Justia Pennsylvania Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellants Margo and Daniel Polett appeal a superior court order vacating a judgment for injuries sustained by Margo after she underwent knee replacement surgery during which she received an artificial knee manufactured by Appellee Zimmer, Inc., and, thereafter, appeared in a promotional video produced and filmed by co-Appellee Public Communications, Inc. (“PCI”). The Global Director of Marketing Communications for Zimmer, Lola Yoder, contacted Margo Polett’s physician’s office and asked him to identify three female patients who had successfully undergone replacement surgery using the Gender Solutions Knee, for the purpose of having them appear in an educational promotional video which would be produced by PCI. The completed video was to feature the women providing testimonials of how the surgery had positively improved their lives, as well as showing the women participating in physical activities they had “resumed since surgery.” According to Mrs. Polett, she learned that she would be filmed while walking on a treadmill and riding a stationary exercise bicycle. Based on her assumption that the producers had consulted with Dr. Booth, and, thus, that it was okay for her to perform both physical activities, Mrs. Polett allowed herself to be filmed while walking on the treadmill and then riding the exercise bike. No one spoke with Dr. Booth about whether Mrs. Polett was medically cleared to walk on the treadmill or to ride the exercise bicycle. Mrs. Pollett complained to her husband of knee pain following the filming, and for three months thereafter. Her condition deteriorated enough that Mrs. Polett would undergo several more surgeries on her knees. The cumulative effect of these surgeries left Mrs. Polett “functionally limited” and permanently unable to fully extend her right leg. the Poletts filed suit against Appellees, as well as Penn, the University of Pennsylvania Hospital System, New City, Franck, and Video Tracks, and, also, the owner of Video Tracks, Steven Rhykerd, asserting claims for negligence and loss of consortium. New City and Franck, in turn, filed a complaint against Dr. Booth, asserting a cross-claim against him for contribution and indemnity. The Poletts did not sue Dr. Booth. After review, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in barring a tolling agreement between the Poletts and Dr. Booth from being admitted into evidence. The Court also found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting Dr. Booth to provide expert testimony under Pa.R.Civ.P. 4003.5. Lastly, the Court determine that the trial court did not err in giving its supplemental “no speculation” instruction to the jury. Consequently, the order of the Superior Court was reversed and the case remanded back to the Superior Court so that it could consider the question of whether the trial court properly denied Appellees’ motion for remittitur of the verdict. View "Polett v. Public Communications Inc." on Justia Law

In this negligence action, appellant Ronald Green, Executor of the Estate of Joseph Fusco, appealed a Superior Court order affirming the trial court’s grant of a nonsuit in favor of Appellees Pennsylvania Hospital (the “Hospital”), Contributors to Pennsylvania Hospital, and several nurses and doctors. Joseph Fusco (“Decedent”) arrived at the emergency department of the Hospital, complaining of shortness of breath, rapid breathing, and wheezing. He was admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (“ICU”) and given medication, which failed to alleviate his symptoms. As a result, Decedent, who suffered from a number of pre-existing conditions, was intubated and placed on a ventilator in order to assist with his breathing. Decedent remained on a ventilator in critical condition for ten days. In an attempt to wean Decedent from the ventilator, a physician at the Hospital performed a tracheotomy. The tracheotomy site had become blocked; re-insertion of the tube went into Decedent's throat causing air outside of his lungs to accumulate and collapse his lungs and trachea. The Decedent was again intubated, this time through his mouth. However, by this time, he suffered cardiac arrest and died. Appellant, as executor of Decedent's estate, brought a negligence action against the Hospital and the nurses and doctors that treated Decedent shortly before his death. When a hospital patient experiences an acute medical emergency, such as that experienced by Decedent in this case, and an attending nurse or other medical staff issues an emergency request or page for additional help, "it is more than reasonable for the patient, who is in the throes of medical distress, to believe that such emergency care is being rendered by the hospital or its agents. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court’s grant of a nonsuit under Section 1303.516(a) was erroneous in the instant case, and that the question of whether a reasonably prudent person in Decedent’s position would be justified in his belief that the care rendered by Dr. Malaisrie was rendered by her as an agent of the Hospital should have proceeded to the jury." The Supreme Court, therefore, reversed the Superior Court’s decision affirming the trial court’s grant of a nonsuit in favor of the Hospital on this issue, and remanded the matter for further proceedings. The Court affirmed the Superior Court's decision to the extent it affirmed the trial court's grant of a nonsuit in favor of one of the nurses. View "Green v. Pennsylvania Hospital" on Justia Law

