Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-2688 CivilTHE ESTATE OF ROBERT N. STROBLE Plaintiff WELLSPAN HEALTH SYSTEMS and YORK HOSPITAL, INC. Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW No. 02-2688 CIVIL TERM IN RE: DEFENDANTS' PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT Before HOFFER, P.J. and OLER, J. Hoffer, P.J.: Before the Court are the preliminary objections of the defendants, Wellspan Health Systems ("Wellspan") and York Hospital, Inc., to the Amended Complaint of the plaintiff, the Estate of Robert N. Stroble. Specifically, the defendants have filed preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer and, alternatively, a motion to strike or for a more specific pleading, and a motion to strike for improper pleading practice. FACTUAL PLEADINGS This wrongful death and survival action was initiated by a praecipe for a Writ of Summons, filed on June 3, 2002. On August 23, 2002, a Rule to File Complaint was issued. The plaintiff filed a Complaint on September 20, 2002. On October 2, 2002, the defendants filed Preliminary Objections in the nature of a demurrer and, alternatively, a motion to strike or for a more specific pleading. The Court heard oral argument on the Preliminary Objections on October 23, 2002. Plaintiff's counsel did not appear for argument, nor did she file a Brief in Opposition. On November 18, 2002, the Court issued an Order granting the defendants' Preliminary Objection for a more specific pleading and granted the plaintiff twenty (20) days to file a proper complaint. On or about December 17, 2002, the defendants served upon the plaintiff a Notice of Intention to File a Praecipe for Entry of Judgment of Non Pros for failure to file a complaint. The plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on December 26, 2002. The plaintiff alleges that on June 5, 2002,4 the defendants negligently provided pharmaceutical products to Robert N. Stroble, now deceased. More specifically, the plaintiff alleges that Stroble had a prescription for Klonopin refilled on May 31,2001, at the Wellspan Pharmacy. The original prescription was held by Middletown Pharmacy, and had authorized approximately seven refills. On June 1, 2001, Stroble received another prescription for the same medication at the York County Hospital Emergency Department. The plaintiff avers that on May 31,2001, and June 1, "2002" [sic], the Wellspan prescription was "on the verge of expiration," and that Stroble did not use the medication for the five to six months prior to May 31, "2002" [sic]. Pursuant to these averments, the plaintiff set forth claims for wrongful death and survival. ~ The date June 5, 2002, is two days after the plaintiff filed the praecipe for a Writ of Summons (filed June 3, 2002). While the plaintiff did not correct this error in the Amended Complaint (filed December 26, 2002), the Court understands this date to be June 5, 2001. 2 I. Defendants' Preliminary Objection in the Nature of a Demurrer The defendants seek a demurrer on several counts. In the understanding that the plaintiff has brought actions for wrongful death and survival under 42 Pa.C.S. § 8301 and Pa.C.S. § 8302, respectively, the defendants positively assert that the Estate of Robert N. Stroble is not a proper plaintiff in wrongful death and survival actions. Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 2202, within a six month period after the death of a decedent, "an action for wrongful death shall be brought only by the personal representative of the decedent for the benefit of those persons entitled by law to recover damages for such wrongful death." Pa. R. Civ. P. 2202(a), (b). In the case that a wrongful death action is not brought within six months after the death of a decedent, an "action may be brought by the personal representative or by any person entitled by law to recover damages in such action as trustee ad litem on behalf of all persons entitled to share in the damages." Pa. R. Civ. P. 2202(b). A personal representative is "the executor or administrator of the estate of a decedent duly qualified by law to bring actions within this Commonwealth." Pa. R. Civ. P. 2201. In addition, the Estate of Robert N. Stroble is not the proper plaintiff in a survival claim.2 The caption of this action names the plaintiff as "The Estate of Robert N. Stroble" only. 2 See D'Orazio v. Locust Lake Village, Inc., 267 Pa. Super. 124, 127 406 A.2d 550, 551-51 (1979) (holding that an estate is not the proper plaintiff in a survival action). 