Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout97-4991 civilJOHN MOTTER and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF JEAN MOTTER, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs : NO 97-4991 CIVIL TERM ORTHOPEDIC SURGERY OF : CARLISLE and DANIEL HELY, M.D., : Defendants : IN RE: DEFENDANTS' PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS Before HOFFER, P.J., OLER, J., and GUIDO, J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, ~ ~ , 1998, after careful consideration of the parties' briefs and oral argument, Defendants' Motion to Strike Count IV of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint is granted and Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages is granted. By the Court, Daniel Pollock, Esquire Dodd-o, Esquire 3105 Old Gettysburg Road Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP Camp Hill, PA 17011 305 North Front Street For the Plaintiffs P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 For the Defendants JOHN MOTTER and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF JEAN MOTTER, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs : V. : ORTHOPEDIC SURGERY OF : NO. 97-4991 CIVIL TERM CARLISLE and DANIEL HELY, : M.D., : Defendants : IN RE: DEFENDANTS' PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS Before HOFFER, P.J., OLER, J., and GUIDO, J. OPINION HOFFER, P.J.: In this opinion, we address Defendants' Preliminary Objections. The allegations of this case are as follows: Defendant Daniel Hely, M.D. performed a carpal tunnel release on Plaintiff John Motter's left hand on July 6, 1995. Dr. Hely removed the sutures from the wound during a follow-up visit. The surgical wound reopened, later that same evening. Mr. Motter complained of pain around the surgical wound. Motter was later diagnosed with reflex sympathetic dystrophy and was required to undergo an operation to have the sympathetic nerves on the left side severed to relieve the symptoms of reflex sympathetic dystrophy. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint December 8, 1997, in which they claimed that Dr. Hely's negligence, in removing the surgical sutures, resulted in Mr. Motter developing reflex sympathetic dystrophy. Plaintiffs asserted that Dr. Hely 97-4991 CIVIL TERM and the Carlisle Hospital should be held liable for Plaintiffs' injuries. Plaintiffs also included counts for loss of consortium by Mr. and Mrs. Motter and a request for punitive damages. Defendants filed preliminary objections. The preliminary objections consisted of a motion to strike Count IV of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, which seeks damages for loss of consortium by Mr. Motter, and a motion to strike the claim for punitive damages. Discussion "A loss of consortium claim arises from the marriage relationship and is grounded on the loss of a spouse's services after injury." Tiburzio-Kelly v. Montgomery, 452 Pa. Super. 158, 188, 681 A.2d 757, 772 (1996). In Pennsylvania, the right to enter claims for loss of consortium has been limited to spouses. Noll v. City of Philadelphia, 153 Pa. Cmwlth. 57, 58, 620 A.2d 613, 614 (1993). It is well settled that a claim for loss of consortium is derivative of the injured spouse's claim. City of Philadelphia v. Buck, 138 Pa. Cmwlth. 250, 256, 587 A.2d 875, 879 (1991). In the case at bar, Mr. Motter has asserted a claim for loss of consortium against Dr. Hely. Clearly, this is impermissible because Mr. Motter is the victim of the alleged injury. Only Mrs. Motter may make a claim for loss of consortium. Therefore, Defendants, Motion to Strike Count IV of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint 97-4991 CIVIL TERM is granted. Punitive damages "are proper when the act which creates actual damages also imports insult or outrage, and is committed with a view to oppress or is done in contempt of plaintiffs' rights." McClellan v. Health Maintenance Organization of Pennsylvania, 413 Pa. Super. 128, 144, 604 A.2d 1053, 1061 (1992). Punitive damages are awarded to punish a person for conduct that is done with reckless indifference, as well as bad motive. Id. "Thus, a court may not award punitive damages merely because a tort has been committed." Id. A party must point to additional evidence to demonstrate outrageous conduct. Id. Plaintiffs have failed to plead any facts which lead us to conclude that Dr. Hely acted with reckless indifference or bad motive. The mere fact that Mr. Motter suffered an injury does not allow this Court to impose the possibility of punitive damages on the Defendants. Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages is granted.