Sutch, R. v. Roxborough Memorial Hospital
151 A.3d 241
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- Decedent presented to Roxborough Memorial Hospital ER in May 2007; chest x‑ray showed a 2.3 cm lung nodule and radiologist Dr. Robins recommended CT, but Decedent was not informed and no CT was performed.
- Twenty months later Decedent was diagnosed with Stage IV lung cancer and died; the Estate sued hospital, physicians (including Dr. Geller), and related entities for failure to inform and follow up.
- Raynor (counsel for Dr. Geller/REPA) sent a January 13, 2012 letter to a non‑party hospital (HUP) criticizing the Estate’s emergency medicine expert (Dr. Porges), and her firm followed with multiple letters pressuring opposing counsel about whether Dr. Porges would testify.
- The trial court (Judge Allen) disqualified Raynor and ordered her to pay $44,693.25 in attorney fees to the Estate as sanctions; Raynor was barred from further representing Dr. Geller/REPA, though other attorneys from her firm continued.
- First trial resulted in a verdict for the Estate against other defendants and a new trial was later granted; second trial (October–November 2014) resulted in a jury verdict against Dr. Geller (33.3% liability) and judgment for the Estate of $778,643.85 (reflecting REPA vicariously liable by stipulation).
- Appeals: Raynor appealed the sanctions; Dr. Geller and REPA appealed multiple trial rulings (including counsel disqualification). The Superior Court consolidated and affirmed judgment and the sanctions order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Estate) | Defendant's Argument (Geller/REPA or Raynor) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Sufficiency/JNOV – Did evidence support liability against Dr. Geller? | Estate: radiologist followed standard procedure (STAT sheet, dictated reports, “cc” to ordering physician); jury could infer Geller received reports and failed to act. | Geller: he never received the radiology reports; evidence insufficient for JNOV. | Affirmed: Viewing evidence in Estate’s favor, reasonable inferences supported liability; even if reports not received, expert testified Geller had duty to note pending results or ensure follow‑up. |
| 2. Weight of evidence/new trial – Should verdict be set aside as against weight? | Estate: conflicting expert testimony resolved by jury in favor of Estate. | Geller: verdict shocks the conscience; evidence favored him. | Affirmed: no extraordinary circumstances; classic expert battle, trial court did not abuse discretion. |
| 3. Exclusion of personal/family habit evidence (Pa.R.E. 406) | N/A for Estate. | Geller: testimony about treating his father’s lung cancer showed habit/decisionmaking and sympathy to explain his conduct. | Affirmed exclusion: personal/familial matters not habit evidence (not reflexive/regularized); any probative value outweighed by prejudice. |
| 4. Disqualification of Raynor and sanctions (attorney fees) | Estate: Raynor’s letter and follow‑ups improperly attempted to coerce/ intimidate expert, violating RPCs and threatening fair trial; sanctions and disqualification necessary. | Raynor/Geller: disqualification violated right to choice of counsel; sanctions improper, untimely appeal. | Affirmed: court properly disqualified Raynor because her conduct threatened due process; Judge Allen had authority to award attorney fees under 42 Pa.C.S. §2503(7); Raynor’s appeal was timely after final judgment; fee amount supported by record. |
| 5. Delay damages computation | Estate: entitled to delay damages per Pa.R.Civ.P. 238 for specified periods. | Geller: various periods should be excluded (continuance for co‑defendant, delay for expert report, appeal interval). | Affirmed: delays were properly included; co‑defendant continuances not excluded, expert timing did not delay trial, and delays during appeals resulting in new trial are recoverable per precedent. |
| 6. Judgment against REPA (not on verdict slip) | Estate: stipulation that Geller acted as REPA agent supports entry against REPA. | REPA: not listed on verdict slip; no direct finding. | Affirmed: trial court may mold verdict to reflect jury intent; agency stipulation established vicarious liability. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Trinidad, 111 A.3d 765 (Pa. Super. 2015) (standard and review for JNOV)
- Armbruster v. Horowitz, 813 A.2d 698 (Pa. 2002) (limited scope for granting new trial on weight grounds)
- McCarthy v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, 772 A.2d 987 (Pa. Super. 2001) (framework on disqualification and sanctions)
- In re Estate of Pedrick, 482 A.2d 215 (Pa. 1984) (limits on using disciplinary rules to alter substantive rights; disqualification only when necessary to assure fair trial)
- Reilly by Reilly v. SEPTA, 489 A.2d 1291 (Pa. 1985) (courts’ limited role in punishing RPC violations; supervisory authority comments)
- Arthur v. Kuchar, 682 A.2d 1250 (Pa. 1996) (delay damages accrue where plaintiff prevails on appeal for new trial)
- Mitchell v. Gravely Int’l, Inc., 698 A.2d 618 (Pa. Super. 1997) (trial court may mold verdict to conform to jury intent)