3 Further, plaintiff's counsel signed the Amended Complaint and the verification to the Amended Complaint, both dated December 26, 2002. The verification stated that, due to time constraints, the executor of the estate was unavailable to sign it, but that a signed verification by the executor would be provided "at the earliest possible time." To date, no verification signed by the executor of the estate has been filed. Accordingly, the Court orders the plaintiff to file an amended complaint pursuant to Pa. C.S. §8301 and Pa. C.S. § 8302 to include the executor or administrator of the estate as the named plaintiff in this action. In addition, the Court orders the verification be signed by such executor or administrator. In regards to the defendants' objection in the nature of a demurrer which states that the plaintiff has not properly alleged a claim of negligence, the Court again orders the plaintiff to amend the complaint. The amended complaint should contain all proper elements to a claim of negligence. 3 3 To properly assert a claim of negligence, in the plaintiff's complaint she must allege a duty recognized by law, a breach of that duty, a causal connection between the conduct of the defendant and the injury to the plaintiff, and actual damages. See Kelly v. St. Mary Hosp., 778 A.2d 1224, 1226 (Pa. Super 2001). 4 II. Defendants' Preliminary Objection in the Nature of a Motion to Strike and/or for a More Specific Pleading Relating to Paragraphs 11, 12, 13, 14, 5(a) of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint The defendants seek a motion to strike and/or for a more specific pleading based on allegations contained in paragraphs 11, 12, 13, 14, and 5(a)4 of the plaintiff's Amended Complaint. Specifically, the defendants claim the above- referenced paragraphs set forth blanket allegations of negligence against an unspecified defendant. Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1019(a), "[t]he 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). Specifically, "[p]leadings serve the function of defining issues and giving notice to the opposing party of what the pleader intends to prove at trial so that the opposition may, in turn, prepare to meet such proof with its own evidence." Laursen v. General Hosp. of Monroe County, 259 Pa. Super. 150, 160, 393 A.2d 761,766 (1981) (citations omitted). Further, in a complaint set forth against a professional defendant such as a health care provider, the standard of pleading is higher. "[W]hen the professional skills of the individuals who have devoted years of training, acquiring a reputation in developing a practice, are called into question then clearly more care should be exacted in allegations against these persons than in more common vehicular 4 The plaintiff's Amended Complaint contains two paragraphs numbered 5. The Court accepts Defendants' characterization of the second paragraph numbered 5 as 5(a). 5 situations." Mikula v. Harrisburg Polyclinic Hosp., 58 Pa. D. & C.2d 125, 131 (Dauphin County) (1972). Paragraphs 12, 13, and 5(a) of the plaintiff's Amended Complaint do set forth blanket allegations against an unspecified "Defendant.''5 These paragraphs fail to identify the specific party. Also, these paragraphs merely provide broad and conclusory allegations against such unspecified party or parties. In order to enable each defendant to properly respond to or prepare a defense to the allegations contained in the above-referenced paragraphs, the Court orders the plaintiff to amend the complaint to provide a more specific pleading. III. Defendants' Preliminary Objection in the Nature of a Motion to Strike and/or for a More Specific Pleading Relating to Paragraphs 4, 12, 13 The defendants filed a motion to strike and/or for a more specific pleading based on allegations contained in paragraphs 4, 12, and 13, of the plaintiff's Amended Complaint. Specifically, the defendants claim the above-referenced paragraphs contain conclusory, boilerplate language that act to impermissibly extend the statute of limitations.6 5 Paragraph 12 states, "[d]efendant had a duty to reasonably investigate the facts before dispensing the amount of drugs that were dispensed to Decedent, and should not have dispensed said drugs." PI. Amend. Compl. ¶ 12. Paragraph 13 states, "[d]efendant failed to act reasonably under the circumstances, and such negligence caused the death of Decedent." Id. at ¶ 13. Paragraph 5(a) states, "[d]efendant's negligence caused the wrongful death of Decedent, and Decedent's Estate brings this action under42 Pa. C.S. § 8301 ." Id~ at ¶ 5(a). 