2012 PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY UPDATE - Eckert Seamans

they had not raised them in the court below by way of a timely response to Defendant’s motionfor summary judgment. Consequently, the order granting summary judgment in favor ofDefendant was affirmed.In Chaney v. Meadville Medical Center, 912 A.2d 300, (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006), reargumentdenied, 2007 Pa. Super. LEXIS 12 (Pa. Super. Ct. Jan. 2, 2007), Plaintiff brought a malpracticeaction against Meadville Medical Center (MMC) and a physician, Dr. Glenn A. Bollard, after hereighteen-year-old daughter died following a bout of pneumonia and severe hypoxia. AfterPlaintiff instituted her action, Defendants moved to have certain paragraphs and subparagraphsstricken from Plaintiff’s complaint. The court granted Defendants’ motion, and Plaintiffsubsequently filed a petition for rule to amend her complaint. Plaintiff’s petition was denied, andsummary judgment was entered for Defendants. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the trial courterred by refusing to allow her to amend her complaint because the proposed amendments were“merely amplifications of facts already pleaded in the . . . complaint.” Id. at 303.Affirming in part and reversing in part, the Superior Court noted that:[a]n amendment introducing a new cause of action will not bepermitted after the Statute of Limitations has run in favor of adefendant’. . . [o]nly if the proposed amendment merely amplifies,as opposed to altering, the cause of action already averred, will itbe allowed if the statute of limitations has run.Id. at 303-4 (quoting Stalsitz v. Allentown Hosp., 814 A.2d 766, 776 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2002)).Given that the statute of limitations had run before Plaintiff moved to amend hercomplaint, the Superior Court examined the proposed amendments and affirmed summaryjudgment with regard to the amendments establishing new causes of action against Dr. Bollardbut reversed summary judgment with regard to the proposed amendments that merely amplifiedor expanded theories of liability that were included in the original complaint.D. Wrongful Death and Survival ActionsThe discovery rule is generally inapplicable to wrongful death and survival actions. SeePastierik v. Duquesne Light Co., 526 A.2d 323 (Pa. 1987); Anthony v. Koppers Co., 436 A.2d181 (Pa. 1981); Moyer v. Rubright, 651 A.2d 1139 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1994), appeal denied, 659A.2d 988 (Pa. 1995). Accordingly, in actions brought under the Wrongful Death and SurvivalStatutes, 42 Pa. Cons. Stat.. §§ 8301-02, the statute of limitations commences, at the latest, uponthe death of the individual, and not from the date the survivors knew, or should have known, thecause of death. This is true even if the deceased person is a child, as the minority tolling statutedoes not apply to a deceased minor, and does not toll such an action until two years after thechild would have reached the age of eighteen. Holt v. Lenko, 791 A.2d 1212 (Pa. Super. Ct.2002).VI.RULES AND STATUTES REFLECTING TORT REFORM INITIATIVES94