Superior Court Grants New Trial in a Medical Malpractice Case

In the case of Lewis v. Reading Hospital, No. 986 MDA 2024 (Pa. Super. Sept. 2, 2025 Bowes, J., Olson, J., and Stabile, J.) (Op. by Stabile, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court issued an Opinion which it reviewed the correct approach to increased risk claims in medical malpractice cases.

In this medical malpractice case, the court vacated the verdict in favor of the Plaintiff and remanded the case for a new trial.

In part, the Superior Court ruled in favor of the defense after finding that the trial court had failed to grant a mistrial after the Plaintiff’s attorney told the jury that the defense was unable to retain an expert on causation, which statement was not consistent in the evidence of the record.  In this case the Plaintiff had been successful in precluding one of the defense experts from testifying at trial.  The appellate court held that a party who succeeds in excluding evidence on legal grounds may not mislead a jury by telling the jury that such evidence never existed in the first place.

The Superior Court also agreed that the trial court erred in giving an instruction and a verdict form to the jury which equated the negligence element of factual cause with an “increased risk of harm” argument.

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


I send thanks to Attorney Michael D. Pipa of the Harrisburg, PA law firm of Saxton & Stump for bringing this case to my attention.

Trial Court Refuses to Grant Plaintiff an Extension to Secure a Proper Certificate of Merit

In the case of Winters v. Patient First Pennsylvania Medical Group, No. 2024-03638-PL (C.P. Chester Co. Dec. 17, 2024 Binder, J.), the court denied a Plaintiff’s Motion for Additional Time to Provide a Certificate of Merit in support of a medical malpractice claim.

In this matter, the Plaintiff sued the Defendant medical providers relative to alleged negligence in prescribing certain medications to the Plaintiff’s minor daughter.

The court denied the Plaintiff’s Motion after finding that the Plaintiff failed to demonstrate good cause for an extension of time.

The Court noted that the Plaintiff’s counsel merely cited conflicting litigation and work demands.  Plaintiff's counsel also offered speculative reliance on his hope that the Plaintiff’s former physician would provide the necessary written statement. 

The court otherwise granted the Defendant’s Motion to Strike a Purported Certificate of Merit that the Plaintiff had previously produced. The court found that the previously provided written statement pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1042.3(e) was insufficient given that it was written by a pharmacist.

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. 14, 2025).

In-Home Caregiver Cannot Sue Care Recipient for Negligence Related to Injuries Sustained While Providing Care

In the case of Fisher v. Gingerich, No. 1729 MDA 2024 (Pa. Super. Aug. 27, 2025 Stevens, P.J.E., Bowes, J., and Stabile, J.) (Op. by Stevens, P.J.E.), the court affirmed the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in a case in which an in-home caregiver sued the person she was caring for relative to injuries suffered from the care recipient’s alleged negligent failure to cooperate in the care.

The appellate court ruled that an in-home caregiver cannot sue a person they are caring for on claims of injuries allegedly suffered from the care recipient’s negligent failure to cooperate with the care.

The court noted that, under Pennsylvania law, a care recipient does not owe a caregiver any duty to participate and cooperate with the care. The court also noted that the nature of the risk imposed and the foreseeability of the harm also weighed heavily against the imposition of any duty on care recipients under the circumstances presented. In this regard, the court noted that care recipients are often untrained, elderly and have physical disabilities.

The appellate court otherwise noted that recognizing such a duty of care owed by care recipients to caregivers would open the flood gates of litigation from any care provider who struggled to care for a patient they deemed to be uncooperative.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this 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.

Source of image:  Photo by Kampus Productions on www.pexels.com.

Issues of Fact Preclude Summary Judgment Against Landlord-Out-Of Possession In Parking Lot Slip and Fall Case

In the case of Alexander v. ECM Realty Management, Inc., No. CV 24-00061 (C.P. Lyc. Co. 2025 Carlucci, J.), the court denied a Motion for Summary Judgment in a slip and fall case involving ice and/or snow in a parking lot area.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff slipped and fell at the rear of a property that her husband rented from the Defendants. The Plaintiff had previously been a tenant of the same premises.

The court noted that, while it was apparently undisputed that the Defendants were landlords out-of-possession of the apartment, the Plaintiff was maintaining that the Defendants retained control over the parking lot area.

In this matter, the court agreed that, where a landlord leases out some areas of a property, but retains control over others, a landlord may be found negligent in the maintenance of the areas over which the landlord retained control. 

