Trial Court Gives Lessons on Medical Malpractice Complaint Drafting

In the case of Dawes v. The Williamsport Home, No. 2025-CV-00381 (C.P. Lyc. Co. June 6, 2025 Carlucci, J.), the court granted in part and denied in part Preliminary Objections filed against a Plaintiff’s claim in a medical malpractice case arising out of alleged negligent care regarding the Plaintiff’s thoracic surgical wound.

According to the Opinion, the court denied the Defendant’s demurrer to the Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages but still directed the Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint which either deletes any claim for punitive damages or sets forth sufficient material allegations in support of the same.

Relative to any claims against any agents or employees of the medical Defendants the court directed that the Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint should limit allegations regarding the acts or omissions by a Defendant or its agent or employees to that conduct that the Plaintiff contends was a substantial factor in causing the Plaintiff’s injuries. In this regard, the court directed the Plaintiff to not include any extraneous allegations not pertinent to the causation issues. 

The court also required the Plaintiff to provide additional factual support and allegations on the claims for corporate liability.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: “The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert,” www.Law.com (Aug. 7, 2025).

BRING YOUR CASE TO A CLOSE WITH CUMMINS MEDIATION

 BRING YOUR CASE TO A CLOSE

DANIEL E. CUMMINS, ESQ.

570-319-5899

dancummins@CumminsLaw.net

Contact CUMMINS MEDIATION SERVICES to set up your Mediation to bring your case to a close.

Who better to get an insurance company to increase their award

than the writer of Tort Talk and

an insurance defense attorney trusted by carriers to get them out of trouble?

HERE'S A SAMPLING OF JUST SOME OF THE FIRMS

WHO PREVIOUSLY SECURED SETTLEMENTS AT MEDIATIONS WITH CUMMINS MEDIATION SERVICES:

HOURIGAN, KLUGER & QUINN

LENAHAN & DEMPSEY

ABRAHAMSEN, CONABOY & ABRAHAMSEN

POWELL LAW

CEFALO & ASSOCIATES

LAW OFFICES OF JAMES D. FAMIGLIO

FOLEY LAW FIRM

NEEDLE LAW

OSTROFF GODSHALL

FISHER & FISHER

BLAKE & WALSH

CAPUTO & MARRIOTTI

HAGGERTY, HINTON & COSGROVE

SLUSSER LAW

VINSKO & ASSOCIATES

BISCONTINI LAW FIRM

MECADON LAW

LAW OFFICES OF LEO JACKSON

SOBO & SOBO

MARKS O'NEILL, O'BRIEN, DOHERTY & KELLY

RAWLE & HENDERSON

POST & SCHELL

SWARTZ CAMPBELL

BENNETT BRICKLIN & SALTZBURG

CIPRIANI & WERNER

MINTZER SAROWITZ, ZERIS, LEDVA & MEYERS

SHAY, SANTEE, KELHART & DESCHLER, LLC

McCORMICK & PRIORE

THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER

SCANLON, HOWLEY & DOHERTY

MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN

MARSHALL DENNEHEY

ELLIOTT GREENLEAF

COLEMAN LAW OFFICES

PennDOT

SELECTIVE INSURANCE IN-HOUSE COUNSEL OFFICE

NATIONWIDE INSURANCE IN-HOUSE COUNSEL

TRAVELERS INSURANCE IN-HOUSE COUNSEL

Summary Judgment Granted in Water Park Ride Under "No-Duty" Rule

In the case of Mantilla v. CMBK Resort Holdings, LLC, No. 5780-Civil-2023 (C.P. Monroe Co. April 25, 2025 Williamson, J.), the court granted a Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment in a case in which the Plaintiff alleged injuries from a water park ride during which the raft either flipped or the Plaintiff fell from it, resulting in injuries to the Plaintiff.

After reviewing the applicable law, which included the fact that, generally speaking, purveyors of theaters, amusement parks, or sports facilities have a “no-duty” rule to protect a party from injuries so long as the injuries suffered arose from a risk that was “common, frequent, and expected” of the situation.

The court ruled that, based upon the record before it, the Plaintiff has failed to allege or establish any conduct on the part of the Defendants that was not an inherent risk of utilizing a water slide.

