Griffin, D. v. Abington Memorial Hospital
392 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 29, 2017Background
- On June 29, 2014, Debra Griffin slipped and fell in an elevator at Abington Memorial Hospital (located in Montgomery County) and sued; initial writ named Abington and Jefferson Health, Inc., but Jefferson Health was later dismissed.
- Griffin alleged Abington “merged” with Thomas Jefferson University Hospital (TJUH) and therefore regularly conducts business in Philadelphia County, making Philadelphia a proper venue.
- Abington filed preliminary objections to venue, arguing Abington and TJUH are distinct legal entities and that Abington does not regularly conduct business in Philadelphia.
- Discovery included deposition testimony of Deborah Datte (Abington’s SVP & Corporate Counsel) who testified the public “merger” language on press releases/websites was marketing/branding and inaccurate; legally Abington is a subsidiary in a corporate structure and not merged with TJUH.
- The trial court sustained Abington’s preliminary objections and transferred the case to Montgomery County; the Superior Court affirmed, holding mere appearance/advertising of a merger cannot establish venue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Philadelphia County is a proper venue under Pa.R.C.P. 2179(a)(2) because Abington merged with TJUH and thus regularly conducts business in Philadelphia | Griffin: press releases/web pages announcing a merger & use of "Jefferson Health" show Abington now conducts business in Philadelphia | Abington: no legal merger occurred; press materials are branding/advertising; Abington is a distinct subsidiary that does not regularly conduct business in Philadelphia | Court: Venue improper in Philadelphia; advertising/appearance of a merger insufficient to impute a parent/sister’s contacts for venue; transfer to Montgomery affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Wimble v. Parx Casino, 40 A.3d 174 (Pa. Super. 2012) (sister/parent corporate activities cannot be attributed to a separate defendant for venue)
- Purcell v. Bryn Mawr Hosp., 579 A.2d 1282 (Pa. 1990) (quality-and-quantity test for whether a corporation regularly conducts business in a county)
- Richmond v. McHale, 35 A.3d 779 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review for orders sustaining or overruling preliminary objections)
- Shared Communications Servs. of 1800-80 JFK Blvd., Inc. v. Bell Atl. Props. Inc., 692 A.2d 570 (Pa. Super. 1997) (parent and wholly-owned subsidiary are distinct legal entities)