276 A.3d 751
Pa. Super. Ct.2022Background
- Plaintiff Ellison O. Jordan, a former Penn State student‑athlete, alleged knee injuries and infections following surgeries in Dec. 2017–Jan. 2019 and sued Penn State, several university officials, and multiple health providers for medical malpractice and related torts.
- Plaintiff filed his original medical‑malpractice complaint on Jan. 31, 2020 but failed to attach required written statements from an appropriate licensed professional with his certificates of merit; non‑university healthcare defendants obtained Judgments of Non Pros in May 2020.
- On July 15, 2020 the trial court denied Plaintiff’s petition to reopen those judgments, dismissed his medical‑malpractice claims with prejudice, and allowed Plaintiff 20 days to file an amended complaint limited to the University defendants and only for ordinary negligence or negligent/intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- Plaintiff filed an amended and a supplemental amended complaint that re‑added the dismissed healthcare defendants and numerous claims the court had already dismissed; several healthcare defendants sent letters demanding removal and then petitioned to hold Plaintiff in contempt.
- The trial court (Dec. 4, 2020) sustained Penn State’s preliminary objections (improper service, failure to conform to prior order, legal insufficiency), granted healthcare defendants’ contempt petitions, dismissed the amended and supplemental complaints with prejudice, and denied later requests for attorney fees; a separate recusal motion was denied as untimely.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding (1) many malpractice‑related claims were waived insofar as Plaintiff failed to timely appeal the July 15 order, (2) contempt was proper because Plaintiff knowingly violated the court’s clear orders, and (3) the recusal motion was time‑barred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the court improperly sustain University defendants' preliminary objections and dismiss the supplemental amended complaint? | Jordan argued the court mischaracterized the case as only medical malpractice and improperly curtailed his claims and jury demand. | University argued improper service, the supplemental complaint violated the July 15 order (raised barred medical‑malpractice claims), and the amended pleading was legally insufficient. | Sustained: court found service defective, many counts re‑packaged medical malpractice or otherwise barred, and negligence/IIED theories were legally insufficient as pled. |
| Were the Judgments of Non Pros and the denial of Plaintiff’s petition to open preserved for this appeal? | Jordan sought reversal of all lower‑court orders. | Defendants pointed out Jordan failed to appeal the July 15, 2020 order denying relief from Judgments of Non Pros. | Not preserved: Superior Court held claims tied to the July 15 order are waived because Jordan did not timely appeal that order. |
| Was Plaintiff properly held in civil contempt for naming dismissed healthcare defendants after the court’s July orders? | Jordan claimed his supplemental pleading complied with the July 15/30 orders by alleging vicarious liability and identifying those defendants as "University Defendants." | Petitioners showed Jordan had actual notice, multiple warning letters, and nonetheless re‑filed claims against dismissed parties. | Held: contempt proven (notice, volitional act, wrongful intent inferred); claims against those petitioners dismissed with prejudice; court declined to award fees. |
| Was the motion to recuse the trial judge timely and meritorious? | Jordan asserted bias and personal interest requiring recusal. | Defendants argued recusal not raised at the earliest opportunity and was filed only after adverse rulings. | Denied as time‑barred: recusal claims must be raised at the earliest practicable moment; here the motion came months after initial orders and immediately after adverse ruling. |
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 review for civil contempt orders)
- Gunther v. Bolus, 853 A.2d 1014 (Pa. Super. 2004) (elements required to prove civil contempt)
- Kleinknecht v. Gettysburg College, 989 F.2d 1360 (3d Cir. 1993) (special relationship/duty of care for recruited intercollegiate athletes)
- Feleccia v. Lackawanna Coll., 215 A.3d 3 (Pa. 2019) (duty to provide qualified medical personnel for intercollegiate athletes)
- Bilt‑Rite Contractors, Inc. v. The Architectural Studio, 866 A.2d 270 (Pa. 2005) (demurrer standard and pleading sufficiency)
- Mamalis v. Atlas Van Lines, 560 A.2d 1380 (Pa. 1989) (effect of termination of agent's claim on derivative vicarious liability claim)
- Lokuta, 11 A.3d 427 (Pa. 2011) (timeliness requirement for recusal/disqualification motions)
- League of Women Voters of Pa. v. Commonwealth, 179 A.3d 1080 (Pa. 2018) (observing that recusal claims raised only after adverse ruling are particularly problematic)