6 In this objection, the defendants also restate their objection to paragraphs in the Amended Complaint based on the assertion that the paragraphs are merely broad, factually unsupported and conclusory. See discussion supra Part II. 6 The Court in Connor v. Alleqheny General Hospital addressed this issue regarding the running of the statute of limitations where the original complaint contained a general averment of negligence. Connor v. Allegheny General Hosp., 501 Pa. 306, 461 A.2d 600 (1983). In Connor, the hospital claimed that a proposed amendment to the plaintiff's complaint (after the statute of limitations had run) would impermissibly extend the statute of limitations because the amendment would relate back to the original filing date, thereby prejudicing the adverse party. Id. at 309, 461 A.2d at 602. The Superior Court had affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion for leave to amend on the reasoning that the amendment would introduce a new cause of action and thus extend the statute of limitations. Id~ at 310, 461 A.2d at 602. This extension, the court stated, would constitute "resulting prejudice" to the adverse party. Id. The Supreme Court reversed the ruling by determining that the proposed amendment would not change the cause of action, but merely amplify that which was already averred, thus deeming the running of the statute of limitations irrelevant. Id. In light of the decision in Connor, in the present case the Court finds that the defendants may not be prejudiced by an amended complaint containing more specific pleadings. Therefore, in reference to paragraphs 4, 12, and 13, the Court orders the plaintiff to amend the complaint to provide a more specific pleading. 7 IV. Defendants' Preliminary Objection in the Nature of a Motion to Strike for Improper Pleading Practice Relating to Pa. R. Civ. P. 1020(a) The defendants filed a motion to strike based on Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1020(a), which states that each cause of action must be set forth in a separate count containing a separate demand for relief. Pa. R. Civ. P. 1020(a). The plaintiff's Amended Complaint alleges wrongful death and survival actions under 42 Pa. C.S. § 8301 and 42 Pa. C.S. § 8302, respectively, but fails to set forth these allegations in separate counts containing demands for relief.7 Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1020(a), the Court orders the plaintiff to file a pleading in conformity with that rule. V. Defendants' Preliminary Objection in the Nature of a Motion to Strike for Improper Pleading Practice The defendants filed a motion to strike based on Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1021(b), which states "[a]ny pleading demanding relief for unliquidated damages shall not claim any specific sum." Pa. R. Civ. P. 1021(b). Paragraph 15 of the plaintiff's Amended Complaint alleges, "[d]amages may be preliminarily calculated in the amount of One Million Dollars, $1,000,000.' PI. Amend. Cmpl. ¶ 15. Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1021(b), this specific claim cannot be included in the plaintiff's Amended 7 See supra note 5, at 6. Paragraph 14 of the Amended Complaint states, "Defendants' negligence caused the Decedent pain and suffering prior to his death, and Defendants are liable to Decedent's Estate under 42 Pa. C.S. § 8302, survival action." PI. Amend. Cmpl. ¶ 14. 8 Complaint, and therefore should be stricken. The defendants' final preliminary objection is sustained. James W. Saxton, Esquire Maggie M. Finkelstein, Esquire Stevens & Lee 25 North Queen Street Suite 602 P.O. Box 1594 Lancaster, PA 17608-1594 For the Defendants Vicki Piontek, Esquire P.O. Box 173 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 For the Plaintiff 9 THE ESTATE OF ROBERT N. STROBLE Plaintiff WELLSPAN HEALTH SYSTEMS and YORK HOSPITAL, INC. Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW No. 02-2688 CIVIL TERM IN RE: DEFENDANTS' PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT Before HOFFER, P.J. and OLER, J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of ,2003, upon consideration of defendants Wellspan Health Systems and York Hospital, Inc.'s Preliminary Objections by way of demurrer and motions to strike and/or for a more specific pleading to plaintiff's Amended Complaint, it is hereby ORDERED that the defendants' objections numbered I, II, III, IV and V are SUSTAINED. Plaintiff is directed to file a proper complaint, in accordance with this opinion, within twenty (20) days of receipt of this order. By the Court, Maggie M. Finkelstein, Esquire Stevens & Lee 25 North Queen Street Suite 602, PO Box 1594 Lancaster, PA 17608-1594 For the Defendants George E. Hoffer, P.d. Vicki Piontek, Esquire PO Box 173 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 For the Plaintiff 10 11