Matharu v. Muir
86 A.3d 250
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- Wrongful death/survival action arising from failure to administer RhoGAM in 1998 during Mother’s pregnancy with Sandeep; alleged negligence within physician-patient relationship of Drs. Muir and Pellegrino.
- Appellants sought summary judgment; trial court split: no recovery for loss of child’s consortium but survived wrongful death/survival actions.
- Supreme Court vacated en banc decision and remanded to reconsider Seebold v. Prison Health Serv.; court distinguishes Seebold and allows Section 324A claims.
- On remand, Appellants argue (1) the court created a new duty to a third party outside the physician-patient relationship, contrary to Seebold; (2) the duty would circumvent MCARE Act’s statute of repose so as to allow late filing.
- Court holds: the case involves a duty under Section 324A within the physician-patient relationship; Seebold does not bar the claim; MCARE statute of repose does not bar the action under proper interpretation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether physicians owe a duty to third parties under 324A given Seebold. | Matharu party argues 324A duty extends to third parties. | Muir/ Pellegrino argue Seebold forecloses such duty outside patient relationship. | Duty exists under 324A within patient relationship; Seebold distinguished. |
| Whether MCARE 1303.513(d) or (a) governs wrongful death/survival timing. | Appellees claim 324A claim timely under 1303.513(d) (two-year death/survival window). | Appellants contend 1303.513(a) seven-year repose governs; (d) surplusage. | Subsection (d) provides a separate two-year limit for death/survival actions; not barred by (a) seven-year repose; statute interpreted to avoid surplusage. |
| Whether adopting the Seebold framework would contravene MCARE or legislative intent. | Appellees rely on 324A despite Seebold. | Seebold prevents creating new duty to third parties. | Seebold distinguished; 324A duty persists where within physician-patient treatment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Seebold v. Prison Health Serv., 618 Pa. 632 (Pa. 2012) (rejected broad duty to warn third parties; clarified 324A limits; remand for reconsideration)
- DiMarco v. Lynch Homes-Chester County, Inc., 525 Pa. 558 (Pa. 1990) (physician owes duty to third parties to protect their health when advising patient about contagious disease)
- Troxel v. A.I. Dupont Institute, 450 Pa.Super. 71 (Pa. Super. 1996) (liability under 324A for third parties when physician’s advice to patient affects others)
- Emerich v. Philadelphia Center for Human Development, Inc., 554 Pa. 209 (Pa. 1998) (therapist duty to warn intended victim in specific, imminent threat cases)
- Cantwell v. Allegheny County, 506 Pa. 35 (Pa. 1984) (foundational 324A duty framework; protection of third parties via patient treatment)