Bensinger v. University of Pittsburgh Medical Center
98 A.3d 672
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- Bensinger worked at Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic (Western Psych) from 2001–2009 and was promoted to facility director in Oct. 2008.
- In July 2009 an altered referral agreement (date changed) was discovered; Bensinger admitted altering it and was terminated the same day for that reason.
- Bensinger sued under the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law claiming he was fired for reporting alleged wrongdoing by Dr. Daley; he demanded a jury trial in his complaint.
- The trial court struck the jury demand, conducted a three-day bench trial, and found Bensinger failed to prove protected whistleblowing and that Western Psych proved a legitimate, non‑pretextual reason for termination (the forgery).
- Bensinger appealed, raising (1) entitlement to a jury, (2) denial of discovery/motion to compel, (3) adequacy of factual findings, and (4) verdict against the weight of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Whistleblower Law entitles plaintiff to a jury trial | Bensinger: Constitution guarantees jury trial for his Whistleblower claim | Western Psych: Statute refers to “the court” and provides equitable remedies; no statutory or constitutional jury right | No statutory or constitutional right to jury trial under Whistleblower Law; trial court properly struck jury demand |
| Whether trial court erred denying motion to compel research/academic records | Bensinger: Documents (Daley’s Ph.D., Kelly’s research) were relevant to prove non‑technical malfeasance and credibility | Western Psych: Documents not relevant to termination reason; issue waived as not in post‑trial motion (but discovery issues preserved) | Denial of motion to compel would be harmless; records would not have undercut the unpretextual reason for firing |
| Whether trial court’s findings/conclusions were insufficient | Bensinger: Court failed to make findings as to alleged wrongdoing/authenticity of Ph.D. | Western Psych: Rule allows general findings so long as all claims disposed | Findings sufficed to dispose of claim per Pa.R.C.P. 1038(b); no relief warranted |
| Whether verdict was against the weight of the evidence | Bensinger: Trial court erred in credibility/evidence assessment | Western Psych: Appellant waived weight argument by failing to raise in post‑trial motion; evidence supports credibility findings | Waived for appeal; alternatively, no reversible error—bench credibility determinations were not manifestly erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- Mishoe v. Erie Ins. Co., 824 A.2d 1153 (Pa. 2008) (statute referring to "the court" supports no statutory jury right)
- Wertz v. Chapman Twp., 741 A.2d 1272 (Pa. 1999) (PHRA remedies phrased for the court do not create jury right)
- Fazio v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 62 A.3d 396 (Pa. Super. 2012) (UTPCPL language construed as not conferring jury trial right)
- Geary v. U.S. Steel Corp., 319 A.2d 174 (Pa. 1974) (recognition that wrongful discharge/whistleblower protections are novel developments in Pennsylvania law)