Slater, A. v. Saint Vincent Health Center
Slater, A. v. Saint Vincent Health Center No. 896 WDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.Mar 17, 2017Background
- Donald R. Slater suffered paralysis after a March–April 2006 hospital fall at Hamot, developed neurogenic bowel/bladder, became septic, was treated at Saint Vincent Health Center (SVHC) in August 2006, suffered an anoxic brain injury, and died August 19, 2006.
- Mrs. Audrey Slater (later executrix) sued Hamot in 2006; that litigation settled in 2010 when she executed a broad "Full and Final Release" for $125,000 that released Hamot and "any and all other persons, corporations and/or other entities" for injuries "related in any way to any incident" connected to the Hamot action.
- In 2012 Mrs. Slater (as executrix) filed a separate wrongful death and survival action against SVHC alleging corporate negligence (failure to ensure doctors timely appeared), punitive damages, and tolling of the statute of limitations by fraudulent concealment.
- SVHC moved for summary judgment on multiple grounds: statute of limitations; release/bar based on the Hamot settlement; duplicative recovery; failure to establish corporate negligence or punitive-damage basis; evidentiary objections to plaintiff’s experts.
- The trial court granted SVHC’s motion in full (except it did not base the decision on statute-of-limitations expiration). The Superior Court affirmed, holding the Release’s broad language covered SVHC and that the plaintiff’s arguments regarding fraud, concealment, and other defenses were waived or insufficient.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2010 Hamot Release bars the suit against SVHC | Release only covered claims against Hamot and matters arising from the April 9, 2006 Hamot incident; it did not intend to release SVHC for August 16, 2006 care | Release is broadly worded to include "any and all other persons, corporations and/or other entities" for injuries "related in any way" to the Hamot action, thus covers SVHC | Release language was plain and broad; it released named and unnamed entities including SVHC; claims barred by release |
| Whether fraudulent concealment or misrepresentation prevents enforcement of the Release | SVHC concealed facts, failed to send a "serious event" notice, and misreported cause of death; concealment tolls limitations and invalidates use of the Release | No fraud in procuring the Hamot release; plaintiff waived raising independent fraud as a defense in opposition to summary judgment and failed to develop legal argument | Fraud/ concealment arguments were waived or undeveloped; court declined to nullify the Release on that basis |
| Whether wrongful-death/survival damages were already recovered or duplicative from the Hamot litigation | Hamot complaint did not expressly assert wrongful-death or survival claims; plaintiff did not intend to release those claims | Plaintiff's pretrial statement and expert reports in Hamot show Hamot litigation addressed sequelae (septic shock and death) and economic/wrongful-death losses; those matters are "related" to the Hamot action and covered by the Release | Trial court permissibly relied on Hamot filings to conclude damages/claims overlapped; Release covered those losses |
| Whether plaintiff produced admissible evidence to establish corporate negligence or punitive damages against SVHC | Plaintiff offered expert reports and other record evidence that SVHC knew doctors failed to timely respond, causing death; punitive damages appropriate | SVHC argued plaintiff lacked admissible expert proof (privilege/confidentiality objections) and failed to present facts supporting punitive damages | Court affirmed summary judgment: plaintiff failed to present a triable record to defeat summary judgment on corporate-negligence/punitive claims (and many challenges were waived) |
Key Cases Cited
- Buttermore v. Aliquippa Hosp., 561 A.2d 733 (Pa. 1989) (settlement agreements and releases are enforced under contract principles and upheld absent fraud, duress, or mutual mistake)
- Pennsbury Village Assocs., LLC v. McIntyre, 11 A.3d 906 (Pa. 2011) (courts enforce clear release language; releases cannot be easily set aside for changed circumstances)
- Englert v. Fazio Mech. Servs., Inc., 932 A.2d 122 (Pa. Super. 2007) (summary-judgment standard and plenary appellate review)
- Spotz, 716 A.2d 580 (Pa. 1999) (issues not developed in brief may be deemed waived)
- Harber Phila. Ctr. City Office Ltd. v. LPCI Ltd. P’ship, 764 A.2d 1100 (Pa. Super. 2000) (non-moving party must raise defenses in response to summary-judgment motion or may waive them)
- Rabatin v. Allied Glove Corp., 24 A.3d 388 (Pa. Super. 2011) (appellate court will not develop arguments for an appellant who fails to adequately brief issues)
- Krapf v. St. Luke’s Hosp., 4 A.3d 642 (Pa. Super. 2010) (discussed in context of death-certificate accuracy and related assertions)