Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-5869 Civil ESTER J. LYKES and WILTON K. LYKES, PLAINTIFFS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. JAMES A. YATES, M.D., SAUNDRA WOLFERSBERGER, R.N., PLASTIC SURGERY CENTER, LTD., HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM AND HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY, DEFENDANTS 05-5869 CIVIL TERM IN RE: PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANTS. PLASTIC SURGERY CENTER. LTD.. AND HOLY SPIRIT HEATH SYSTEM AND HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY. TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT BEFORE BAYLEY. J. AND HESS. J. OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Bayley, J., December 19, 2006:-- Plaintiffs, Ester J. Lykes and Wilton K. Lykes filed an amended complaint alleging causes of action against medical providers to Ester J. Lykes. Defendant, James A. Yates, M.D., of Plastic Surgery Center, LTD., performed surgery on Lykes in defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital. Defendant Saundra Wolfersberger, R.N. is employed by Plastic Surgery Center, LTD. Preliminary objections were filed by Plastic Surgery Center, LTD., and Holy Spirit Hospital to the amended complaint. They were briefed 05-5869 CIVIL TERM and argued on December 6, 2006. Defendant, Plastic Surgery Center, LTD., seeks to strike paragraph 69 (a) and (b) in the amended complaint, which alleges negligence against it for: a. failure to timely, properly andlor adequately select, train and supervise its doctors andlor nurses including those identified herein andlor in the medical records pertaining to Mrs. Lykes; b. failing to timely, properly andlor adequately discharge its doctors andlor nurses including those identified herein andlor in the medical records pertaining to Mrs. Lykes, whose services and skills fell below the general recognized standards of acceptable medical andlor nursing services andlor skills. These allegations sound in corporate negligence. In Thompson v. Nason Hospital, 527 Pa. 330 (1991), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania found that a hospital owes the following duty to its patients: (a) a duty to use reasonable care in the maintenance of safe and adequate facilities and equipment; (b) a duty to select and retain only competent physicians; (c) a duty to oversee all persons who practice medicine within its walls as to patient care; and (d) a duty to formulate, adopt and enforce adequate rules and policies to ensure quality care for the patients. In Sutherland v. Monongahela Valley Hospital, 856 A.2d 55 (Pa. Super. 2004), the Superior Court of Pennsylvania stated: We note that the policy considerations underlying the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's creation of the theory of corporate liability for hospitals are not present in the situation of a physician's office. In Thompson, the Supreme Court recognized that "[t]he corporate hospital of today has assumed the role of a comprehensive health center with responsibility for arranging and coordinating the total health care of its patients." Id. at 706. The same cannot be said for a physician's practice group. Accordingly, we decline [an] invitation to extend the negligence principles -2- 05-5869 CIVIL TERM contemplated by Thompson to the case sub judice. In Yee v. Roberts, 878 A.2d 906 (Pa. Super. 2005), the Superior Court upheld the entry of a judgment of non pros for the failure to file a timely certificate of merit in an action alleging malpractice against a dentist and his professional partnership. The opinion includes the following statement: As a professional partnership, appellee Roberts and DeMarsche could be directly liable for its failure to properly train and supervise its employees, see: Heller v. Patwil Homes, Inc., 713 A.2d 105, 109 (Pa.Super.1998), or could be vicariously liable for negligent acts committed by its employees within the course and scope of their duties. See: Sutherland v. Monongahela Valley Hospital, 856 A.2d 55, 62 (Pa.Super.2004). Plaintiffs argue in their brief that "[i]n light of the holding in Yee, plaintiffs believe their amendments were proper in that that eliminated all corporate negligent allegations, except those for which the law states with certainty the recovery is possible, i.e. negligent hiring, supervision and retention." (Footnote omitted.) Plaintiffs misinterpret Yee, which cited Heller v. Patwil Homes, Inc., 713 A.2d 105 (Pa. Super. 