Scampone, R. v. Grane Healthcare Co.
169 A.3d 600
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Richard Scampone (executor for Madeline Scampone) sued Highland Park Care Center (Highland) and its parent/manager Grane Healthcare (Grane) after Madeline, a long‑term nursing‑home resident, developed a UTI, dehydration, malnutrition, pressure wounds and died in 2004; plaintiff alleged understaffing and systemic failures in care.
- In a 2007 jury trial Highland was found vicariously and directly corporately liable and awarded $193,500; Grane was granted nonsuit at that trial.
- On direct appeal (Scampone I) the Superior Court reversed the nonsuit as to Grane and reinstated the punitive‑damages issue; the Pennsylvania Supreme Court (Scampone II) affirmed that nursing homes/management companies can be subject to Thompson corporate‑negligence duties but remanded for an individualized duty analysis under Restatement §323 or Althaus factors.
- On remand the trial court regranted nonsuit to Grane, finding no duty or causation by Grane and holding Highland bore the non‑delegable Thompson duty; it also conducted a new punitive‑damages trial as to Highland only (verdict for Highland).
- Plaintiff appealed several rulings (Grane nonsuit, denial of punitive‑damages retrial against Highland, discovery sanction request denial, judge recusal denial, and an order permitting defendants to pay the judgment into court and temporarily prohibiting execution). The Superior Court reversed the nonsuit as to Grane, ordered a new compensatory trial against Grane, remanded for a punitive damages retrial including Highland, affirmed the stay/escrow order, and declined the extreme discovery sanctions requested.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Grane was properly granted a second nonsuit | Grane assumed contractual management/quality‑assurance duties (weekly nurse consultants, hired/trained RNs, budget control, policies) and thus owed duties under Restatement §323/§324A and vicarious liability; plaintiff’s evidence showed causation | Grane argued no duty to plaintiff under Althaus/§323/§324A and insufficient causation; trial court treated remand as returning to pre‑nonsuit posture and reentered nonsuit | Reversed: material evidence supported duties under §323/§324A and vicarious liability; nonsuit improper; new compensatory trial against Grane ordered |
| Whether plaintiff is entitled to a new punitive‑damages trial against Highland (and Grane) | Punitive damages supported by evidence of systemic understaffing, knowledge by Grane/Highland, falsification of records, and reckless indifference | Highland argued punitive issue had been fully and fairly litigated and some evidence was inadmissible | New punitive trial must include Highland; trial court abused discretion by excluding relevant DOH surveys; prior exclusion of evidence warrants retrial on punitive damages including Highland |
| Whether severe discovery sanctions (striking Highland's answer) were appropriate | Defendants delayed/failed to produce policies manual, staffing/payroll sheets and misrepresented insurance; plaintiff sought answer stricken/default judgment | Defendants produced some materials later and trial court found extreme sanctions unwarranted | Affirmed denial of striking answer; court reprimanded defendants and directed consideration of less extreme sanctions on remand |
| Whether trial judge’s denial of recusal was erroneous | Plaintiff claimed judge’s remarks and claimed lack of understanding of legal distinctions created appearance of impropriety | Trial court characterized remarks as off‑the‑cuff and not evidence of bias or prejudice | Denial of recusal affirmed; no abuse of discretion shown |
| Whether August 31, 2015 order permitting defendants to pay judgment into court and prohibiting execution violated due process | Plaintiff argued staying execution deprived vested property rights and could bar future claims if funds accepted | Defendants argued tender/escrow protected them and avoided inequitable execution while appeals and retrials pending | Order affirmed: trial court’s equitable control over execution process was proper given pending proceedings and escrowing funds protected interests |
Key Cases Cited
- Thompson v. Nason Hosp., 591 A.2d 703 (Pa. 1991) (adopted corporate‑negligence duties for health‑care institutions)
- Scampone v. Grane Healthcare Co., 11 A.3d 967 (Pa. Super. 2010) (Superior Court reversed nonsuit as to Grane and permitted punitive damages claim to proceed)
- Scampone v. Highland Park Care Ctr., LLC, 57 A.3d 582 (Pa. 2012) (Supreme Court affirmed applicability of corporate negligence to nursing homes and remanded for individualized duty analysis)
- Alderwoods (Pa.), Inc. v. Duquesne Light Co., 106 A.3d 27 (Pa. 2014) (limits when a full Althaus duty‑creation analysis is required; Restatement duties may suffice)
- Evans v. Otis Elevator Co., 168 A.2d 573 (Pa. 1961) (adopts Restatement §323 negligent‑performance duty to third parties)
- Cantwell v. Allegheny Cnty., 483 A.2d 1350 (Pa. 1984) (adopts Restatement §324A)
- Althaus ex rel. Althaus v. Cohen, 756 A.2d 1166 (Pa. 2000) (factors for creating new duties)
- Neal v. Bavarian Motors, Inc., 882 A.2d 1022 (Pa. Super. 2005) (joint tortfeasor liability and apportionment principles)
- Trerotola v. City of Philadelphia, 29 A.2d 788 (Pa. 1943) (plaintiff may keep a valid verdict against one tortfeasor while retrying another)