Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-5626 Civil DUANE M. DONISON, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW HCR MANOR CARE, Defendant NO. 05-5626 CIVIL TERM IN RE: DEFENDANT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT BEFORE OLER and GUIDO, JJ. OPINION and ORDER OF COURT OLER, 1., September 27, 2006. In this civil case, an individual has sued a nursing home as a result of its allegedly incorrect advice that certain medical insurance coverage on his spouse would not pay for nursing home care that she needed. 1 In reliance upon this advice, according to the complaint, Plaintiff incurred various financial losses in the process of securing his spouse's nursing home care? The complaint contains counts entitled "Negligence" and "Detrimental Reliance." For disposition at this time are preliminary objections filed by Defendant to Plaintiffs complaint.3 The preliminary objections consist of (a) a demurrer to the negligence claim, (b) a demurrer to the "detrimental reliance" claim, (c) a motion to strike or direct amendment of the complaint for failure to attach to the complaint any writing upon which it was based, and (d) a motion to strike the complaint based upon Plaintiff s incapacity to prosecute claims on behalf of his 4 spouse. 1 Plaintiffs Complaint, ~~ 13-14, filed April 3, 2006 (hereinafter Complaint,~. 2 Complaint, ~~ 17-18. 3 Preliminary Objections of Defendant, HCR Manor Care, to Plaintiffs Complaint, filed April 25, 2006 (hereinafter Defendant's Preliminary Objections, ~. 4 Defendant's Preliminary Objections, ~~ 3-6, 7-11, 12-16, 17-21. Oral argument on the preliminary objections was held on September 6, 2006. For the reasons stated in this opinion, the preliminary objections will be sustained in part and denied in part. DISCUSSION The facts alleged in Plaintiff s complaint may be summarized as follows. Plaintiff is Duane M. Donison, an adult individual residing in Harrisburg, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania.5 Defendant is HCR Manor Care, a nursing home located in Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 6 On December 5, 2000, Plaintiffs spouse had surgery as a result of rheumatoid arthritis,? and on February 9, 2001, Plaintiff applied for her admission to Defendant nursing home.8 Defendant incorrectly informed a governmental agency that the medical insurance of Plaintiff's spouse did not cover her nursing home care,9 as a consequence of which Plaintiff incurred certain financial losses in the process of applying for public assistance for her nursing home care.10 On March 30, 2003, Plaintiffs spouse died.ll Plaintiff subsequently discovered that the information provided by Defendant, which he had relied upon in incurring the aforesaid financial losses, had been incorrect12 and that her insurance did provide coverage for the nursing home care in question. 13 The first claim in Plaintiff s complaint is for negligence. 14 The second claim, for "detrimental reliance," appears to be contractual in nature,15 based upon 5 Complaint, ~ 1. 6 Complaint, ~ 2. 7 Complaint, ~ 6. 8 Complaint, ~ 8. 9 Complaint, ~~ 12-14. 10 Complaint, ~~ 16-18. 11 Complaint, ~ 22. 12 Complaint, ~ 23. 13 Complaint, ~ 21. 14 Complaint, ~~ 25-32. 2 Plaintiff s entry "into a contractual agreement with HCR Manor Care that the nursing home would provide skilled nursing care to Plaintiff s wife in exchange for payment of services,,,16 said services to include "informed advice on billing and payment of the services.,,17 Plaintiff s complaint does not contain any attachment in the form of a written contract. Relief requested as to each count is "judgment against Defendant in an amount in excess of the arbitration limit, a[ nd] all other relief that this Court deems to be just and proper." 18 DISCUSSION Negligence. "The necessary elements of any negligence claim are: (a) a duty owed by defendant to plaintiff; (2) a failure by defendant to conform his conduct to the standard of care required; (3) a causal connection between the conduct and the resulting injury; and (4) actual loss or damage by plaintiff. . .. Duty, in any given situation, is predicated on the relationship existing between the parties at the relevant time." Murphy v. City of Duquesne, 2006 WL 1191679, at 2, 898 A.2d 676, 679 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2006). In this regard, it is a well-established general principle that one who undertakes to perform a service for another, even without reward, is bound to exercise reasonable care and can be held responsible for misfeasance . . . . Guy v. Liederbach, 501 Pa. 47, 55,459 A.2d 744, 748 (1983). In reviewing a preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer, which challenges the legal sufficiency of a pleading, the court "must accept all material facts set forth in the [pleading,] as well as all the inferences reasonably deducible therefrom as true." Powell v. Drumheller, 539 Pa. 484, 489, 653 A.2d 619, 621 15 Complaint, ~~ 33-38. 16 Complaint, ~ 34. 17 Complaint, ~ 35. 18 Complaint, ~~ 32, 38. 