Here, however, the court noted the record was clear that the Defendants were landlords out-of-possession relative to the apartment.

The dispute in this matter was whether the parking space where the Plaintiff slipped and fell should be considered a portion of the leased apartment under the control of the tenant, or a “common area” over which the landlord Defendant had retained control.

The court found that the issues of fact in this regard prevented the entry of summary judgment. As such, the Defendant's Motion was denied.

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. 14, 2025).

Source of image:  Photo by Erik McLean on www.unsplash.com.

Summary Judgment Granted Where Plaintiff Could Not Pinpoint Which of Multiple Alleged Defects Caused Her to Fall

In the case of Regina v. Summit Pointe Prop. Owners Assoc., No., 1172-CV-2020 (C.P. Monroe Co. July 21, 2025 C. Daniel Higgins, J., J.), the court granted a Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration as well as the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment in a trip or slip and fall case.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff allegedly tripped and fell on a sidewalk concrete slab that was broken at the time and on which there was gravel.

The court had originally previously denied the moving Defendant’s original Motion for Summary Judgment, finding issues of fact. 

The Defendant followed up with a Motion for Reconsideration.  When reviewing the Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration, the court reviewed an additional unpublished Superior Court case provided by the Defendant. In that Superior Court case, the appellate court had granted summary judgment where that plaintiff had not specifically identified which of multiple defects on the walking surface actually caused that Plaintiff to fall.

Similarly in this matter, upon further review of the case presented, the court noted that the Plaintiff, who had since passed away since the happening of the incident, testified at her deposition that she could not remember important details such as what happened right after she took the step that allegedly resulted in her falling.

The court also noted that, review of the pictures provided by the Plaintiff did not reveal any clear images that depicted the alleged broken or defective concrete, or any other defects, that the Plaintiff alleged.

Accordingly, upon reviewing the record again, the court found that the Plaintiff’s case was circumstantial and, at best, only revealed that there was gravel present when she fell.

The court ultimately held that the Plaintiff failed to provide any evidence that linked any of the alleged potential defects to the Plaintiff’s fall and the Plaintiff's resultant injuries.

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).

Source of image:  Photo by Victor Moragriega on www.pexels.com.

Upcoming Opportunity for Credits via Zoom CLE on Incorporating AI Into Your Practice

 

PA Supreme Court Clarifies Burden of Proof Under Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens

In the case of Tranter v. Z & D Tour, Inc., No. 32 EAP 2024 (Pa. Sept. 25, 2025) (Op. by Wecht, J.), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court provided clarity on the test to be applied in reviewing a Petition to Transfer Venue under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

According to the Opinion, this matter involved a multi-vehicle collision that occurred in Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania involving a passenger bus and commercial vehicles. The crash resulted in five (5) deaths and numerous injuries.

Plaintiffs who resided in various locations across the country and abroad, filed personal injury lawsuits in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas against several corporate Defendants, all of which conducted business nationwide.

The Defendants sought to transfer the cases to Westmoreland County under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The Defendants argued that a majority of the witnesses, including first responders and investigators, were located in Westmoreland County and would face significant hardship if required to travel over two hundred (200) miles to Philadelphia for trial.

The Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas granted the Defendants’ Petition to Transfer under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

The Superior Court reversed, holding that the Defendants failed to show that the identified witnesses were “key witnesses” whose testimony was “critical” to the defense. The Superior Court also found that the affidavits of the witnesses provided did not sufficiently detail the necessity of the witnesses’ testimonies.

Higher up on the appellate ladder, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed the Superior Court’s decision in this matter.

The Supreme Court held that the Superior Court’s imposition of a “key witness” requirement was inconsistent with Pennsylvania precedent on the issue of the evidence required to secure a transfer of a matter under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

The Supreme Court clarified that a party seeking a transfer of a matter under the doctrine of forum non conveniens must identify the burdened witnesses and provide a general statement of their respective testimony. The Supreme Court confirmed that the petitioner need not show that the testimony of the witnesses is “critical” or “necessary” to the defense.

As such, the Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s decision to transfer the cases out of Philadelphia County and to Westmoreland County as a proper exercise of the trial court’s discretion.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Concurring Opinion by Justice Mundy can be viewed HERE.


Source: Justia Daily Opinion Summaries, www.justia.com (Sept. 26, 2025).