Dubose, R. v. Quinlan, M.
125 A.3d 1231
Pa. Super. Ct.2015Background
- Decedent Elise Dubose suffered severe brain injury in July 2005, was admitted to Albert Einstein Medical Center, then transferred to Willowcrest Nursing Home in August 2005 with multiple Stage II pressure ulcers and serious comorbidities (diabetes, respiratory failure, COPD).
- Physician ordered frequent repositioning (1–2 hour cycle) and a pressure-reducing bed; plaintiff presented evidence staff negligently failed to follow orders, producing numerous, worsening pressure ulcers, malnutrition, dehydration, sepsis, osteomyelitis and death on October 18, 2007.
- Plaintiff (administrator of decedent’s estate) filed consolidated wrongful death and survival actions in 2009; trials occurred twice (first ended in mistrial), second in Feb–Mar 2013 produced verdicts: $125,000 (wrongful death), $1,000,000 (survival), and $875,000 punitive damages against Albert Einstein d/b/a Willowcrest; liability apportioned among Willowcrest (60%), Albert Einstein (25%), Donna Brown (15%).
- Post-trial, court entered judgment, granted JNOV as to employee Donna Brown without reducing total verdict, denied other JNOV/new trial/remittitur motions, and awarded Rule 238 delay damages; defendants appealed.
- On appeal, defendants raised statute-of-limitations, sufficiency of punitive and corporate-negligence evidence, evidentiary rulings (exclusion of certain records and plaintiff’s prior attorney retention), excessiveness of awards, wealth evidence at punitive phase, and timeliness/applicability of delay damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of survival claim | Survival action timely because MCARE permits death/survival suits within 2 years of death; complaints filed within two years of 10/18/2007 death | SOL began when wounds first developed (2005), so survival claim time-barred | Survival claim timely; SOL runs from date of death under MCARE/Survival Act |
| Wrongful-death damages recoverable | Wrongful Death Act permits pecuniary losses including value of decedent’s services, companionship and funeral expenses; jury evidence supported such losses | Damages improper because decedent preexisting severe brain injury made society/comfort and pain speculative | Verdict ($125,000) supported—Wrongful Death compensates survivors’ pecuniary loss including society/comfort; award upheld |
| Punitive damages sufficiency | Plaintiff: evidence of reckless indifference (failure to follow orders, understaffing, use of LPNs for wound assessments, resulting severe harm) justifies punitive damages | Defendants: evidence shows at most ordinary negligence; punitive unsupported | Sufficient evidence of conscious disregard/reckless indifference to send punitive issue to jury; punitive award upheld |
| Corporate negligence liability | Plaintiff: AEHN and Willowcrest had management/oversight duties (staffing, QA, policies); expert testified AEHN failed those duties causing harm | Defendants: plaintiff failed to prove breach/causation or distinguish corporate defendants; expert lacked nursing-home admin training | Sufficient evidence of corporate negligence (failure to enforce policies, understaffing, unlawful practices) to deny JNOV |
| Evidence exclusions (daughter’s conduct; plaintiff’s prior counsel) | Plaintiff excluded hearsay that would prejudice plaintiff | Defendants argued exclusions relevant to SOL and credibility | Exclusions proper: evidence was hearsay/irrelevant given SOL runs from death; no prejudice shown |
| Excessiveness / remittitur | Plaintiff: awards reflect proven pain, suffering, and death-caused losses | Defendants: awards excessive given decedent’s preexisting condition and limited responsiveness | Court did not abuse discretion; awards not shockingly excessive—jury credibility choices controlling |
| Wealth evidence at punitive phase | Plaintiff: wealth evidence necessary for punitive amount and was admitted only in punitive phase after liability | Defendants: jury should not have heard wealth until after deciding whether to impose punitive damages | No error—bifurcation as conducted acceptable; wealth admissible at punitive phase and no prejudice shown |
| Delay damages (Rule 238) | Plaintiff filed within 10 days after docketing of verdict; award appropriate | Defendants: motion untimely and delay damages not applicable to wrongful death | Motion timely under Rule 238(c); delay damages award upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Thompson v. Nason Hosp., 591 A.2d 703 (Pa. 1991) (establishes corporate-hospital negligence duties and standards)
- Scampone v. Grane Healthcare Co., 11 A.3d 967 (Pa. Super. 2010) (applies corporate negligence to nursing homes)
- Spangler v. Helm’s New York-Pittsburgh Motor Exp., 153 A.2d 490 (Pa. 1959) (endorses compensation for loss of companionship and family services)
- Machado v. Kunkel, 804 A.2d 1238 (Pa. Super. 2002) (explains wrongful-death damages include value of services/consortium)
- Hatwood v. HUP, 55 A.3d 1229 (Pa. Super. 2012) (upholds jury instruction that wrongful-death plaintiffs may recover for companionship and society)
- J.J. DeLuca Co., Inc. v. Toll Naval Assocs., 56 A.3d 402 (Pa. Super. 2012) (defines punitive-damages standard: evil motive or reckless indifference)
- Snead v. Soc’y for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, 929 A.2d 1169 (Pa. Super. 2007) (requires subjective appreciation of risk and conscious disregard for punitive damages)
- Haines v. Raven Arms, 640 A.2d 367 (Pa. 1994) (standard for judicial reduction/remittitur of jury awards)