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted the Third Circuit's petition for certification in a defamation case. Robert Schanne taught physics at Lower Merion High School in Ardmore, Pennsylvania. Jenna Addis was his student during her junior and senior years, from 2001 until her graduation in 2003. After Addis graduated, she attended Tulane University in New Orleans. In late November 2010, Addis (then age 26) was visiting Pennsylvania for the Thanksgiving weekend. During her visit, Addis spoke to Susan O'Bannon, a friend who was employed by Lower Merion High School. Addis told O'Bannon that she and Schanne had been romantically involved while Addis was a high school senior and during the summer after she graduated. O'Bannon reported Addis' allegation to school officials. Addis testified in her deposition that she discussed the matter with O'Bannon as a friend and not as an agent of the school. Addis stated, moreover, that she did not intend for O'Bannon to report the information to the school, that she was not aware O'Bannon would feel obligated to make such a report, and that she was surprised to learn that O'Bannon had done so. Based on Addis's statement, school officials provided Schanne with a pre-termination "Loudermill" hearing, and ultimately terminated his employment. Schanne filed a defamation action against Addis pursuant to the federal court's diversity jurisdiction. In his amended complaint, Schanne alleged that his romantic involvement with Addis did not begin until after she graduated from high school, and that any contrary assertions by Addis were false and made with malice due to Addis' jealousy over Schanne's relationship with another woman. Schanne averred that Addis' statements were not judicially privileged because: they were not made during a school board meeting, hearing, or other judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding; no judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding regarding Schanne was "convened or contemplated" at the time Addis made her allegations; and no other privilege applied to the statements. Addis moved for summary judgment which the federal court granted on the basis that all of her assertions were protected by the judicial privilege. On appeal, Schanne argued that Addis's statement to O'Bannon was not made in the regular course of a judicial action, because Addis had gone to O'Bannon as a friend and did not contemplate possible judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. The Third Circuit certified the question of whether, under Pennsylvania law, absolute judicial privilege applied to the allegation made prior to the commencement of any quasi-judicial proceeding and without an intent that the allegation lead to a quasi-judicial proceeding. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that judicial privilege was not limited to statements made in open court, but encompassed pleadings too. "Perhaps the most salient aspect of the issue as framed is that, not only was the allegation made before the commencement of proceedings, it was made 'without an intent that [it] lead to a quasi-judicial proceeding.' [. . .] Where a declarant has no intention of initiating proceedings or otherwise obtaining a remedy, clothing his or her statement with immunity cannot serve this goal. Assuming the declaration is otherwise actionable, then, protecting it under the cloak of the judicial privilege would do little to advance the privilege's objectives, while undermining the plaintiff's right to obtain recompense for any injury to his or her reputation." View "Schanne v. Addis" on Justia Law

Leola Restaurant maintained an umbrella commercial liability insurance policy with Appellant, Mutual Benefit Insurance Company, which contained an employer’s liability exclusion. Leola Restaurant conducted its business on a property leased from Appellees Christos Politsopoulos and Dionysios Mihalopoulos. During the policy period, Appellee Marina Denovitz, an employee of Leola Restaurant, fell from an outside set of stairs and suffered injuries. She brought a negligence action against the Property Owners in the common pleas court, asserting that they were negligent in maintaining the stairs in an unsafe and dangerous condition. The Property Owners sought defense and indemnification from Appellant, per the umbrella policy. The insurance company sought a declaratory judgment that an exclusion in the restaurant's umbrella policy applied to Appellee's case, and that it was not obligated to indemnify the restaurant. After review, the Supreme Court concluded the employer’s liability exclusion in the umbrella policy was ambiguous. "Application of governing principles of insurance policy construction yields the understanding that the ambiguous exclusionary language pertains only to claims asserted by employees of 'the insured' against whom the claim is directed, which understanding gains further support by reference to the policy’s separation-of-insureds provision. Since the Property Owners are not Ms. Denovitz’s employers, the employer’s liability exclusion is inapplicable." View "Mutual Ben. Ins. Co. v. Politsopoulos" on Justia Law

