Blaque, E. v. Chestnut Hill Hospital
Blaque, E. v. Chestnut Hill Hospital No. 2382 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 31, 2017Background
- Decedent Herbert McCracken (age 75) presented to Chestnut Hill Hospital ED on Dec. 12, 2012 with severe abdominal pain and diarrhea; treated by Dr. Burke and later Dr. Jaslow and discharged after labs and ibuprofen; returned Dec. 13 with a GI bleed and died Dec. 24, 2012.
- Wife filed malpractice suit (Aug 2013); after her death, daughter Ellesia Blaque (Appellant) was substituted as administratrix of the estate and plaintiff.
- Jury trial Feb 12–24, 2016 returned verdict for defendants (physicians, hospital, associated entities); post-trial motions denied and judgment entered Sept. 22, 2016; Appellant appealed.
- Appellant raised seven issues on appeal, including exclusion of wrongful-death claims/beneficiary evidence, juror removal, trial scheduling, admission of evidence about decedent’s alcohol use, refusal to judicially notice ED policy statute, exclusion of plaintiff’s testimony on emotional suffering, and sufficiency of evidence (JNOV/new trial).
- Trial court ruled pretrial that plaintiff could not use the term “alcohol abuse” but could present evidence of alcohol use relating to life expectancy; excluded plaintiff from wrongful-death recovery based on lack of pecuniary relationship/emancipation; discharged a juror who visited an ED during the trial; declined to take judicial notice of 28 Pa. Code §117.41 for jury instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of wrongful-death beneficiary evidence / striking Wrongful Death Act claims | Blaque argued she could recover non-pecuniary value (guidance, tutelage) even if emancipated | Defendants argued plaintiff lacked family relation/pecuniary loss under Wrongful Death Act | Court held plaintiff was not a beneficiary: emancipation/no financial dependence precluded recovery; non-pecuniary damages require pecuniary loss (affirmed) |
| Removal of Juror No. 7 mid-trial | Blaque argued removal without voir dire and replacement with alternate (different race/medical connection) was prejudicial | Defendants/higher court: juror’s recent ED visit for abdominal pain created situational bias; court followed on-record procedure and seated first alternate | Court held removal proper for cause, reasons placed on record; seating first alternate appropriate; objections waived as to alternate |
| Trial scheduling / alleged rush to verdict | Blaque argued judge constrained jury to finish by a date, causing rushed deliberation and prejudice | Defendants: schedule discussion was housekeeping; parties agreed; no objection at trial; speculative and unpreserved | Court held no error—explanation was advisory/housekeeping, issue waived for lack of contemporaneous objection, no prejudice shown |
| Admission of evidence re: decedent’s alcohol use | Blaque argued evidence was prejudicial and suggested contributory fault | Defendants: alcohol use admissible re: life expectancy; court limited language (no "alcohol abuse") | Court upheld limited admission (life-expectancy relevance); plaintiff did not preserve certain objections; no prejudice because liability verdict favored defendants |
| Judicial notice / jury instruction of 28 Pa. Code §117.41 (ED policies) | Blaque sought judicial notice and instruction that EDs must have policies/procedures | Defendants: statute not necessary; trial evidence lacked proof hospital lacked policies; instruction could confuse jury | Court declined to read statute to jury—no showing hospital violated policies and Plaintiff had inconsistent theory; taking notice would mislead/confuse |
| Exclusion of plaintiff’s testimony on emotional grief/suffering | Blaque sought to testify about emotional harm to her and siblings | Defendants: Wrongful Death Act does not permit mental anguish damages for relatives | Court barred such testimony—mental suffering/grief not recoverable under Wrongful Death Act; harmless given verdict for defendants |
| Sufficiency / JNOV or new trial based on evidence | Blaque argued experts and facts compelled verdict for plaintiff | Defendants pointed to contrary expert testimony and credibility issues for jury to resolve | Court denied JNOV/new trial—conflicting expert testimony and credibility were for jury; no clear case where no two reasonable minds could differ |
Key Cases Cited
- Manning v. Capelli, 411 A.2d 252 (Pa. Super. 1979) (defines "family relation" under Wrongful Death Act and requires pecuniary loss for recovery)
- Bruckshaw v. Frankford Hosp. of City of Philadelphia, 58 A.3d 102 (Pa. 2012) (juror removal must be on the record, for cause, with notice to parties)
- Dubose v. Quinlan, 125 A.3d 1231 (Pa. Super. 2015) (standard for JNOV: only in clear cases where no two reasonable minds could differ)
- Czimmer v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 122 A.3d 1043 (Pa. Super. 2015) (standards for reviewing new-trial/jury instruction decisions)
- Gaydos v. Domabyl, 152 A. 549 (Pa. 1930) (mental suffering/grief not recoverable under Wrongful Death Act)
- Parr v. Ford Motor Co., 109 A.3d 682 (Pa. Super. 2014) (motions in limine reviewed for abuse of discretion)