Matharu v. Muir
29 A.3d 375
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2011Background
- Wrongful death and survival action filed Apr 25, 2007; trial court denied partial summary judgment to defendants.
- Undisputed facts show Rh-negative mother, Rh-positive father; 1997 Rh sensitization; 1997 RhoGAM given; 1998 second pregnancy with missed 28-week RhoGAM and no postpartum RhoGAM.
- Mother under care of Defendants in 1998; Defendants allegedly failed to administer RhoGAM and advised on Rh-sensitization effects.
- Child born 2005 after high-risk pregnancy; death two days later; no care by Defendants in 2005; last contact with Defendants in 2002-03.
- MCARE Act 7-year general repose; § 513(d) provides two-year limit after death for death/survival actions; Child died 2005; suit filed 2007 within two years after death.
- Court applies five-factor duty test (R.W. v. Manzek) to determine if Defendants owed duty to Child; court ultimately allows action to move forward against Defendants under duty to foreseeably affected third parties.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MCARE 513(d) governs and tolled limitations. | Plaintiffs timely filed within two years after death. | Action barred; accrual at negligent act; statute of repose applies. | Not barred; timely under 513(d) two-year death-based window. |
| Whether there is a duty to a third party under Sec. 324A. | Defendants’ failure to administer RhoGAM foreseeably harms Child. | No doctor-patient relationship in 2005; no duty to third party. | Duty recognized; five-factor test supports duty to Child. |
| Whether assumption of risk bars the claim as a matter of law. | Plaintiffs understood risk; Child not capable of voluntary assumption. | Assumption of risk should bar claim; apply volenti. | Not suitable for summary judgment; question for jury. |
| Whether lack of 2005 care negates duty due to no patient relationship. | Duty extends due to foreseeability and public policy. | No duty absent physician-patient relationship in 2005. | Duty extends given foreseeability and public policy; requires trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Moyer v. Rubright, 651 A.2d 1139 (Pa. Super. 1994) (survival action accrual from injury date; wrongful death differs)
- Frey v. Pennsylvania Elec. Co., 414 Pa. Super. 535, 607 A.2d 796 (Pa. Super. 1992) (wrongful death damages; pecuniary loss to beneficiaries)
- R.W. v. Manzek, 888 A.2d 740 (Pa. 2005) (five-factor duty test for negligence claims)
- Cantwell v. Allegheny County, 483 A.2d 1350 (Pa. 1984) (Section 324A foreseeability standard for third-party duty)
- DiMarco v. Lynch Homes-Chester County, Inc., 583 A.2d 422 (Pa. 1990) (extending physician duty to third parties via Section 324A in communicable-disease context)
- Estate of Witthoeft v. Kiskaddon, 733 A.2d 630 (Pa. 1999) (limits extending physician duty; public policy restrains broad extension)
- Hospodar v. Schick, 885 A.2d 986 (Pa. Super. 2005) (no liability to third-party victims from patient’s condition absent broader duty)