In this matter, the Plaintiff admitted at her deposition that her raft flipped due to a sudden change in the water pressure, causing her to strike her shoulder on the side of the slide itself. The court noted that this is an inherent risk of water slides, where unexpected changes in water flow and the possibility of body parts colliding with the hard surface of the tube.

Given that the Plaintiff failed to show any other evidence of negligence and given that the Defendant had no duty to protect the Plaintiff from the “common, frequent, and expected” dangers of water slides, the court granted summary judgment.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: “The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert,” www.Law.com (July 10, 2025).

Who Bears the Burden of Proving a Plaintiff is Covered by the Limited Tort Option?

In the case of Rogers v. Blair, No. 2:24-CV-01534-ETH (E.D. Pa. July 28, 2025 Hey, M.J.), a federal magistrate judge addressed the issue of how to resolve a dispute over whether or not a motor vehicle accident Plaintiff was covered under the limited tort option.

In this matter, on the issue of whether the Plaintiff was covered under the limited tort option or the full tort option, the record revealed that the only evidence in the case was that the Plaintiff testified at his deposition that he was unsure as to which coverage he selected.

The court ruled that, because the issue of the limited tort defense is considered an affirmative defense, Defendants bear the burden of proving a limited tort election. In this regard, the court cited to the case of Sanderson v. Cruz, U.S., 88 F. Supp. 2d 388, 392 (E.D. Pa. 2000). The court also noted that a Plaintiff’s uncertainty as to which coverage he or she may have selected is not determinative on the issue. In this regard, the court cited with a “see” signal Vaughan v. Williams, 725 EDA 2023, 2024 WL 1231352, at *3-5 (Pa. Super. 2024) (affirming trial court’s decision finding that Plaintiff elected limited tort as a matter of law, focusing its analysis on the signed tort election form and associated policy documents, as opposed to phone call transcripts and oral statements).

In this Opinion, the court noted that the Plaintiff’s decision to raise this limited tort election issue through a Motion In Limine rather than through an earlier a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, combined with the absence of the relevant insurance documents, rendered the resolution of this matter ill-time given that it was presented on the eve of trial. 

As such, the judge denied the Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to have the Plaintiff deemed to be full tort as a matter of law.  Presumably, the defense was going to be permitted to present evidence a trial through an insurance representative as to the Plaintiff’s election of a limited tort choice.

In another decision of note in this Opinion, the court barred a Defendant in a rear-end motor vehicle accident from arguing at trial that the Plaintiff was not injured in the accident given that both parties had acknowledged, through expert testimony, that the Plaintiff had indeed sustained some form of injury.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.


Source: “Article – “Defendant Can’t Argue Rear-End Crash Didn’t Result In Injuries, Pa. Fed. Court Rules Citing Defense Expert Report” By Riley Brennan The Legal Intelligencer (July 30, 2025).

Source of image:  Photo by Niki Nikitaxnikin on www.pexels.com.

Court Dismisses Negligent Entrustment Claim Against Parents Relative to Use of Cell Phone by Child

In the case of JH v. Dunmore School District, No. 3:24-CV-1154 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 8, 2025 Munley, J.), Judge Julia K. Munley of the Federal Middle District Court of Pennsylvania addressed various Motions to Dismiss filed by different Defendants relative to a case involving allegations that certain middle school student allegedly recorded a minor Plaintiff who was on the autism spectrum, inside a bathroom stall at the school and then allegedly disseminating that video to other students who also allegedly shared the video with others.

Among the claims presented by the Plaintiffs were allegations of negligence entrustment and intentional infliction of emotional distress against the minor Defendants at issue and their parents. The negligent entrustment claim was that the parents had negligently entrusted a cell phone owned by the parents to their children.

The court granted in part and denied in part the request for a dismissal of the negligent entrustment claims asserted against the parents given that the Plaintiffs did not allege facts to support their conclusion that the parent Defendants knew or should have known that their children would use their cell phones in ways that would hurt people.

The court also noted that, based upon the facts alleged by the Plaintiff, which included references to school policy and state law, the Plaintiffs’ allegations actually support the proposition that the parent Defendants yielded control of the cell phones, or the use of the cell phones to the teachers and administrators when their children were at school. 

In this regard, the court pointed to the school district’s rules requiring students to refrain from utilizing their cell phone on the school ground during school hours. 

