Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00-179 civilLINDA DICKINSON and DONALD DICKINSON, H/W go DAVID B. EVANS, M.D. · 1N THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF · CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : : : : ' NO. 2000-0179 CIVIL TERM & BELVEDERE MEDICAL · CORPORATION and BELVEDERE MEDICAL CENTER, INC. go ROBERT F. HALL II, M.D. · CIVIL ACTION- LAW & CARLISLE IMAGING · ASSOCIATES, P.C. & · CARLISLE HOSPITAL and · HEALTH SERVICES · o IN RE' MOTION FOR PARTIAL JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS OF DEFENDANTS' ROBERT F. HALL II, M.D. AND CARLISLE IMAGING ASSOCIATES, P.C. BEFORE BAYLEY, GUIDO, JJ. AND NOW, this ORDER OF COURT day of DECEMBER 2000, the Motion of Defendants Robert M. Hall II, M.D. and Carlisle Imaging Associates, P.C. for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings'is DENIED. By the Edward E. Guido, J. Lynn Sare Komblau, Esquire Jeffrey M. Komblau, Esquire Gary Solomon, Esquire Colleen E. Ehresman, Esquire Kendra McGuire, Esquire Lauralee B. Baker, Esquire :sld LINDA DICKINSON and DONALD DICKINSON, H/W g~ DAVID B. EVANS, M.D. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : : : : : NO. 2000-0179 CIVIL TERM & BELVEDERE MEDICAL: CORPORATION and BELVEDERE MEDICAL CENTER, INC. ge : CIVIL ACTION- LAW : : ROBERT F. HALL II, M.D. : & CARLISLE IMAGING : ASSOCIATES, P.C. & : CARLISLE HOSPITAL and : HEALTH SERVICES : 1N RE: MOTION FOR PARTIAL JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS OF DEFENDANTS' ROBERT F. HALL II, M.D. AND CARLISLE IMAGING ASSOCIATES, P. C. BEFORE: BAYLEY, GUIDO, JJ. OP1NION AND ORDER OF COURT This matter is before us on the Motion of Robert F. Hall II, M.D. and Carlisle Imaging Associates, P.C. for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings. For the reasons hereafter set forth, the Motion will be denied. BACKGROUND Plaintiff has sued various medical providers as a result of the late diagnosis of her breast cancer. Defendant Carlisle Imaging Associates, P.C. (hereinafter CIA) is a professional medical corporation with which Defendant Hall was associated. The complaint alleges that Dr. Hall, or other radiologists associated with CIA, failed to 2000-0179 CIVIL TERM properly read plaintiff's mammogram and ultrasound. Plaintiff has alleged, inter alia, a cause of action against CIA based upon the theory of corporate liability as enunciated by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Thompson v. Nason Hospital, 527 Pa. 330, 591 A.2d 703 (1991). The basis of defendants' motion is that "there is no Pennsylvania appellate authority for extending Thompson's theory of direct corporate liability to include medical professional corporations.''~ DISCUSSION Pa. Rule of Civil Procedure 1034(a) provides that "(a)fter the relevant pleadings are closed, but within such time as not to unreasonably delay the trial, any party may move for judgment on the pleadings." A motion for judgment on the pleadings should only be granted where the pleadings demonstrate that no genuine issue of fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Hammerstein v. Lindsay, 440 Pa. Super. 350, 655 A.2d 597, 600-601 (1995). Judgment on the pleadings should be granted only in cases which are clear and free from doubt such that a trial would be fruitless (Id). In Thompson v. Nason Hospital, supra, the Court allowed for a cause of action against hospitals based upon the institutional negligence of the hospital itself rather than the specific conduct of its individual employees or agents. The Court fully embraced the following four categories of duties owed by a hospital to its patients: (1) a duty to use reasonable care in the maintenance of safe and adequate facilities and equipment; (2) a duty to select and retain only competent physicians; (3) a duty to oversee all persons who practice medicine within its walls as to patient care; and (4) a duty to formulate, adopt and enforce adequate roles and policies to ensure quality care for the patients. (citations omitted) Defendants' Brief in support of Motion for Pretrial Judgment on the Pleadings, p. 4. 2000-0179 CIVIL TERM 591 A.2d 703 at 707. The theory of corporate liability was held to be applicable to HMO's in Shannon v. McNulty, 718 A.2d 828 (Pa. Super. 1998). Defendants' counsel has drawn our attention to numerous trial court opinions which have refused to extend the theory of corporate liability to professional medical corporations. See for example, Milan v. American Vision Center, 34 F. Supp. 2d 279 (E.D. Pa. (1998), (corporate negligence doctrine does not apply to an optometrist's office); Dowhouer v. Judson, 119 Dauphin. 366 (2000), (corporate negligence doctrine does not apply to physician practices); Dibble v. Penn State Geisinger Clinic, 98 CV 2281 (Lackawanna County 1999), (theory of direct corporate negligence does not apply to professional corporations which are not comprehensive medical care facilities). On the other hand, Plaintiff's counsel has cited several other lower court cases which have allowed such causes of action. See Fox v. Horn, Pics 1480-03-00 (E.D. Pa. 2000), (theory of direct corporate negligence applies to medical group where the plaintiff was constrained in his choice of medical care options); Rivera v. Lawrence, No. 4325 Civil 1998, (Monroe County 1998), (corporate negligence applicable to a professional medical corporation ); and Risser v. Pepper, 116 Dauphin. 109 (1996), (theory of corporate liability applicable to dental partnership). There are no appellate decisions which have addressed the issue. In the case of Jefferies v. Hoffman, 417 Pa. 1,207 A.2d 774 (1965) our Supreme Court directed that we should proceed with caution in evaluating the merits of a judgment on the pleadings where the law is unsettled. As the Court stated' Where, as in this case, the rules of law are not clear a Court should be especially wary of granting judgment on the pleadings before the factual underpinnings are well defined. 2000-0179 CIVIL TERM 417 Pa. 1, 5 n. 1,207 A.2d 774, 776 n. 1. In the instant case, not only is the law less than clear, but there appears to be a factual question as to whether CIA may have been acting as the radiology department of Defendant Carlisle Hospital and Health Services. Under these circumstances, we cannot grant defendants' Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 29TM day of DECEMBER, 2000, the Motion of Defendants Robert M. Hall II, M.D. and Carlisle Imaging Associates, P.C. for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED. By the Court, /s/Edward E. Guido Edward E. Guido, J. Lynn Sare Komblau, Esquire Jeffrey M. Komblau, Esquire Gary Solomon, Esquire Colleen E. Ehresman, Esquire Kendra McGuire, Esquire Lauralee B. Baker, Esquire :sld