Potts v. Step By Step, Inc.
26 A.3d 1115
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2011Background
- Julie Potts, a 21-year-old non-ambulatory, non-verbal resident with cerebral palsy and other disabilities, died after alleged neglect at Step By Step, Inc.'s facility.
- Staff failed to report Julie’s vomiting and deteriorating condition despite clear instructions to contact Nurse Martin if Julie worsened.
- Julie’s LPN supervisor did not timely involve medical staff or perform CPR, leading to a delayed emergency response and Julie’s death.
- Potts, as administratrix, filed a wrongful death suit against Step By Step; Step By Step moved for judgment on the pleadings asserting MHMRA § 4603 immunity.
- The trial court granted judgment on the pleadings, holding no gross negligence or incompetence was pled; Potts appealed to the Superior Court.
- The court addresses whether § 4603 immunity can be overcome by alleging gross negligence or incompetence and whether the immunity applies to day-to-day care.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pleaded facts could support gross negligence under §4603 | Potts asserts facts show flagrant deviation from care; evidence could prove gross negligence. | Step By Step claims only ordinary negligence; no evidence of gross negligence. | A jury could find gross negligence from pleaded facts; reversal warranted for issue to go to trial. |
| Whether pleaded facts could support incompetence under §4603 | Incompetence is a separate basis to defeat immunity when pleaded with gross negligence. | No clear definition; ordinary negligence not cognizable; immunity should apply. | Incompetence could be found; jury could decide if staff lacked requisite qualities; remand appropriate. |
| Whether §4603 immunity covers day-to-day care versus admission/discharge decisions | Immunity does not apply to day-to-day care; ordinary negligence should govern those actions. | Immunity extends to day-to-day care; claims must still show gross negligence or incompetence. | Immunity extends to day-to-day care; the claim may not proceed under ordinary negligence alone. |
| Constitutionality and ADA implications of §4603 | §4603 violates ADA by discriminating against mentally retarded individuals if ordinary negligence claims are barred. | Court should reject facial challenge; immunity serves public interest; no ADA violation. | Potts waived facial constitutional challenge for lack of notice; constitutionality not analyzed on the merits here. |
| Scope of waiver and notice requirements for constitutional challenges | Notice timing should not bar consideration of constitutional claims. | Waiver applies when notice to Attorney General is lacking for facial challenges. | Constitutional claims waived; not reaching merits of Ada challenge. |
Key Cases Cited
- Albright v. Abington Memorial Hosp., 696 A.2d 1159 (Pa. 1997) (gross negligence and competency clarify immunity boundaries (MHPA model))
- Bloom v. DuBois Reg'l Med. Ctr., 597 A.2d 671 (Pa. Super. 1991) (pleaded facts can lead to jury decisions on gross negligence)
- Thompson v. Nason Hosp., 591 A.2d 703 (Pa. 1991) (negligence context in hospital settings informs standard application)
- Downey v. Crozer-Chester Med. Ctr., 817 A.2d 517 (Pa. Super. 2003) (supervision failure of a patient; not gross negligence must be proven)
- Rhines v. Herzel, 392 A.2d 298 (Pa. 1978) (day-to-day care can fall within immunity when gross negligence shown)
- Willett v. Evergreen Homes, Inc., 595 A.2d 164 (Pa. Super. 1991) (day-to-day care scope discussed in immunity context)
- F.D.P. v. Ferrara, 804 A.2d 1221 (Pa. Super. 2002) (day-to-day care and release decisions; immunity considerations)
- Allen v. Montgomery Hosp., 696 A.2d 1175 (Pa. 1997) (MHPA immunity not violative of Equal Protection; informs §4603 housing)