Morgan v. Scogna
37 Pa. D. & C.5th 321
Pennsylvania Court of Common P...2014Background
- Morgan underwent an anterior cervical discectomy with fusion at C6-C7 on August 15, 2011, performed by Dr. Scogna and others.
- Postoperatively Morgan had severe, burning-like pain and numbness across the iliac crest, groin, and femoral regions, with permanent nerve injuries identified as negligent.
- Morgan and his wife filed a medical malpractice action; Scogna and Neurosurgical Associates moved to arbitrate under the Scogna agreement.
- The arbitration clause provides for voluntary binding arbitration by AAA-selected panel in Bucks County, with potential remand to court still applying venue.
- 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5101.1(b)-(c) limits venue for medical professional liability claims to the county where the action arose, here Philadelphia County.
- The court held the arbitration agreement invalid and unconscionable, and overruled the preliminary objections, directing the defendants to answer the second amended complaint within 20 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Arbitration vs. venue under statute | Morgan; venue statute controls; arbitration clause invalid. | Scogna; agreement to arbitrate valid and venue aligned with clause. | Arbitration clause invalid; statutory venue controls. |
| Essential terms of arbitration clause | Morgan; AAA-selected panel is essential and unavailable; clause unenforceable. | Scogna; clause’s essential term is permissible. | Essential term unenforceable; AAA selection not available. |
| Conscionability of arbitration clause | Morgan; adhesion contract, lack of meaningful choice, favors drafting party. | Scogna; no unconscionability shown. | Agreement is unconscionable; unenforceable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Elwyn v. DeLuca, 48 A.3d 457 (Pa. Superior Ct. 2012) (two-part test for arbitration scope and validity)
- Midomo v. Presbyterian Housing Development Co., 739 A.2d 180 (Pa. Superior Ct. 1999) (scope of arbitration; contract interpretation governs)
- Stewart v. GGNSC-Canonsburg, L.P., 9 A.3d 215 (Pa. Superior Ct. 2010) (essential term and arbitration clause considerations)
- Bayne v. Smith, 965 A.2d 265 (Pa. Superior Ct. 2009) (adhesion contracts; unconscionability framework)
- Thibodeau v. Comcast Corp., 912 A.2d 874 (Pa. Superior Ct. 2006) (unconscionability as a defense to arbitration)
- Central Contracting Co., Youngdahl & Co., 209 A.2d 810 (Pa. 1965) (private parties cannot thwart court jurisdiction or alter venue by contract)