In 2009, George Lawrence, while employed by Schneider National Inc., suffered a work-related injury when he slipped and fell in a parking lot leased by Domtar Paper Company, and allegedly owned and maintained by Commercial Net Lease Realty Services, Inc., Commercial Net Lease Realty Trust, Commercial Net Lease Realty, Inc., National Retail Properties, Inc., and National Retail Properties Trust. As a result of this injury, Schneider's workers' compensation carrier, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, paid Lawrence $33,929.23 in workers' compensation benefits. The issue this case presented for the Supreme Court's review centered on whether section 319 of the Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Act (WCA) conferred on employers or their workers' compensation insurers a right to pursue a subrogation claim directly against a third-party tortfeasor when the injured employee took no action against the tortfeasor. Based on established precedent, the Superior Court held that Section 319 did not permit employers/insurers to commence an action directly against the third-party tortfeasor, and affirmed the trial court's grant of preliminary objections in favor of the tortfeasors. Agreeing with that reasoning, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Domtar Paper Co." on Justia Law

Appellee Maria Brady had a lengthy history of foot problems. By 2007, both of her feet were in pain due to toe deformities. Appellee’s podiatrist, William Urbas, D.P.M., successfully treated toes on her left foot with surgery; he then turned his attention to her right foot. One of Appellee’s primary complaints on her right foot pertained to a hammer-toe condition of her second toe: this deformity caused the middle of Appellee’s second toe to rise above the plane of the foot, which in turn caused rubbing and pain when Appellee wore shoes. Dr. Urbas performed a total of four operations between March 2008 and January 2010. Before each surgery, he explained the risks and complications that could occur, and Appellee signed a consent form acknowledging her awareness of these possible outcomes. The first operation did not finally alleviate Appellee’s condition, and Dr. Urbas eventually performed three more surgeries, each involving, among other things, the removal of additional bone material with the expectation that the foot would, over time, generate soft tissue to fill the gap and provide flexibility. Nevertheless, Appellee’s pain persisted and, in the end, her toe was less stable and significantly shorter than it had been initially. In August 2010, Appellee consulted a different podiatrist, Dr. Harold Schoenhaus, who performed a bone-graft operation which returned the toe to approximately ninety percent of its original length. This procedure also had the effect of restoring some of the toe’s stability and substantially reducing the pain. Appellee testified that she was pleased with the outcome of Dr. Schoenhaus’ surgery and that she returned to all levels of activity. In December 2010, Appellee filed a complaint against Dr. Urbas, alleging that he negligently treated her toe in the three follow-up surgeries performed after March 2008. In this appeal by allowance involving alleged medical negligence, the issue before the Supreme Court centered on whether a doctor may introduce evidence that the patient was informed of and acknowledged various risks of surgery, although the complaint does not assert a cause of action based on a lack of informed consent. After unsuccessfully moving for a new trial on the basis that the trial court erred in admitting the consent evidence, Appellee appealed. The Superior Court vacated and remanded for a new trial. In concluding that the trial court had abused its discretion, the Superior Court court adopted the reasoning of the Supreme Court of Virginia regarding the relevancy of consent evidence in a medical malpractice case: assent to treatment does not amount to consent to negligence, regardless of the enumerated risks and complications of which the patient was made aware. In a trial on a malpractice complaint that only asserts negligence, and not lack of informed consent, evidence that a patient agreed to go forward with the operation in spite of the risks of which she was informed is irrelevant and should be excluded. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that evidence that a patient affirmatively consented to treatment after being informed of the risks of that treatment is generally irrelevant to a cause of action sounding in medical negligence. View "Brady v. Urbas" on Justia Law

In 2006, Scott Simons, Matthew Senger and Joshua Sellers (decedent) met at the home of a mutual friend in Abington Township. Simons had been drinking all day prior to this engagement, but testified that he did not drink at the residence. In the early morning hours of December 24, 2006, Senger and the decedent asked Simons for a ride home. None of the men fastened their seatbelts. Simons testified that he was, in fact, drunk when he left the party, and admitted that this was not the first time he had driven his friends home drunk. Simons testified that the police car made a U-turn and began following Simons with its lights and siren activated. Simons admitted that instead of pulling over, he fled, as he was “scared of getting a DUI.” Senger testified that when Simons initially “floored his car,” he was not aware that police were pursuing the car. Senger estimated that Simons was driving “well over 100” miles per hour. Senger testified that both he and decedent then asked Simons to slow down, as they were aware of a dip in the road ahead. Simons continued at a high rate of speed and ultimately hit the dip in the road. The car was sent airborne and crashed into trees and a parked pickup truck. Simons and Senger suffered minor injuries, while decedent was ejected from the vehicle and thrown 20 feet away, suffering a catastrophic brain injury, along with other injuries. Appellants Celeste and Richard Sellers, parents of the decedent, filed a wrongful death and survival action against appellees the Township of Abington, Officer Edward Howley, and Lieutenant Karl Knott asserting claims for negligence and punitive damages. Appellants alleged that appellees caused the death of decedent when Officer Howley negligently, recklessly, and willfully initiated and failed to terminate a high speed pursuit of Simons’ vehicle. After the completion of discovery, Appellees moved for summary judgment based upon governmental immunity. The central issue this case presented for the Supreme Court's review was whether a local agency owed a common law or statutory duty of care to a passenger of a fleeing vehicle, whose existence or relationship to the fleeing driver was unknown to the pursuing police officer. The Commonwealth Court concluded that appellees did not owe a duty of care to fleeing suspects. After review, the Supreme Court affirmed the Commonwealth Court's decision. View "Sellers v. Twp. of Abington" on Justia Law

