Court Rules that Plaintiff's Claim Barred By Prior Settlement Agreement

In the case of West v. Abington Memorial Hospital, No. 1723 EDA 2023 (Pa. Super. Aug. 28, 2025 Bowes, J., Olson, J., and McLaughlin, J.) (Op. by Bowes, J.) (dissenting Opinion by McLaughlin, J.), the Superior Court affirmed a trial court’s granting of a medical malpractice Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings based on a conclusion that the Plaintiff’s lawsuit was barred by a Release executed in the parties’ previous settlement.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiffs had previously filed a medical malpractice action against certain Defendants alleging that the Defendants were negligent during the Plaintiff’s labor and delivery that resulted in injuries to the Plaintiff’s child.

In the midst of the malpractice trial in the previous matter, the parties reached a settlement for the full insurance policy limits.

The Plaintiffs executed a Settlement and a Release that was approved by the trial court.

Several years later, the Plaintiffs filed the present lawsuit, alleging that they were fraudulently induced to enter into the settlement due to the hospital’s failure to produce a memo from one of the Defendant doctors that was responsive to the Plaintiff’s discovery requests in the previous case and which addressed one of the primary issues in the malpractice trial.

The Plaintiffs have discovered the memo when the hospital produced it in an unrelated case involving the Plaintiff’s attorney.

The Plaintiffs claimed in the new lawsuit that, had the memo been produced in their previous malpractice action, they would have obtained a settlement or jury verdict above the settlement that they actually negotiated.

In this new case, the Defendants filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings based upon the Release previously entered into between the parties.

The Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s granting of the judgment on the pleadings. The appellate court agreed that the Release covered all claims arising from or connected to the Plaintiff’s malpractice action. The court found that the new lawsuit fell within the scope of the Release given that the new lawsuit sought to recover the difference between the parties’ settlement in the amount of compensation the Plaintiffs claimed that they could have obtained had the Defendants produced the memo at issue.

The appellate court ruled that the Plaintiffs were unable to avoid the effect of the integration clause in the Release, which precluded the Plaintiffs from introducing parol evidence to prove fraud in the inducement.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of the Majority Opinion for this decision may click this LINK.  The Dissenting Opinion may be reviewed HERE.

Source of image:  Photo by Solange Brenis on www.unsplash.com.

Superior Court Addresses Discoverability of Hospital Patient Safety Review Records

In the case of Boyle v. Main Line Health, Inc., No. 2454 EDA 2023 (Pa. Super. Aug. 10, 2025 King, J., Lazarus, J., and Lane, J.) (Op. by King, J.) (Lane, J. concurring and dissenting), the appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part a trial court discovery Order relative to the discoverability of hospital patient safety review records in a medical malpractice action.

The court noted that discovery Orders involving claims of privilege are immediately appealable a collateral Orders.

The Superior Court noted that hospital patient safety review records that are actually used to make MCARE mandatory reports are protected from disclosure in litigation by the Act.

In this case, the Defendant hospital had an MCARE patient safety plan and a patient safety officer. The MCARE safety patient plan established a patient safety committee pursuant to MCARE and also set forth requirements for both internal and external reporting.

The Superior Court noted that MCARE confidentiality extends to all documents, materials, or information solely prepared or created for the purpose of reporting compliance.

However, the court noted that, without evidence that the event at issue was actually submitted to a patient safety committee or governing board, the MCARE privilege cannot be established. 

The court noted that a general assertion of a particular privilege as to all documents is sufficient to preserve the privilege as to any portion of the documents.

The court also noted that, under the federal Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act privilege, “patient safety work product” is not subject to state-law discovery. The court noted that documents produced solely in accordance with the Patient Safety Evaluation System and reported to the patient safety organization are protected under the PSQIA.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by Judge Lane can be reviewed HERE.


I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

Court Punts On Summary Judgment in Football Stadium Trip and Fall Case

In the case of DeLuca v. Scranton School District, No. 2021-CV-3506 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Aug. 19, 2025 Powell, J.), the court denied Motions for Summary Judgment filed by the Scranton School District and Scranton Preparatory School relative to a trip and fall action brought by the Plaintiff after the Plaintiff tripped on an alleged uneven slab of sidewalk at the Scranton Memorial Stadium during a football game.

According to the Opinion, the stadium is owned by the Scranton School District and was leased to the Scranton Preparatory School under an oral agreement.

The Plaintiff alleged negligence against both Defendants.

The Scranton School District argued that it was immune from liability under the Pennsylvania Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act given that it allegedly lacked notice of the defect and given that the Plaintiff had not suffered a “permanent injury” as required by law to proceed with such a claim in this context.

The court found that the Plaintiff had produced liability and medical expert evidence on the claim presented such that issues of fact precluded the entry of summary judgment.

More specifically, on the liability issues, the Plaintiff produced an expert who asserted that the walkway’s 1.5 inch uneven slab not only constituted a trip hazard, but had also existed for years and allegedly remained unaddressed despite safety inspections.

Regarding the Plaintiff’s injuries, the Plaintiff’s medical experts reported ongoing hand dysfunction and other chronic conditions. The court noted that genuine issues of fact existed for a jury to decide on the alleged permanence of the Plaintiff’s injuries.

The Co-Defendant, Scranton Prep, asserted that it did not bear any responsibility for maintaining the stadium given that it was a lessee without possession or control premises. The court found issues of fact regarding control and responsibility over the premises. As such, summary judgment was denied in this regard as well.

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


Source: Lackawanna Jurist (Aug. 29, 2025).

