Moody v. Lehigh Valley Hosp.-Cedar Crest
179 A.3d 496
Pa. Super. Ct.2018Background
- Seventeen‑month‑old Gianna Tomlinson received initial care at Lehigh Valley Hospital and Sacred Heart Pediatrics in Lehigh County, then was transferred to Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) where she received intensive cardiac care, was given an alleged ten‑fold overdose of Versed during a procedure, and died after an eight‑day hospitalization.
- Administrators (Paige Moody & Khalil Tomlinson) sued multiple Lehigh County providers and CHOP in Philadelphia County asserting medical negligence, wrongful death, and survival claims arising from care in both Lehigh and Philadelphia.
- Lehigh County defendants (Sacred Heart, Lehigh Valley, and Medical Imaging defendants) moved under Pa.R.C.P. 1006(d)(1) to transfer venue to Lehigh County on forum non conveniens grounds; CHOP joined the petition but submitted no supporting affidavits.
- Trial court held an evidentiary hearing, considered multiple affidavits (many filed late or as joinders), and granted transfer to Lehigh County, finding Philadelphia to be an oppressive and vexatious forum based largely on defendants’ asserted staffing, childcare, and on‑call burdens.
- Administrators appealed, arguing the court misapplied the heavy burden on defendants, improperly required plaintiffs to prove oppressiveness to Philadelphia witnesses, ignored record evidence (including CHOP‑based witnesses/evidence), and permitted procedurally unfair last‑minute filings and limited opportunity for discovery/response.
- Superior Court reversed: it found (1) no evidence of vexatious forum choice, (2) the trial court applied the wrong legal standard by effectively balancing convenience instead of requiring defendants to show oppressiveness, and (3) the court abused its discretion by excluding relevant evidence and permitting late filings without fair opportunity to respond.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether transfer to Lehigh County was proper under forum non conveniens | Plaintiffs: Philadelphia is proper and entitled to great deference because CHOP (a key defendant/witnesses/evidence) is located there and significant events occurred there | Defendants: Trial in Philadelphia would be oppressive/vexatious due to staffing, on‑call coverage, childcare, travel burdens—Lehigh is more convenient | Reversed: defendants failed to meet heavy burden; trial court misapplied law by balancing convenience and refusing relevant evidence showing lack of oppressiveness |
| Whether trial court required plaintiffs to identify Philadelphia witnesses who would be oppressed by transfer | Plaintiffs: Court erred by placing burden on them to prove oppressiveness to Philadelphia witnesses; many CHOP witnesses/evidence make Philadelphia proper | Defendants: Plaintiffs didn’t identify specific Philadelphia witnesses who’d be burdened by transfer | Held: Court erred—plaintiffs need not prove oppressiveness to Philadelphia witnesses; defendants must show chosen forum is oppressive |
| Whether procedural handling (late joinders/affidavits; discovery evasion) warranted reversal | Plaintiffs: Defendants ambushed with late affidavits and evaded depositions; court denied adequate response/discovery time | Defendants: Plaintiffs failed to object below, so issue waived | Held: No waiver; Superior Court found the late filings and discovery evasion prejudicial and the trial court abused discretion in permitting them without fair opportunity to respond |
Key Cases Cited
- Cheeseman v. Lethal Exterminator, Inc., 701 A.2d 156 (Pa. 1997) (plaintiff’s choice of forum is entitled to great deference; inconvenience alone is insufficient for transfer)
- Bratic v. Rubendall, 99 A.3d 1 (Pa. 2014) (defendant bears heavy burden to show chosen forum is oppressive or vexatious; courts may consider totality of circumstances)
- Zappala v. Brandolini Prop. Mgmt., 909 A.2d 1272 (Pa. 2006) (plaintiff’s forum choice is generally controlling when jurisdiction and venue are proper)
- Wood v. E.I. duPont De Nemours and Co., 829 A.2d 707 (Pa. Super. 2003) (easier access to witnesses/evidence in another county may support oppressiveness but does not override plaintiff’s forum choice absent detailed showing)
- Hoose v. Jefferson HomeHealth Care, Inc., 754 A.2d 1 (Pa. Super. 2000) (distinguishes inconvenience from oppressiveness; court will not transfer merely for convenience)
- Catagnus v. Allstate Ins. Co., 864 A.2d 1259 (Pa. Super. 2004) (failure to hold defendant to proper burden when ruling on forum non conveniens is an abuse of discretion)
- Fessler v. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, 121 A.3d 44 (Pa. Super. 2015) (courts should consider totality of circumstances in forum non conveniens analysis)