Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

Appellant Sabrina Bowman appealed a Superior Court’s order affirming the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, which granted Sunoco, Inc.'s motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed appellant's negligence claim. Appellant was employed as a private security guard with Allied Barton Security Services. In exchange for employment, she signed a Workers' Compensation Disclaimer whereby she waived her right to sue Allied's clients for damages related to injuries covered under the Workers' Compensation Act. Appellant was later injured when she fell on ice and snow while working at one of Sunoco's refineries. She filed a workers' compensation claim and received benefits. Thereafter, appellant filed a negligence claim against Sunoco, alleging failure to maintain safe conditions caused her injury. After discovery revealed the disclaimer and appellant's receipt of benefits, appellee filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, stating appellant's claim was barred by the disclaimer. Finding no error in the Superior Court's decision, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Bowman v. Sunoco, Inc." on Justia Law

Claimant Dorothy Robinson was a police officer for the City of Pittsburgh. In 1997, she sustained a work-related injury, and the City placed her on light-duty. In 2001, while traveling for treatment of her injury, Claimant was involved in an automobile accident in which she sustained new injuries. After the accident, Claimant did not return to her light-duty position nor was she offered any other light-duty work. In late 2004, Claimant received a disability pension. In connection with Claimant’s claim of entitlement to a disability pension, she was examined by three physicians who certified that Claimant was unable to perform her pre-injury job as a police officer. Nearly three years later, an independent medical examiner concluded that although Claimant was not fit to perform her prior job as a police officer, she could perform modified-duty work. The City filed a Petition to Suspend Compensation Benefits, asserting that Claimant was capable of working, "but has voluntarily removed herself from the work force as she has not looked for or sought employment in the general labor market." Claimant filed a response, denying the averments of the suspension petition and asserting that she remained attached to the workforce and had registered for work with the Pennsylvania Job Center. She further claimed that she was not presently working only because of the unavailability of work and because the City had eliminated her light-duty position. The Workers' Compensation Judge denied the suspension petition, concluding that Claimant had not voluntarily removed herself from the workforce. The issue before the Supreme Court in this appeal concerned the assignment of the burden of proof when the employer sought to modify or suspend a claimant's benefits on the basis that the claimant had retired. The Commonwealth Court plurality devised a "totality of the circumstances" test and concluded that the City failed to show that the injured worker had voluntarily withdrawn from the workforce. The City appealed, but the Supreme Court concurred with the Commonwealth Court and affirmed. View "City of Pittsburgh v. WCAB (Robinson)" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court centered on the award of attorney's fees against an insurance company under the peer-review provisions of the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (MVFRL). The MVFRL limits the amount providers may charge for treatment, products or services rendered to patients injured in automobile accidents where the injury is covered by an insurance policy. An individual obtained treatment from Appellee Herd Chiropractic Clinic for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The insurance company submitted the clinic's invoices to a Peer Review Organization (PRO) pursuant to the MVFRL. The PRO determined that certain treatments were not necessary or reasonable, and the insurance company subsequently refused to pay for such treatment The Clinic then sued for unpaid bills, plus treble damages and attorney's fees under the theory that the MVFRL authorized payment. The Common Pleas court found an award of fees proper and mandatory under the MVFRL. The Superior Court affirmed. The Supreme Court, however, reversed, finding that the MVFRL did not allow for what amounted to "fee shifting" by the lower courts' outcome: "We acknowledge [the Clinic's] concerns with the financial incentives in the peer-review industry and with the fact that litigation costs incurred by providers may discourage legitimate challenges. The fee accruals here – in the amount of $27,000 to vindicate a $1380 claim - present a stark example of the difficulty. . . . Nevertheless, fee shifting raises a host of mixed policy considerations in and of itself, which this Court has found are best left to the General Assembly, in the absence of contractual allocation or some other recognized exception to the general, American rule." View "Herd Chiropractic Clinic v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co." on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case was whether a doctor who treats prison inmates has a common law duty to warn corrections officers that a particular inmate has a communicable disease. Appellee Michelle Seebold filed suit against Appellant Prison Health Services, Inc. ("PHS"), alleging a single cause of action expressly grounded in negligence. Appellee worked as a corrections officer at the prison and was assigned to strip search its female inmates before and after they received visitors. The complaint asserted that approximately twelve inmates were infected with methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). As a result of Appellee's contact with the inmates, she averred, she became infected. Appellee contended that PHS's staff knew or should have known of the infections and owed a duty of reasonable care to "the staff and inmates at SCI Muncy to warn them of and protect them from acquiring an MRSA infection from those inmates known to be carrying the bacteria in a communicable state." Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that Appellee had not asserted a cause of action under Commonwealth case law, and "[i]n the absence of policy arguments or a request for an opportunity to develop a record, the [trial] court did not err in applying the default approach of declining to impose upon professional undertakings new affirmative common-law duties running to third-parties to the professional relationship." The Court reversed the superior court and reinstated the trial court's order. View "Seebold v. Prison Health Services" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted allowance of appeal in this consolidated case to consider whether a plaintiff may recover delay damages on the full amount of a jury verdict in his favor, or whether delay damages are limited to the amount of the legally-recoverable molded verdict, as it was adjusted by the trial court to reflect insurance policy limits. This case stemmed from a 2002 accident in which the vehicle operated by Richard and Marleen Marlette, stopped in traffic, was hit when vehicle operated by Herman Jordan crossed the center line and sideswiped them. Mr. Marlette sustained serious physical injuries, as well as lost wages and impairment of his earning capacity. The Marlettes filed suit against Jordan, who was uninsured, and their own insurer, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ("State Farm"), for uninsured motorist ("UM") coverage. Liability was uncontested, and the case proceeded to trial on damages. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court concluded that a plaintiff may recover delay damages only on the amount of legally-recoverable damages to which he is entitled pursuant to the molded verdict. The Court remanded the case to the Superior Court for remand to the trial court for reinstatement of its original award of delay damages. View "Marlette v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. " on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case was whether Appellee Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) is considered an "arm" of the state which under the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution would confer upon it sovereign immunity from lawsuits brought by injured employees. After review of the applicable statutory authority, the Supreme Court concluded that SEPTA could not be deemed an "arm" of the state, and thus is not entitled to sovereign immunity from suits under the Eleventh Amendment. Accordingly, the Court reversed an order of the Commonwealth Court and remanded this case back to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Goldman v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transp. Auth." on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case was whether a pathologist was competent to testify as an expert witness regarding the standard of care in a medical malpractice action asserted against a board-certified general surgeon. Decedent Mildred Anderson sought treatment from surgeon Gary McAfoos, M.D. Shortly thereafter, Mrs. Anderson took a turn for the worse and died from sepsis in response to surgery ultimately conducted by Dr. McAfoos and his practice partners. Mrs. Anderson's estate sued, and at trial proferred the testimony of a pathologist, who asserted that Dr. McAfoos and his agents' acts fell below ordinary standards of care by allowing Mrs. Anderson's discharge from the hospital despite certain indicators that she was suffering from a serious infection (that ultimately lead to her death). The doctor objected to Mrs. Anderson's use of the pathologist as an expert, arguing he was incompetent to assess the standard of care on a doctor who sees patients, "[h]e can't possibly second guess care and treatment on a patient when he doesn't see patients." The trial court sustained the objection to the expert's testimony; subsequently the doctor moved for nonsuit which was granted. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that Mrs. Anderson did not properly preserve her claim that the expert's credentials satisfied the requirements of the state competency statute, and accordingly, could not advance her contention that he should have been allowed to render standard-of-care testimony against a board-certified surgeon. View "Anderson v. McAfoos, et al" on Justia Law

