Miller v. St. Luke's Univ. Health Network
142 A.3d 884
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- Charles Cullen, a nurse who later admitted killing patients, worked at St. Luke’s Hospital; families of two deceased patients (Miller and Hall) sued St. Luke’s (St. Luke’s I) but those wrongful-death suits were dismissed for lack of expert proof.
- St. Luke’s then sued the plaintiffs, their lawyers, and a physician under the Dragonetti Act for wrongful use of civil proceedings (St. Luke’s II); St. Luke’s later discontinued claims against the plaintiffs but continued against counsel and the physician.
- The plaintiffs (Miller and Hall) filed retaliatory Dragonetti claims against St. Luke’s and its lawyers (St. Luke’s III), alleging St. Luke’s brought St. Luke’s II to intimidate other claimants and chill litigation.
- At a joint trial on the plaintiffs’ Dragonetti claims, the jury found St. Luke’s acted without probable cause and for an improper purpose (i.e., tortious use of civil proceedings) but awarded no damages.
- The plaintiffs argued the Dragonetti Act presumes certain damages (Pa.SSJI 17.90B) once wrongful use is proven; defendants argued damages are an element the plaintiffs failed to prove and thus judgment should be entered for defendants.
- The trial court refused the damage-presumption instruction, instructed that plaintiffs must prove damages by a preponderance (per 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 8353–8354), and denied both parties’ post-trial motions; Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dragonetti damages are presumed once wrongful use under §8351 is proven (Pa.SSJI 17.90B) | Miller/Hall: §8353 says plaintiff "is entitled to recover" listed harms, so damages are presumed; jury should get instruction on presumed/nominal damages. | St. Luke’s: §8354 requires plaintiff to prove damages; no presumption. | Held: No presumption. Read together §§8353–8354 require plaintiff to place damages in issue and prove them by a preponderance. |
| Whether a verdict finding no damages requires entry of judgment for defendants | Miller/Hall: Even if damages were minimal, the law should allow recovery; request a new trial on damages only. | St. Luke’s: Damages are an element under §8354; failure to prove damages means plaintiffs failed to establish a required element, so judgment for defendants should be entered. | Held: Jury properly found liability (§8351 elements); its finding that plaintiffs proved no damages prevents recovery but does not negate the jury’s liability finding—no JNOV for defendants on that basis. |
| Whether expert testimony is required as a matter of law in a Dragonetti action | Implicitly: plaintiffs relied on lay evidence and the jury’s assessment. | St. Luke’s: Complex legal judgments require expert proof of standard of care (analogous to malpractice). | Held: No categorical expert requirement; expert testimony is unnecessary where issues are within ordinary juror comprehension—expert required only if issues are beyond lay understanding. |
| Whether evidence was sufficient to submit lack of probable cause and improper purpose to the jury | Plaintiffs: Evidence (certificate of merit, nursing reports, counsel advice, press release) supported absence of probable cause and improper purpose. | St. Luke’s: Plaintiffs’ reliance on counsel could provide probable cause; St. Luke’s had reasonable grounds until discovery showed otherwise. | Held: Sufficient evidence supported the jury’s findings of lack of probable cause and improper purpose; jury reasonably could infer improper purpose from the totality of evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Philips v. Lock, 86 A.3d 906 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard for reviewing jury instruction adequacy)
- Commonwealth v. Spence, 91 A.3d 44 (Pa. 2014) (statutory interpretation review is de novo)
- Commonwealth v. Office of Open Records, 103 A.3d 1276 (Pa. 2014) (courts should harmonize statutory provisions and avoid rendering language superfluous)
- McNeil v. Jordan, 894 A.2d 1260 (Pa. 2006) (elements and burden framework under Dragonetti Act explained)
- Sabella v. Estate of Milides, 992 A.2d 180 (Pa. Super. 2010) (recognizing §8351 elements and relation to §8354 damages requirement)
- Bannar v. Miller, 701 A.2d 242 (Pa. Super. 1997) (expert testimony not required where issues are within lay understanding)
- Kit v. Mitchell, 771 A.2d 814 (Pa. Super. 2001) (Dragonetti Act tort arises when suit is instituted maliciously and lacking probable cause)