Sernovitz v. Dershaw
2012 Pa. Super. 248
Pa. Super. Ct.2012Background
- Appellants Rebecca and Lawrence Sernovitz, as parents and natural guardians, sue several health-system defendants for professional negligence.
- They claim Rebecca was not informed she was a carrier for a gene mutation causing familial dysautonomia, leading to mislabeling of test results by Drs. Dershaw, Stack, and Borthwick-Scelzi.
- Samuel Sernovitz, born Sept. 2008, was later suspected to have FD; appellants allege this could have been avoided if carriers were properly identified and testing pursued.
- The amended complaint also asserts wrongful birth and wrongful life claims and challenges 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 8305 as unconstitutional, asserting SB 646/Act 47 of 1988 violated the Pennsylvania Constitution.
- The trial court granted preliminary objections/demurrer based on § 8305; the Superior Court reverses, reinstates the amended complaint, and remands for proceedings.
- The court ultimately holds § 8305 unconstitutional as enacted, severs the unconstitutional provisions, and remands for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does SB 646 violate the single-subject rule? | Sernovitz argues SB 646 lacks a unifying subject. | Appellees contend the act falls within a single broad subject and the provisions are germane. | Yes, SB 646 violates the single-subject rule; unconstitutional as enacted. |
| Are the unconstitutional provisions severable from SB 646? | Sernovitz argues severability should not save the act. | Appellees contend severability is inappropriate or limited. | Yes, the unconstitutional provisions are severable; remaining provisions may stand. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Philadelphia v. Commonwealth, 575 Pa. 542, 838 A.2d 566 (Pa. 2003) (single-subject analysis; germane vs. non-germane provisions; limits on broad subject)
- Commonwealth v. Neiman, 611 Pa. 419, 27 A.3d 984 (Pa. 2011) (en banc; severability under 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1925; single-subject rule in SB 92/Act 152 context)
- Payne v. School Dist. of Borough of Coudersport, 168 Pa. 386, 31 A. 1072 (Pa. 1895) (definition of ‘subject’ and germane provisions; limits of subdivision in a bill)
- Commonwealth v. Neiman, 5 A.3d 353 (Pa. Super. 2010) (en banc; analysis of single-subject rule and severability in SB 92 context)
- PAGE—Pennsylvania Against Gambling Expansion Fund, Inc. v. Commonwealth, 583 Pa. 275, 877 A.2d 383 (Pa. 2005) (single-subject standard; severability considerations in broad-title statutes)
- Glen-Gery Corp. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Dover Twp., 589 Pa. 135, 907 A.2d 1033 (Pa. 2006) (unconstitutional statute treated as ineffective; severability context)