3 (1995) (citations omitted). A preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer to a complaint should be sustained only when, "on the facts averred, the law says with certainty that no recovery is possible." Id In the present case, in view of the relationship alleged between Plaintiff and Defendant, and the misfeasance alleged on the part of Defendant in performing a service undertaken on behalf of Plaintiff, it would be premature to conclude that as a matter of law Plaintiff can not prevail on his negligence claim. For this reason, Defendant's demurrer to count one of Plaintiff s complaint will be denied. Breach of contract. "Three elements are necessary to plead properly a cause of action for breach of contract: (1) the existence of a contract, including its essential terms, (2) the breach of a duty imposed by the contract and (3) resultant damages." Omicron Systems, Inc. v. Weiner, 2004 P A Super. 389, ,-r35, 860 A.2d 554, 564 (citation omitted). The name by which a Plaintiff designates a claim in a complaint is not conclusive as to the sufficiency of the pleading. Weiss v. Equibank, 313 Pa. Super. 446,453, 460 A.2d 271, 274-75 (1983). In the present case, Plaintiff has pleaded the existence of a contract between the parties, the breach of a duty owed by Defendant under the contract to provide correct advice as to the applicability of certain insurance in relation to its services, and resultant damages to Plaintiff. In view of these allegations, it would be premature to conclude that Plaintiff can not prevail on a contract theory against Defendant, and Defendant's demurrer to count two of Plaintiff s complaint will be denied. Absence of attachment of writing to complaint. Under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1019, (h) When any claim. . . is based upon an agreement, the pleading shall state specifically if the agreement is oral or written. (i) When any claim. . . is based upon a writing, the pleader shall attach a copy of the writing, or the material part thereof, but if the writing or copy is not accessible to the pleader, it is sufficient so to state, together with the reason, and to set forth the substance in writing. 4 Pa. R.C.P. 1019(h), (i). "If the complaint does not so specify, the inference is that it is oral." Harvey Probber, Inc. v. Kauffman, 181 Pa. Super. 281, 285, 124 A.2d 699, 700 (1956). An appropriate remedy for a violation of these rules is to afford Plaintiff an opportunity to amend the complaint to comply with them. See, e.g., Goldman v. Schlanger, 49 Pa. D. & C.2d 225, 1970 WL 8781 (Pike Co. 1970). Accordingly, Defendant's preliminary objection will be sustained with regard to this issue, and Plaintiff will be afforded a period of 20 days within which to comply with Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 1019 as it relates to writings; in the absence of a timely amendment, the claims of Plaintiff will be conclusively presumed to be not based upon a writing. Defendant's incapacity. A review of the complaint in this case reveals that Plaintiff is asserting a claim for damages suffered by him and not his deceased spouse. Accordingly, Defendant's preliminary objection predicated upon the theory that Plaintiff is pursuing causes of action applicable to another person can not be sustained. F or the foregoing reasons, the following order will be entered: ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 2ih day of September, 2006, upon consideration of Defendant's preliminary objections to Plaintiff s complaint, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, it is ordered and directed as follows: I. Defendant's preliminary objection based upon Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1019 as it relates to a writing is sustained, and Plaintiff is afforded a period of 20 days within which to filed an amended complaint complying with Rule 1019; in the absence of a timely amendment, the claims of Plaintiff will be conclusively presumed to be not based upon a writing; and 5 2. In all other respects, Defendant's preliminary objections are denied. BY THE COURT, sf 1. Wesley Oler, Jr. 1. Wesley Oler, Jr., 1. Andrew 1. Ostrowski, Esq. 4311 North Sixth Street Harrisburg, P A 17110 Attorney for Plaintiff B. Craig Black, Esq. Lauren M. Burnette, Esq. 2040 Linglestown Road Suite 302 Harrisburg, P A 17110 Attorneys for Defendant 6 DUANE M. DONISON, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW HCR MANOR CARE, Defendant NO. 05-5626 CIVIL TERM IN RE: DEFENDANT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT BEFORE OLER and GUIDO, JJ. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 2ih day of September, 2006, upon consideration of Defendant's preliminary objections to Plaintiff s complaint, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, it is ordered and directed as follows: I. Defendant's preliminary objection based upon Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1019 as it relates to a writing is sustained, and Plaintiff is afforded a period of 20 days within which to filed an amended complaint complying with Rule 1019; in the absence of a timely amendment, the claims of Plaintiff will be conclusively presumed to be not based upon a writing; and 2. In all other respects, Defendant's preliminary objections are denied. BY THE COURT, 1. Wesley Oler, Jr., 1. Andrew 1. Ostrowski, Esq. 4311 North Sixth Street Harrisburg, P A 17110 Attorney for Plaintiff B. Craig Black, Esq. Lauren M. Burnette, Esq. 2040 Linglestown Road Suite 302 Harrisburg, P A 17110 Attorneys for Defendant