Sokolsky v. Eidelman
93 A.3d 858
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- Sokolsky alleges medical malpractice by Manor Care and Lehigh Valley Hospital Center for a 2008 heel ulcer that progressed to an amputation.
- Defendants allegedly failed to timely file a medical malpractice action, though whether that failure was negligent is disputed.
- Sokolsky filed suit in 2012 after a writ of summons; amended complaint followed discovery and pre-trial rulings.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to the Attorneys, ruling against Sokolsky on her legal malpractice claims.
- The Superior Court reversed in part: (i) allowed vicarious liability against Manor Care and Lehigh Valley for their staff’s acts during the course of employment, (ii) found error in dismissing a corporate negligence theory, and (iii) remanded regarding punitive damages.
- The opinion remands for proceedings consistent with its analysis on vicarious and corporate negligence and for reconsideration of punitive damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vicarious liability sufficiency | Sokolsky identified multiple staff and relied on expert reports to support vicarious liability. | Trial court required a threshold showing against specific staff and limited vicarious liability accordingly. | Trial court erred; vicarious liability available to Manor Care/Lehigh Valley for staff acts within scope. |
| Corporate negligence availability | Manor Care owed corporate duties under Thompson/Scampone to oversee care and facilities. | Expert reports do not show Thompson duties were breached; corporate negligence unsupported. | Trial court erred; trial court must apply Section 323 or Althaus factors to determine duty and breach. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for underlying medical malpractice | Record contains multiple expert opinions showing deviations in care causing injury. | Underlying causation and breach not proven for corporate, direct, or vicarious liability. | Evidence could sustain a verdict; summary judgment improper on vicarious/corporate theories. |
| Punitive damages viability | Punitive damages claim should be considered if malice or reckless indifference proven. | Damages unascertainable due to prior rulings; punitive damages not reviewable here. | Remanded for reconsideration in light of the court's rulings on the underlying claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kituskie v. Corbman, 552 Pa. 275, 714 A.2d 1027 (Pa. 1998) (case within a case; proves underlying injury before attorney liability)
- Toogood v. Rogal, 573 Pa. 245, 824 A.2d 1140 (Pa. 2003) (medical malpractice proof requires expert testimony and causation)
- Riddle Mem'l Hosp. v. Dohan, 504 Pa. 571, 475 A.2d 1314 (Pa. 1984) (Restatement §323 duty for negligent undertaking of services)
- Thompson v. Nason Hosp., 527 Pa. 330, 591 A.2d 703 (Pa. 1991) (corporate negligence doctrine for hospitals)
- Scampone v. Highland Park Care Center, LLC, 618 Pa. 363, 57 A.3d 582 (Pa. 2012) (requires Althaus/Section 323 analysis for duty; expands corporate liability)
- Hall v. Episcopal Long Term Care, 54 A.3d 381 (Pa. Super. 2012) (vicarious liability considerations for nursing home operators)
- Sutherland v. Monongahela Valley Hosp., 856 A.2d 55 (Pa. Super. 2004) (limits on vicarious liability proof for unidentified staff)
- Althaus v. Cohen, 562 Pa. 547, 756 A.2d 1166 (Pa. 2000) (Althaus factors for duty in tort cases)
- Kennedy v. Butler Mem'l Hosp., 901 A.2d 1042 (Pa. Super. 2006) (recognizes vicarious liability against hospital for unnamed employees)
- Boring v. Conemaugh Mem'l Hosp., 760 A.2d 860 (Pa. Super. 2000) (vicarious liability for nursing staff principles)