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.