Estate of Denmark Ex Rel. Hurst v. Williams
117 A.3d 300
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2015Background
- Plaintiff (Estate of Arthur Denmark, by administrator Hurst) sued two surgeons (Drs. Williams and Hallur) and Mercy Philadelphia Hospital/Mercy Health System after Denmark underwent surgery following a dislodged tracheostomy catheter, allegedly suffered a severely lacerated bladder during surgery, had gauze left in his body, developed septic shock, and died.
- Hurst's amended complaint asserted negligence claims against the doctors, and vicarious liability and corporate negligence claims against Mercy; wrongful death and survival claims were also pled.
- The trial court (Judge Tereshko) sustained preliminary objections in part, striking (a) punitive damages claims, (b) all references to unidentified agents/employees in Counts III (vicarious liability) and IV, and (c) Count IV (corporate negligence) in specified paragraphs.
- Dr. Williams later obtained summary judgment; at trial the court granted a motion in limine precluding evidence against Dr. Hallur and the defense obtained a "Non Pros"-style order (May 27, 2014); Hurst appealed the August 31, 2012 preliminary-objection rulings.
- The Superior Court treated the May 27, 2014 order as a final, appealable summary-judgment–style disposition (following Lewis) and reviewed whether the preliminary objections were properly sustained.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether striking all allegations referring to unnamed/unnamed-group employees precludes a vicarious-liability claim against the hospital | Hurst: pleading unnamed "nursing staff/attending physicians/other personnel" suffices to plead vicarious liability; employees can be unnamed or referred to as a group | Mercy: allegations of agency are legally insufficient; pleading must identify the agent or properly plead agency facts (citing Alumni Ass'n) | Reversed as to this point: Court held group/unnamed staff allegations (read in context) gave fair notice and can support vicarious liability; subsection (b) was erroneous |
| Whether the amended complaint adequately pleaded corporate negligence against the hospital | Hurst: factual allegations (dislodged catheter, surgical bladder laceration, gauze retained, resulting septic shock/death) sufficiently allege duties and actual/constructive knowledge to support corporate negligence | Mercy: argued those corporate-negligence allegations were insufficient and thus Count IV should be stricken | Reversed as to this point: Court agreed the complaint alleged facts mapping to Thompson's four corporate-negligence duties and alleged actual/constructive knowledge; subsection (c) was erroneous |
| Appealability/procedural preservation of the appeal given the trial court's post-pleadings order labeled "Non Pros"/"nolle pros" | Hurst: preserved issues for appeal; treated the post-pleadings order as final and appealable | Mercy and Hallur: contended Hurst failed to preserve issues by not filing a Rule 3051 petition to open non pros and that the order was akin to a compulsory nonsuit requiring post-trial motions | Court: followed Lewis and treated the May 27, 2014 order as a summary-judgment–style final order; appeal was properly before the Superior Court |
| Scope of remand and remaining rulings from preliminary-objection order | Hurst: sought reinstatement of vicarious-liability and corporate-negligence counts | Mercy: other struck paragraphs and punitive-damages rulings stand; claims against individual doctors already dismissed | Court: reversed only the portions striking unnamed-agent allegations and Count IV; other struck paragraphs and punitive-damages rulings were not appealed and remain; case remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Lewis v. United Hospitals, Inc., 547 A.2d 626 (Pa.) (treatment of a trial-court nonsuit-like order as summary judgment for appealability purposes)
- Sokolsky v. Eidelman, 93 A.3d 858 (Pa. Super. 2014) (unnamed or group references to staff may support vicarious liability when read in context)
- Scampone v. Highland Park Care Center, LLC, 57 A.3d 582 (Pa. 2012) (distinguishing direct and vicarious liability; scope-of-employment factors)
- Thompson v. Nason Hosp., 591 A.2d 703 (Pa. 1991) (recognition of hospital corporate-negligence doctrine and the four categories of hospital duties)
- Valles v. Albert Einstein Medical Center, 758 A.2d 1238 (Pa. Super. 2000) (treatment of nonsuit/summary-judgment procedural issues in medical-malpractice context)
- Wujcik v. Yorktowne Dental Assocs., Inc., 701 A.2d 581 (Pa. Super. 1997) (procedural precedent on treatment of pretrial nonsuit-like orders)