Summary Judgment Granted in Store Bathroom Slip and Fall Case

In the case of Staley v. Price Chopper, No. 3908-CIVIL-2024 (C.P. Monroe Co. Aug. 11, 2025 Williamson, J.), the court granted summary judgment in a slip and fall matter that occurred at a grocery store.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff visited a grocery store and went to use the lady’s restroom. While in the restroom, the Plaintiff allegedly slipped on some unknown substance and fell.

After the completion of discovery, the defense filed a Motion for Summary Judgment asserting that the Plaintiff had failed to offer any evidence to show how or when the alleged substance came to be on the floor and/or that the store employees had any actual or constructive notice of the condition.

The court agreed with the defense position. The court noted that the Plaintiff failed to offer any evidence as to what substance allegedly caused her to fall. The Plaintiff admitted that she did not notice any wet spots on the floor before she fell. 

All the Plaintiff could state at her deposition was that she knew there was a liquid on the floot because her clothes were wet after the incident.  However, the record revealed not only that it may have been raining on the day of the accident but also that, when the Plaintiff fell in the bathroom stall area, her arm and hand had gone into the toilet.

The court also noted that, even considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, the only conclusion is that the Plaintiff allegedly may have slipped on something wet. The court noted that it is not unusual for wet spots to be found in public restrooms, particularly around the toilet area. The court held that, without some indication of what the substance actually was, for example, from a leaking toilet or a spilled hand soap, it was difficult to determine from the record whether the condition that caused the Plaintiff was a long-standing condition as opposed to a transitory one.

In this regard, the court also noted that the Plaintiff failed to provide any evidence as to the length of time that the condition existed or if the Defendant store employees knew or should have known of the alleged condition.

The court also rejected the Plaintiff’s contention that the Defendant should have regularly checked the bathroom during the course of the day. The court noted that the Plaintiff did not produce any evidence in this regarding, including any chart under which employees would check off whether or not they had inspected the bathroom at certain times during day.

The Plaintiff also pointed to surveillance video of the store that shows that no employee entered the restroom for thirty (30) minutes prior to the Plaintiff’s fall. 

The court noted that while the video may show that no one attended to the restroom for thirty (30) minutes before the Plaintiff’s fall, that evidence does not translate to a finding that the Defendant was negligent in not cleaning the restroom that entire day. 

Rather, the court noted that the surveillance video simply showed that the restroom was not checked for thirty (30) minutes before the Plaintiff’s fall. The court held that this did not mean that the Defendant was aware of, or should have been aware of, an alleged dangerous condition that went unattended.

For these reasons, and others noted in the Opinion, the court granted summary judgment to the Defendant store.

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

It is noted that Daniel E. Cummins of Cummins Law was defense counsel in this matter.

Source of image: Photo by Juno Jo on www.unsplash.com.

Appellate Court Agrees That No Spoliation Occurred Where Camera Would Not Have Captured Area of the Incident

In a decision marked Non-Precedential in the the case of Conklin v. Wawa, Inc., No. 3006 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super. Aug. 6, 2025 Beck, J., Panella, P.J.E, Stabile, J.) (Op. by Beck, J.), the appellate court affirmed a trial court’s denial of post-trial motions in a slip and fall case.

Of note, the appellate court agreed that the Plaintiff was not entitled to an adverse inference jury charge based on the Defendant’s alleged spoliation of surveillance tapes.

In this matter, the record revealed that the video cameras could not have recorded the fall down event. Accordingly, the appellate court ruled that there was no basis for the claim that the fact that the tapes were routinely overwritten amounted to an intentional destruction of evidence.

The appellate court also found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion finding a lack of any fault to the Defendant with respect to the alleged loss of the evidence. The court additionally noted that, since the claimed fall would not have been on camera, there is no showing of any relevance or prejudice with respect to this evidence.

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

I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

Trial Court Denies Summary Judgment on Products Liability Claims Regarding Motorcycle

In the case of Windhorst v. Colvin, No. 11230 of 2019, C.A. (C.P. Lawr. Co. June 27, 2025 Hodge, J.), the court denied a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant, Harley Davidson Motor Company, after finding issues of fact in this products liability case arising out of a motorcycle accident.

In this matter, the Plaintiff alleged a designed defect in the lighting system of the motorcycle. 

One defense presented by the Defendants was that the Plaintiff had substantially altered the lighting system on the motorcycle prior to the accident. More specifically, there was evidence in the record that the Plaintiff had installed an after market LED headlamp on the motorcycle in an effort to improve the headlamp’s brightness. 

The record before the court confirmed that the Plaintiff took this step without following the specifications or alignment instructions in the owner’s manual for the motorcycle that was provided by the Defendants. It was also noted that the owner’s manual expressly warned against the use of non-specified parts and also outlined the appropriate wattage for headlamps.

The Defendants additionally contended that the Plaintiff’s claims for a negligent design and for strict product liability were legally insufficient as the subject motorcycle complied with all federal and state conspicuity regulations in terms pf head lamps. 

The Defendant additionally argued that, in any event, the Plaintiff was aware of the alleged design defect and assumed the risk by continuing to operate the motorcycle.

The court denied the Motion after finding genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether there was an alleged design defect in the motorcycle’s lighting system. The court also found genuine issues of material fact on the issue of whether the Plaintiff had assumed the risk of injury.

The court noted that both parties had produced conflicting evidence on the issue presented through expert reports on the issues of whether or not a design defect existed.

The court additionally noted that, while compliance with government standards is relevant to a claim for negligent design, such evidence is not determinative in cases of strict product liability regarding allegations of defects.

Accordingly, the judge denied the Motion for 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 (Sept. 18, 2025).

SAVE THE DATE FOR THE LACKAWANNA PRO BONO ANNUAL GALA