This appeal arose from a medical malpractice action brought by Appellant Thomas Bruckshaw as Administrator of the Estate of Patricia Bruckshaw (Decedent) and in his own right, against Appellees Frankford Hospital of Philadelphia (Frankford Hospital), Jefferson Health System, Inc., Brian P. Priest, M.D., and Randy Metcalf, M.D. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether a court was empowered to remove a principal juror without any reason and without any notice to the parties, and replace her with the last possible alternate, without notice, after all evidence was submitted and the jury had already retired to deliberate. Upon review, the Court concluded that the removal of a juror can only be done by a trial court, on the record, with notice to the parties, for cause. Furthermore, the Court concluded that the trial court committed reversible error for which the aggrieved party was not required to demonstrate prejudice. View "Bruckshaw v. Frankford Hospital" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted allowance of appeal in this case to determine, as a matter of first impression, whether a defendant in a products liability action must plead and prove as an affirmative defense that an injured party's alleged "highly reckless conduct" was the sole or superseding cause of the plaintiff's injuries. Upon review of the Superior Court record, the Supreme Court agreed with the lower court that in order to avoid liability, a defendant raising a claim of highly reckless conduct must indeed plead and prove such claim as an affirmative defense. "Moreover, this evidence must further establish that the highly reckless conduct was the sole or superseding cause of the injuries sustained." The Court affirmed the order of the Superior Court. View "Reott v. Asia Trend, Inc." on Justia Law

Appellants Highland Park Care Center, L.L.C. and Grane Healthcare Company appealed the decision of the Superior Court to reverse the grant of a nonsuit in part, affirm the denial of a nonsuit in part, and award a new trial to Appellee Richard Scampone, the executor of the estate of Madeline Scampone. Upon review of the case, the Supreme Court held 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. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the Superior Court in part, but for reasons that differed from the Superior Court, and remanded the case back to that court for further proceedings. View "Scampone v. Highland Park Care Center, LLC, et al." on Justia Law