought Leadership

Two Tracks, No Preclusion: Ohio Supreme Court Preserves Separate Damages Claims After Chapter 2506 Appeals

The Supreme Court of Ohio has clarified that an administrative appeal under Ohio Revised Code Chapter 2506 does not bar a separate action for damages and declaratory relief that could not have been pursued in the administrative appeal. The Ohio Supreme Court considered Sheetz, Inc. v. Centerville (2026-Ohio-3531) as a result of a certified question from the Southern District of Ohio. The question was whether Sheetz, the gas station/convenience store brand, was barred from seeking damages in a separate action since damages were not sought in their administrative appeal. Ultimately, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that res judicata does not bar a separate action for damages after ruling on an administrative appeal because R.C. Chapter 2506 is limited to judicial review and cannot grant affirmative relief. The case arose after Centerville’s city council rejected a site plan proposed by Sheetz, Inc. that had received unanimous approval from the City’s planning commission. Sheetz filed an administrative appeal pursuant to R.C. 2506 in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, and two months later filed a complaint for damages and declaratory relief under 42 USC § 1983 as a takings action with the city, city council, and other objectors as improper takings and a violation of due process, as well as interference with business and contractual relationship. The city and city council removed the § 1983 action for damages to federal court. Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas reversed the city council’s denial, and allowed the Sheetz project to move forward. Upon that ruling, the federal court issued a show-cause order questioning whether the § 1983 action was barred by the doctrine of res judicata via claim preclusion (which includes all theories of recovery).  Sheetz argued that Ohio courts of common pleas do not have authority to award damages or declaratory relief as party of the R.C. Ch. 2506 appeal, therefore res judicata could not be triggered to apply to the § 1983 action. Additionally, Sheetz moved to certify the issue to the Ohio Supreme Court, citing differing results between the second and sixth districts on this same issue. Centerville approached the question, not from a claim preclusion standpoint, but from the holding in Grava v. Parkman, Twp which states that a final judgment rendered on the merits bars all subsequent action based on the same transaction or occurrence.  In yet another approach, an objector argued that claim preclusion was satisfied because Sheetz could have raised its damages claims in the administrative appeal – Sheetz disagrees. In their analysis, the Supreme Court of Ohio broke down the elements of a claim preclusion analysis: 1) a prior final, valid decision on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) a second action involving the same parties, or their privies, as the first; (3) a second action raising claims that were or could have been litigated in the first action; and (4) a second action arising out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the previous action. The Court held that R.C. Ch. 2506 does not permit a party to argue damages as R.C. Ch. 2506 limits the common pleas jurisdiction as if it were sitting on appeal, and therefore can only affirm, reverse, vacate, or modify the appealed order, or can remand the case to the administrative body. Further, the Court held that Grava’s conclusion that a final judgment precludes additional litigation for different relief is inapplicable under this fact pattern because it was meant only to apply to those matters in which the plaintiff brings the exact same case twice, but for new relief. The Court found Grava was inapplicable because Sheetz could have requested damages or declaratory relief in the R.C. 2506 appeal. Therefore, Grava would be nothing more than dicta if it even did apply. Going further, the Ohio Supreme Court disavowed Sixth Circuit precedent which, in reliance on Grava and other district court decisions, permitted an owner to seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alongside an administrative appeal. See Moore v Hiram Twp., 988 F.3d 353 (6th Cir.2021). The Ohio Supreme Court found that the Sixth Circuit had disregarded a critical decision in Community Concerned Citizens, Inc. v. Union Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 1993-Ohio-115, which clearly held that a R.C. Ch. 2506 appeal cannot be combined with a complaint seeking other claims for relief. Id. at ¶ 11. To that end, the Ohio Supreme Court has determined that the decisions Moore relied on (outside of Grava) are no longer good law, and that Moore was wrongly decided. The decision draws a clear procedural boundary: Chapter 2506 provides judicial review of an administrative decision, not a forum for independent claims seeking affirmative relief. Although Grava may place claims arising from a single transaction within the potential scope of claim preclusion, those claims are not barred unless the complete claim-preclusion test is satisfied. Because Sheetz could not have pursued damages or declaratory relief in its Chapter 2506 appeal, the separate action was not precluded. The remaining question for practitioners looking to apply or defend against this exception is when does the statute of limitations begin to run on damages and declaratory relief claims related to an administrative decision on appeal? A takings action in federal court has a 2-year statute of limitations, or as a state claim, 4 years (like the other tortious claims raised therein). Correlating this case with others, an administrative appeal will not likely toll the statute of limitations on claims based on a final decision by a municipal authority. Therefore, practitioners should look for these cases to be brought simultaneously.