Jordan, E. v. PSU
276 A.3d 751
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2022Background
- Plaintiff Ellison Jordan, a former Penn State student‑athlete, underwent knee surgery in December 2017 and subsequent treatment; he alleged reinjury, infection, and removal from the football team.
- Jordan filed a medical‑malpractice complaint (Jan 31, 2020). Several non‑University defendants obtained Judgments of Non Pros for failure to file required written statements paired with certificates of merit.
- Trial court (July 15, 2020) denied Jordan’s petition to reopen those judgments, dismissed his medical‑malpractice claims with prejudice, and allowed an amended complaint limited to Penn State and three named University officials asserting only ordinary negligence and (negligent/intentional) infliction of emotional distress.
- Jordan filed amended and supplemental amended complaints that again named the dismissed healthcare defendants. Those defendants sought contempt; several filed petitions to hold Jordan in contempt and to dismiss his claims against them.
- Trial court (Dec. 4, 2020) sustained University defendants’ preliminary objections (service, nonconforming claims, legal insufficiency), granted contempt petitions (finding Jordan knowingly violated the July 15/30 orders) and dismissed the amended pleadings with prejudice; recusal motion denied as untimely. Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of Judgments of Non Pros / denial of relief to reopen | Jordan challenged entry of Judgments of Non Pros and trial court’s denial of his petition for relief | Defendants relied on procedural rules requiring written statements with certificates of merit; judgments were properly entered | Waived on appeal (Jordan failed to timely appeal the July 15 order); not before Superior Court on this appeal |
| Timeliness of recusal motion | Jordan argued trial judge was biased / had conflict of interest | Court and appellees: recusal must be raised at earliest opportunity; Jordan waited until after adverse ruling | Time‑barred; recusal denied |
| Contempt for violating July 15/30 orders | Jordan contended his supplemental pleading complied with the orders (claimed broader definition of “University Defendants”) | Petitioners showed Jordan had actual notice, filed pleadings against non‑University defendants despite explicit orders and warning letters | Contempt proven (notice, volitional act, wrongful intent inferred); petitions granted but monetary sanctions/fees not awarded; claims against petitioners dismissed with prejudice |
| University Defendants’ preliminary objections (service; failure to conform; demurrer/legal insufficiency) | Jordan argued preliminary objections were improperly served and his amended pleadings complied with the July 15/30 orders | University argued improper service of writ/complaint, many counts were repackaged medical‑malpractice claims previously dismissed, and remaining counts failed to plead elements (negligence, NIED, IIED) | Preliminary objections sustained: service defective; most counts barred as medical malpractice or otherwise legally insufficient; all counts dismissed with prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Feingold v. Hendrzak, 15 A.3d 937 (Pa. Super. 2011) (standard of review for preliminary objections)
- Harcar v. Harcar, 982 A.2d 1230 (Pa. Super. 2009) (standard of appellate review for civil contempt)
- Gunther v. Bolus, 853 A.2d 1014 (Pa. Super. 2004) (elements required to hold a party in contempt)
- Mamalis v. Atlas Van Lines, Inc., 560 A.2d 1380 (Pa. 1989) (termination of agent claim extinguishes derivative claim against principal absent affirmative act)
- Kleinknecht v. Gettysburg College, 989 F.2d 1360 (3d Cir. 1993) (college owed a duty of reasonable care to recruited intercollegiate athletes)
- Feleccia v. Lackawanna Coll., 215 A.3d 3 (Pa. 2019) (duty to provide qualified medical personnel for intercollegiate athletics)
- Bilt‑Rite Contractors, Inc. v. The Architectural Studio, 866 A.2d 270 (Pa. 2005) (demurrer testing and standards for legal sufficiency)
- Doe v. Philadelphia Cmty. Health Alternatives AIDS Task Force, 745 A.2d 25 (Pa. Super. 2000) (four recognized theories for negligent infliction of emotional distress)