1998), in support of its statement that a "professional corporation could be directly liable for the failure to train and supervise its employees." In Heller, a prospective homebuyer brought an action against a homebuilder alleging negligent hiring and supervision of a sales manager employee who defrauded buyers through investments schemes. The Superior Court stated in its opinion: . . . for negligent hiring provides a remedy to injured third parties who would otherwise be foreclosed from recovery under the master-servant doctrine because the wrongful acts of employees in these cases are likely -3- 05-5869 CIVIL TERM to be outside the scope of employment or not in furtherance of the master's business. (Citation omitted.) In the present case, plaintiffs have a claim against Plastic Surgery Center, LTD., based on vicarious liability as pled in its amended complaint. They are precluded by Sutherland v. Monongahela Valley Hospital, from pursing a corporate negligence claim against that entity. We will strike paragraph 69 (a) and (b) from the amended complaint. Holy Spirit Hospital filed preliminary objections on the claim against it for punitive damages and the cause of action against it for corporate negligence. Plaintiffs agree that the claim for punitive damages should be stricken. On the preliminary objection of the Hospital to the corporate negligence claim against it in plaintiffs' initial complaint, we entered an order on June 7,2006, allowing plaintiffs to file an amended complaint "containing adequate factual averments to support a cause of action for corporate negligence." Examining the averments in the amended complaint, we are satisfied that they allege facts in support of the kind of systemic negligence in the actions and procedures of the Hospital sufficient to support the claim. Accordingly, the preliminary objection will be denied. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of December, 2006, IT IS ORDERED: (1) The preliminary objection of defendant, Plastic Surgery Center, LTD., to the cause of action for corporate negligence alleged in paragraph 69 (a) and (b) of -4- 05-5869 CIVIL TERM plaintiffs' amended complaint, IS GRANTED. Paragraph 69 (a) and (b) in the amended complaint ARE STRICKEN. (2) The claim in plaintiffs' amended complaint for punitive damages against Holy Spirit Health System and Holy Spirit Hospital of the Sisters of Christian Charity IS STRICKEN. (3) The preliminary objection of Holy Spirit Health System and Holy Spirit Hospital of the Sisters of Christian Charity to the cause of action against it in plaintiffs' amended complaint for corporate negligence IS DENIED. By the Court, Edgar B. Bayley, J. Peter M. Villari, Esquire Theresa L. Giannone, Esquire Sasha L. Azar, Esquire For Plaintiffs Francis E. Marshall, Jr., Esquire For Holy Spirit Health System and Holy Spirit Hospital of the Sisters of Christian Charity Leigh AJ. Ellis, Esquire Cindy N. Ellis, Esquire For James A Yates, M.D., Saundra Wolfersberger, R.N. and Plastic Surgery Center, L TD :sal -5- ESTER J. LYKES and WILTON K. LYKES, PLAINTIFFS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. JAMES A. YATES, M.D., SAUNDRA WOLFERSBERGER, R.N., PLASTIC SURGERY CENTER, LTD., HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM AND HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY, DEFENDANTS 05-5869 CIVIL TERM IN RE: PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANTS. PLASTIC SURGERY CENTER. LTD.. AND HOLY SPIRIT HEATH SYSTEM AND HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY. TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT BEFORE BAYLEY. J. AND HESS. J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of December, 2006, IT IS ORDERED: (1) The preliminary objection of defendant, Plastic Surgery Center, LTD., to the cause of action for corporate negligence alleged in paragraph 69 (a) and (b) of plaintiffs' amended complaint, IS GRANTED. Paragraph 69 (a) and (b) in the amended complaint ARE STRICKEN. (2) The claim in plaintiffs' amended complaint for punitive damages against Holy Spirit Health System and Holy Spirit Hospital of the Sisters of Christian Charity IS 05-5869 CIVIL TERM STRICKEN. (3) The preliminary objection of Holy Spirit Health System and Holy Spirit Hospital of the Sisters of Christian Charity to the cause of action against it in plaintiffs' amended complaint for corporate negligence IS DENIED. By the Court, Edgar B. Bayley, J. Peter M. Villari, Esquire Theresa L. Giannone, Esquire Sasha L. Azar, Esquire For Plaintiffs Francis E. Marshall, Jr., Esquire For Holy Spirit Health System and Holy Spirit Hospital of the Sisters of Christian Charity Leigh AJ. Ellis, Esquire Cindy N. Ellis, Esquire For James A Yates, M.D., Saundra Wolfersberger, R.N. and Plastic Surgery Center, L TD :sal -2-