In 2007, Jared Wolfe was injured when his vehicle was hit from behind by an automobile driven by Karl Zierle. Wolfe attributed blame to Zierle and demanded $25,000 from Zierle’s insurer carrier, Appellant Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company, equating to half the liability limits under the applicable policy. Allstate counteroffered $1,200, which Wolfe refused. Wolfe then instituted a personal injury action against Zierle seeking compensatory damages grounded in negligence. Allstate assumed Zierle’s defense while maintaining its additional right, under the policy, to effectuate a settlement. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court accepted certification from a federal appeals court to clarify whether, under Pennsylvania law, an insured may assign the right to recover damages from his insurance company deriving from the insurer’s bad faith toward the insured. The Court concluded that the entitlement to assert damages under Pennsylvania law may be assigned by an insured to an injured plaintiff and judgment creditor such as Wolfe. Having answered the certified question, the Court returned the matter to the federal court. View "Allstate Prop & Casualty Ins Co. v. Wolfe" on Justia Law

Appellant Ashley Zauflik sustained severe and permanent injuries when a school bus owned by, and operated by an employee of, appellee Pennsbury School District accelerated out of control onto a sidewalk and struck twenty students. The issue this case presented for review did not concern liability - it was a challenge to the constitutionality of the $500,000 statutory limit available in tort from a local agency such as Pennsbury. The lower courts, consistently with governing Pennsylvania law denied the challenges to the damages cap. Finding no reversible reason, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts. View "Zauflik v. Pennsbury School District" on Justia Law

In 2007, neighbors reported a fire that had erupted at the home of the Terrence and Judith Tincher in Downingtown. The residence was the central unit of a two-story triplex purchased by the Tinchers in 2005. The fire was eventually extinguished and no one was harmed. Investigators concluded that a lightning strike near the home caused a small puncture in the corrugated stainless steel tubing (“CSST”) transporting natural gas to a fireplace located on the first floor of the residence. The CSST installed in the Tinchers’ home was manufactured and sold by Omega Flex as part of a gas transportations system marketed as the TracPipe System. The melting of the CSST caused by the lightning strike ignited the natural gas and fueled the fire estimated to have burned for over an hour. The fire caused significant damage to the Tinchers’ home and belongings. After the fire, the Tinchers reported the incident to their insurer, United Services Automobile Association (“USAA”). USAA compensated the Tinchers for their loss up to the limit of their policy and received an assignment of liability claims. The Tinchers suffered an additional out-of-pocket loss because a portion of their claimed loss exceeded the limits of the USAA policy. In January 2008, the Tinchers filed a complaint against Omega Flex; USAA prosecuted the claims in the name of the Tinchers to obtain reimbursement of the insurance proceeds payout, but the Tinchers retained an interest in the litigation to recover the losses exceeding their insurance coverage. The Tinchers asserted claims premised upon theories of strict liability, negligence, and breach of warranty, alleging that Omega Flex was liable for damages to their home caused by the placement on the market and sale of the TracPipe System. Omega Flex, Inc., appealed the Superior Court's decision to affirm the judgment on the verdict entered in favor of the Tinchers. After review, the Supreme Court reversed in part, and remanded the case with instructions: (1) "Azzarello v. Black Brothers Company," (391 A.2d 1020 (Pa. 1978)) was overruled; (2) a plaintiff pursuing a cause upon a theory of strict liability in tort must prove that the product is in a “defective condition”; (3) whether a product is in a defective condition is a question of fact ordinarily submitted for determination to the finder of fact; (4) to the extent relevant here, the Court declined to adopt the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability despite acknowledging that "certain principles contained in that Restatement has certainly informed [its] consideration of the proper approach to strict liability in Pennsylvania in the post-Azzarello paradigm." View "Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc." on Justia Law