Dymeck v. Rajjoub
43 Pa. D. & C.5th 13
Pennsylvania Court of Common P...2014Background
- Plaintiff Judy J. Dymeck alleged catastrophic, permanent nerve and spinal-cord injuries (quadriplegia) arising from care at Williamsport Hospital (July–Sept 2010), then transfers to Select Specialty Hospital and Geisinger Medical Center.
- Plaintiffs settled with several Williamsport-related defendants by a Joint Tortfeasor Release on August 29, 2014.
- Select-related defendants (physicians and Select Specialty Hospital/Geisinger parties) filed answers and cross-claims against the Williamsport-related defendants and moved to transfer venue from Lycoming County to Montour County and to compel production of the settlement agreement.
- Williamsport-related defendants filed preliminary objections (including a demurrer) arguing they are not joint tortfeasors because the alleged harms are severable in time/place and thus apportionable.
- The court considered: (1) whether the injuries are apportionable (joint vs. several tortfeasor liability), (2) forum non conveniens transfer to Montour County, and (3) discoverability/admissibility of the Joint Tortfeasor Release.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Williamsport- and Select-related defendants are joint tortfeasors (apportionability of injury) | Injuries are alleged as single, indivisible nerve/spinal-cord damage; no basis to apportion | Harm is severable by time/place (injury at Williamsport distinct from injury at Select); arrival condition supports apportionment | Court: Overruled demurrer — at this stage injury is not apportionable; no logical basis to divide injuries without medical evidence |
| Motion to transfer venue (Lycoming → Montour) | Chosen forum is proper; additional travel is minor; transfer would discourage settlements | Trial in Lycoming is oppressive/inconvenient for Select-related defendants and hospitalists; Montour is more appropriate given many events there | Court: Denied transfer — plaintiff’s forum choice entitled to deference; extra 30–35 minutes travel not oppressive; no forum shopping shown |
| Motion to compel production of Joint Tortfeasor Release | Release not discoverable or relevant; its contents are protected to encourage settlement; any apportionment handled by law post-verdict | Release needed for fair apportionment/offsets and to detect any alliance/bias between plaintiffs and settling defendants | Court: Denied motion — release not discoverable in full; Pennsylvania law provides apportionment/offset; release does not create an alliance requiring disclosure |
| Whether existence of release must be disclosed to jury (potential bias) | Plaintiffs: release contains no alliance; full contents unnecessary | Select-related: must know if release creates alliance/financial incentive that could bias witnesses | Court: The court reviewed the release in camera and found no alliance; existence of an alliance need not be disclosed because none exists |
Key Cases Cited
- Booze v. Allstate Ins. Co., 750 A.2d 877 (Pa. Super. 2000) (standard on demurrer: resolve doubts against sustaining)
- Neal v. Bavarian Motors, Inc., 882 A.2d 1022 (Pa. Super. 2005) (apportionability rule for joint tortfeasors; indivisible harms impose joint liability)
- Lasprogata v. Qualls, 397 A.2d 803 (Pa. Super. 1979) (court determines apportionability of harm)
- Glomb v. Glomb, 530 A.2d 1362 (Pa. Super. 1987) (factors for assessing apportionability are practical guides, not a single test)
- Capone v. Donovan, 480 A.2d 1249 (Pa. Super. 1984) (most personal injuries are inherently indivisible)
- Martin v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 528 A.2d 947 (Pa. 1987) (expert evidence may be required to apportion damages)
- Corbett v. Weisband, 551 A.2d 1059 (Pa. Super. 1988) (burden to present evidence enabling apportionment rests on the party asserting divisibility)
- Cheeseman v. Lethal Exterminator, 701 A.2d 156 (Pa. 1997) (plaintiff’s forum choice gets deference; transfer requires showing forum is oppressive)
- Hatfield v. Continental Imports, 610 A.2d 446 (Pa. 1992) (if a settlement creates an alliance that could bias the factfinder, that alliance must be disclosed)
- Nat’l Liberty Life Ins. Co. v. Kling P’ship, 504 A.2d 1273 (Pa. Super. 1986) (settling defendants with pro-rata releases still may need to participate at trial for allocation of joint liability)