Bouchon v. Citizen Care, Inc.
176 A.3d 244
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- Decedent Charles Bouchon, a mentally challenged resident of a group home operated by Citizen Care, choked on uncut pizza on August 24, 2013; staff and Robinson EMS responded but Charles died at the hospital.
- Appellant Dale Bouchon (administrator of Charles’s estate) filed suit naming Citizen Care entities, several individual employees, Robinson EMS, and others; pleadings were prolix and grouped multiple defendants/cause types together.
- Trial court ordered pre-complaint discovery, then directed (Dec. 3, 2015) that plaintiff plead individual and specific allegations against each defendant in separate counts; plaintiff filed an amended complaint that did not comply; plaintiff later filed a second amended complaint without leave.
- Defendants filed numerous preliminary objections asserting failures of specificity (Pa.R.C.P. 1019/1020), mispleading of wrongful-death/survival claims, and statutory immunities under the MHMR Act and the EMSS Act (defeat only by gross negligence/incompetence or willful misconduct).
- Trial court struck the second amended complaint, sustained preliminary objections to the amended complaint, denied leave to amend, and dismissed with prejudice; plaintiff appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether amended complaint alleged viable wrongful-death/survival or negligence claims | Bouchon: well-pleaded facts (ISP, unsupervised eating, failures by staff/EMS) support recovery | Defendants: pleadings are general, shotgun, and fail to specify claims/parties; some claim statutory immunity | Court: Some factual averments, if proved, could permit recovery; demurrers on merits reversed in part |
| Whether immunity under MHMR Act/EMSS Act bars suit absent gross negligence/incompetence/willful misconduct | Bouchon: alleged facts could show gross negligence by defendants including EMS | Defendants: statutory immunity applies; plaintiff failed to plead gross negligence/incompetence sufficiently | Court: Dismissal on immunity grounds was erroneous — pleadings contain facts that could, if proven, amount to gross negligence; immunity demurrers reversed |
| Whether trial court properly struck second amended complaint as untimely and noncompliant | Bouchon: striking was error; objecting parties lacked standing on timing | Defendants: second amended complaint was filed without leave and repeated the same defects | Court: No need to decide timing standing; second amended complaint also failed to comply and was properly stricken |
| Whether trial court properly dismissed with prejudice for failure to follow court order requiring separate, specific counts | Bouchon: amended complaint complied with cognizable portions and dismissal with prejudice was improper; further amendment futile | Defendants: plaintiff flagrantly ignored the court’s directive; pleadings remained noncompliant and prejudicial | Court: Dismissal of that pleading for noncompliance with Rules 1019/1020 and the court order was affirmed; but denial of any further amendment was reversed and remanded to allow a conforming amended complaint |
Key Cases Cited
- Hill v. Slippery Rock Univ., 138 A.3d 673 (discusses standard for sustaining preliminary objections in nature of demurrer)
- Womer v. Hilliker, 908 A.2d 269 (explains importance of adhering to procedural rules)
- Donaldson v. Davidson Bros., Inc., 144 A.3d 93 (Rule 1019(a) requires concise, summary statement of material facts)
- Discover Bank v. Stucka, 33 A.3d 82 (complaint must apprise defendant of nature and extent of claim)
- Salvadia v. Ashbrook, 923 A.2d 436 (survival statute requires actions by personal representative)
- Estate of Denmark Ex. Rel. Hurst v. Williams, 117 A.3d 300 (basic principles on vicarious liability and employer-employee scope)
- General State Authority v. Lawrie and Green, 356 A.2d 851 (separate causes against different defendants require distinct pleading)