HomeMy WebLinkAbout98-5668 civilLENA SORBELLO IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. NO. 98-5668 CIVIL TERM
HEALTHSOUTH
CORPORATION and
HEALTHSOUTH
REHABILITATION OF
MECHANICSBURG,
Defendants
IN RE: PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANT HEALTHSOUTH
CORPORATION TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT
Before HOFFER~ P.J.~ OLER~ J. and HESS~ J.
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, June 8, 1999, after careful consideration of defendant's
Preliminary Objections to paragraph 7(i) of plaintiff's Amended Complaint in the
nature of a demurrer, the preliminary objection is GRANTED. Plaintiff is granted
twenty days in which to file a complaint amending paragraph 7(i). Defendant's
Preliminary Objection to paragraph 7(n) in the nature of a motion to strike for
insufficient specificity in a pleading is GRANTED. Plaintiff is granted twenty days in
which to file a complaint amending paragraph 7(n).
By the Court,
Mark R. Cuker, Esquire Timothy J. McMahon, Esquire
One Penn Center at Suburban Station 100 Pine Street, 4th Floor
1617 JFK Blvd., Suite 800 PO Box 803
Philadelphia, PA 19103 Harrisburg, PA 17108
For the Plaintiff For the Defendants
LENA SORBELLO IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. : NO. 98-5668 CIVIL TERM
HEALTHSOUTH
CORPORATION and
HEALTHSOUTH
REHABILITATION OF
MECHANICSBURG,
Defendants
IN RE: PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANT HEALTHSOUTH
CORPORATION TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT
Before HOFFER, P.J., OLER, J. and HESS, J.
OPINION
HOFFER, P.J.:
In this opinion the Court addresses defendant Healthsouth Corporation's
preliminary objections to plaintiff Lena Sorbello's complaint. Plaintiff's complaint
alleges the liability of the defendant for the negligent treatment resulting in injuries
to the plaintiff's central nervous system. Currently before the Court are the
defendant's preliminary objections to paragraphs 7(i) and 7(n) of plaintiff's
amended complaint. Defendant claims that the duty set forth in paragraph 7(i) of
plaintiff's amended complaint does not fall within the duties of a hospital or medical
corporation under Pennsylvania Law. Defendant claims that the allegations set
forth in paragraph 7(n) constitute impermissible and boilerplate allegations of
negligence which violate the opinion in Connor v. Alle,qheny General Hospital.
NO. 98-5668 CIVIL TERM
Discussion
In considering a defendant's preliminary objections, all well-pleaded facts
and any inferences therefrom asserted by the plaintiff must be accepted as true.
Colt Plumbinq Co., Inc. v. Boisseau, 435 A.2d 1350, 1351 (1994). "The material
facts on which a cause of action or defense is based shall be stated in a concise
and summary form." Pa.R.Civ. P. 1019 (a). To rule on an objection for lack of
specificity, a court must ask whether the failure of a plaintiff to address matters
more specifically renders the complaint so vague that a defendant is unable to
prepare a defense. Paz v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Dept. of Corrections,
135 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 162, 170, 580 A.2d 452,456 (1990).
In Connor v. Alleqheny General Hospital, the initial complaint alleged that the
defendant's negligence caused a perforation in the plaintiff's abdominal cavity. 461
^.2d 600, 601 (Pa. 1983). The lower court refused to permit the plaintiff to amend
her complaint in order to assert that her injuries resulted from the defendant's
failure to discover and remedy an existing perforation of the abdominal cavity. Id.
The lower court refused to permit the amendment because it introduced a new
theory of negligence after the statute of limitations had run. Id. At 602. The
Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision because the complaint
contained the allegation that the defendant was negligent "[i]n otherwise failing to
use due care and caution under the circumstances." Id. The court found this
'boilerplate' language sufficient to justify amendments that amplified the original
cause of action. Id. In Connor, the court suggested that if the defendant did not
2
NO. 98-5668 CIVIL TERM
understand precisely what the plaintiff meant by an allegation, he should have filed
a preliminary objection. Id. At 602 n.3. "The Connor case makes it clear that a
defendant, seeking protection from amendments representing a significant change
of theory after the statute of limitations, must purge the complaint of generalized
averments. "Licht¥ v. Kucharczuk, 5 D.&C.4~ 120 (Northampton County,
1989).
In the present case the defendants have properly objected to paragraph (n)
of plaintiff's amended complaint. Paragraph 7(n) of plaintiff's amended complaint
states that defendant's alleged negligence consists of "such other negligence as
may be revealed in discovery proceedings to accompany this lawsuit." Paragraph
7(n) contains a 'boilerplate' allegation which could be pleaded in any medical
malpractice case. This is precisely the type of allegation that Connor suggests to
strike through a preliminary objection. Accordingly, defendant Healthsouth's
preliminary objections to paragraph 7(n) is granted and the paragraph is stricken.
3