Yanakos, C. v. UPMC, University of Pittsburgh
Yanakos, C. v. UPMC, University of Pittsburgh No. 1331 WDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.Jul 26, 2017Background
- In Sept. 2003 Christopher volunteered to donate a liver lobe to his mother, Susan; pre-surgery testing indicated Christopher tested positive for Alpha-1 Antitrypsin Deficiency (AATD).
- Appellants (Christopher, Susan, and Susan’s husband William) allege defendants (UPMC and two physicians) negligently proceeded with the donation and failed to disclose test results, causing injuries and loss of consortium.
- Appellants filed suit in Dec. 2015—approximately 12 years after the 2003 surgery.
- Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings arguing the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error (MCARE) Act’s seven-year statute of repose (40 P.S. § 1303.513) bars the claims; only a foreign-object exception extends the repose.
- Appellants challenged the statute of repose as violating equal protection, due process, Pennsylvania’s open-courts guarantee, and argued a continuing duty to disclose tolled the repose; the trial court granted judgment on the pleadings for defendants.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding the MCARE repose applied, the foreign-object exception is rationally related to legislative goals, due process and open-courts claims fail, and no continuing-duty tolling was recognized.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality under Equal Protection of MCARE foreign-object exception | Exception arbitrarily favors some delayed-discovery plaintiffs; similarly situated delayed-discovery victims (like plaintiffs) are excluded | Legislature reasonably distinguished foreign-object cases where negligence is readily implied and evidence persists | Repose and foreign-object exception survive rational-basis review; no equal protection violation |
| Due process (federal and Pa.) challenge to MCARE repose | Seven-year repose unreasonably denies access to courts for delayed-discovery victims | Seven-year repose is reasonable, balances compensation and stability of medical system; exceptions exist for foreseeable delayed-discovery scenarios | Repose is reasonable under due process; claim fails |
| Pa. Constitution Article I, §11 (open courts) | Repose effectively denies remedy and violates open-courts guarantee | Legislature may limit or abolish common-law remedies; prior precedent permits repose statutes | Open-courts challenge rejected consistent with Supreme Court precedent |
| Continuing duty to disclose / tolling repose | Defendants had an ongoing duty to notify patient of test results; repose should begin on discovery | No Pennsylvania precedent recognizes this continuous-treatment/disclosure tolling; plaintiffs did not plead continuous treatment | Court declines to create a continuing-duty tolling rule; repose not tolled |
Key Cases Cited
- Abrams v. Pneumo Abex Corp., 981 A.2d 198 (Pa. 2009) (explains nature and effect of statutes of repose)
- Booher v. Olczak, 797 A.2d 342 (Pa. Super. 2002) (standard of review for judgment on the pleadings)
- Swift v. Milner, 538 A.2d 28 (Pa. Super. 1988) (affirming judgment on the pleadings standard—trial would be fruitless)
- U.S. v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111 (U.S. 1979) (discusses policy rationales for repose and protection against stale claims)
- Matharu v. Muir, 86 A.3d 250 (Pa. Super. 2014) (application of MCARE repose and foreign-object exception)
- Bulebosh v. Flannery, 91 A.3d 1241 (Pa. Super. 2014) (statute of repose bars claims absent exception)