The court emphasized that the alleged negligent conduct of the students took place during the course of the school day and that there were no allegations that any of the minor Defendants in this action shared the video of the minor Plaintiff outside of the school day. 

The court in this matter did allow the Plaintiffs’ claims or intentional infliction of emotional distress to proceed against the parent Defendants.

The court otherwise dismissed a number of claims asserted against the school district and school officials but allow the Plaintiffs to file another Amended Complaint relative to the possible civil rights allegations under 42 U.S.C. §1983.

The court allowed the claims of punitive damages to remain in the case relative to the claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.

Source of image:  Photo by Tracy Le Blanc on www.unsplash.com.

Attorney Faulted For Submitting Brief with AI Hallucinations

Examples of attorneys getting trouble for utilizing AI tools for legal research and then not checking the accuracy of the information gathered has occurred in Pennsylvania.  Inaccurate information secured from AI sources are known as hallucinations.

In the Pennsylvania federal court case of Jakes v. Youngblood, No. 2:24-cv-1608 (W.D. Pa. June 26, 2025 Stickman, J.), the court faulted an attorney for submitting briefs with wholly fabricated quotations from case law, including fabricated quotations from this court’s own prior Opinion. 

The court faulted that attorney for not only failing to offer any explanation for the deficiencies and fabrications in his own brief, but for also attacking the content of the opposing party’s brief, which the court noted did not contain any fabricated quotations or misrepresented case law. 

The court also noted that, “[e]ven more outrageously,” a review of the AI-happy attorney’s reply brief demonstrated that that brief also contained fabricated quotes and misrepresented case law.

The court noted that it found it to be “very troubling” that, when accused of serious ethical violations, the attorney at fault “chose to double down” and not admit to wrongdoing. 

In the end, the court noted that it viewed the attorney’s “conduct as a clear ethical violation of the highest order.” 

In its Opinion, the court noted that the attorney at fault had filed a Withdrawal of Appearance in response to the issues presented.

This Pennsylvania federal court cited to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 as confirming that attorneys have legal and ethical duties owed to the court in terms of filings presented to the Court. The court also cited to Pennsylvania Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3 regarding candor toward a tribunal.

In its Opinion, the court presumed that the at fault attorney’s briefs were constructed by generative artificial intelligence utilized by the attorney, rather than an effort by the attorney to personally construct false and misleading information. Regardless, the court noted that the attorney still had an ethical obligation under Rule 11 and the state’s professional canons to review every document submitted to the court under their name and signature in order to ensure the accuracy of the document.

The court also noted that, an attorney who signs and files a brief authored by a non-lawyer, such as a paralegal or an intern or a clerk, is personally responsible for all that the filing contains. The court noted that the same rule applies to the use of artificial intelligence.

In the end, the Jakes court dismissed the filings presented by the at fault attorney and ordered that attorney to show cause as to why his filings should not be viewed as having violated Rule 11 and Pa. RPC 3.3.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK

Source of image:  Photo by Igor Omilaev on www.unsplash.com.

Another Pennsylvania Attorney Sanctioned by Court for Submitting Inaccurate Citations Apparently Secured From AI Resarch

In another Pennsylvania case involving an attorney utilizing AI hallucinations in a court filing, the court issued sanctions.

In Bevins v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., No. 25-576 (E.D. Pa. April 10, 2025 Baylson, J.), the attorney provided the court with case citations in court filings that were inaccurate and did not lead the reader to any identifiable court Opinion. The court noted that, based upon its search, it could not locate a case relative to the two citations at issue and/or could not detect a possible typographical error relative to the citation provided.

When the court ordered the attorney to provide an explanation, the attorney asserted that the inclusion of the incorrect citations was unintended given that he planned to replace the wrong cite with a proper one but failed to do so in his final draft. The court noted its concern as to why the attorney was silent as to his act of providing the court with case citations to decisions that did not exist and, as such, the court noted that it was “unconvinced by counsel’s explanations.”

The court referred to Rule 11 and sanctioned the attorney. The court also referred the matter to the State Bar.

Moreover, the court struck the attorney’s appearance in the case.  The attorney was ordered to advise the client of the sanctions and the fact that, should the Plaintiff chose to refile her case, she must find new counsel.

Anyone wishing to review the court's decision in Bevins may click this LINK.  The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.