Kovalev, S. v. Jefferson Health - Northeast
2974 EDA 2023
Pa. Super. Ct.May 21, 2025Background
- Sergei Kovalev (pro se) sued Jefferson Health – Northeast, Jefferson Frankford Hospital, and two doctors, alleging negligent and improper care after an August 2020 emergency room visit following a fall resulting in serious injuries.
- Kovalev claimed the doctors failed to conduct adequate testing (e.g., MRI) or provide proper medical screening, referral, or treatment, and alleged hospital mismanagement in hiring, supervision, and training.
- His amended complaint pled 19 counts, including medical malpractice, ordinary negligence, civil rights violations, intentional torts, fraud, and corporate negligence.
- The defendants moved to treat the case as a medical professional liability action (medical malpractice) and challenged the sufficiency of many counts, resulting in the trial court striking several and requiring certificates of merit.
- Kovalev failed to provide legally sufficient certificates of merit from medical professionals, instead relying on res ipsa loquitur and claims of intentional torts. The court struck these and entered judgment of non pros (dismissal for failure to prosecute).
- On appeal, Kovalev challenged the trial court’s procedural and substantive decisions, including the characterization as medical malpractice, striking of claims, and requirement of certificates of merit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Striking of certain counts (preliminary objections) | Claims valid under various statutes and tort theories | Statutes don’t provide cause of action; torts inapplicable | Counts properly struck; no legal error |
| Designation as medical malpractice | Complaint was 'other personal injury,' not med mal; procedural | Allegations are classic med mal; complaint substance controls | Affirmed designation as med mal |
| Requirement of certificates of merit | Not needed: res ipsa loquitur/intentional torts | Required for med mal and corporate negligence claims | Certificates required; struck as deficient |
| Entry of judgment of non pros | Striking COMs, dismissing case was error | Plaintiff failed mandatory COM requirement | Affirmed dismissal; claims waived due to procedure |
Key Cases Cited
- Fiedler v. Spencer, 231 A.3d 831 (Pa. Super. 2020) (sets standard for reviewing preliminary objections and legal sufficiency of pleadings)
- Nicolaou v. Martin, 195 A.3d 880 (Pa. 2018) (medical malpractice encompasses claims regarding failure to diagnose or treat)
- Ditch v. Waynesboro Hosp., 917 A.2d 317 (Pa. Super. 2007) (distinguishes med mal from ordinary negligence by allegations’ substance)
- Welsh v. Bulger, 698 A.2d 581 (Pa. 1997) (defines corporate negligence and requirements for expert testimony for hospital liability)
- Sabella v. Estate of Milides, 992 A.2d 180 (Pa. Super. 2010) (clarifies that the substance, not the formal label, determines the theory of liability)
- Sahutsky v. H.H. Knoebel Sons, 782 A.2d 996 (Pa. 2001) (failure to file petition to open non pros judgment waives substantive appellate claims)
- Cardona v. Buchanan, 230 A.3d 476 (Pa. Super. 2020) (petition to open non pros judgment required for appeal, else waiver)