Karl Tomlin v. Susan Glennon, 671 F. App'x 38

Constance Tomlin underwent an x-ray at Bravo Health Advanced Care Center; Advanced Diagnostics/Dr. King read the x-ray, prepared an accurate report, and faxed it to Bravo within 24 hours.
Bravo received Dr. King’s report and faxed the report to Quality Community Health Center (Quality) to inform Tomlin’s treating providers.
Quality received the accurate x-ray report but subsequently misplaced it and failed to notify Tomlin of the results; Tomlin called Quality asking about results but Quality did not locate the report.
The estate sued Bravo, Dr. Glennon (Bravo’s referring physician), Advanced Diagnostics, and Dr. King for delayed diagnosis leading to Tomlin’s death, alleging proximate causation from various failures.
At summary judgment, the District Court found intervening acts (Quality’s misplacement and failure to communicate) broke the causal chain from the defendants’ conduct to the delayed diagnosis; the estate appealed.
The Third Circuit affirmed, holding no reasonable jury could find the defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in producing the injury given the intervening loss of the report.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Advanced Diagnostics/Dr. King proximately caused the delay by not calling Dr. Glennon or verbally reporting x‑ray results	King’s failure to call Glennon or verbally report caused the delayed diagnosis	King timely read, accurately reported, and faxed the report; Quality received it and later misplaced it, which was the intervening cause	No proximate causation — faxed, accurate report and Quality’s misplacement broke the causal chain
Whether Bravo/Dr. Glennon proximately caused the delay by wrong fax addressee and failure to read x‑ray	Bravo’s wrong ordering physician on fax and Glennon’s failure to read x‑ray caused delay	Quality nevertheless received an accurate report; Quality’s loss and failure to communicate were more proximate causes; Glennon’s actions were rendered harmless	No proximate causation — Quality’s misplacement was the substantial intervening factor

Willis v. UPMC Children’s Hosp., 808 F.3d 638 (3d Cir.) (summary judgment standard and appellate review described)
Brown v. Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine, 760 A.2d 863 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (discussion of proximate cause as primarily a question of law)
Vattimo v. Lower Bucks Hospital, Inc., 465 A.2d 1231 (Pa.) (use of Restatement factors for proximate causation)
Hamil v. Bashline, 392 A.2d 1280 (Pa.) (addressing causation standards in delayed‑diagnosis malpractice contexts)