2012 PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY UPDATE - Eckert Seamans

In McCandless v. Edwards, 908 A.2d 900 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006), appeal denied, 923 A.2d1174 (Pa. 2007), the Superior Court held that Defendant healthcare provider did not owe a dutyof care to Plaintiff’s decedent, who overdosed on methadone that was stolen from Defendant’sfacility and sold to decedent; therefore Defendant healthcare provider could not be held liable forDecedent’s death.In McCandless, Decedent’s estate filed an action against Defendant healthcare provider,alleging that Defendant was negligent in oversupplying methadone to a patient from whom itwas stolen, in violation of applicable federal regulations. At trial, appellant’s argument waspremised on the theory that Defendant owed a general duty of care to the public at large. Thetrial court ultimately granted Defendant’s motion for a directed verdict, holding that theDefendant healthcare provider did not owe any duty to the decedent.On appeal, the Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s entry of a directed verdict onbehalf of Defendant. As a preliminary matter, the court noted that in order for a cause of actionin negligence to lie, the plaintiff must demonstrate that he was owed a duty of care by thedefendant, that the defendant breached this duty, and that the breach resulted in injury and actualloss. The court explained that in determining whether Defendant did, in fact, owe a duty to theparty claiming negligence, the following factors must be considered:(1) the relationship between the parties; (2) the social utility of theactor’s conduct; (3) the nature of the risk imposed andforeseeability of the harm incurred; (4) the consequences ofimposing a duty upon the actor; and (5) the overall public interestin the proposed solution.Id. at 903-04 (citing F.D.P. ex. rel. S.M.P. v. Ferrara, 804 A.2d 1221, 1231 (Pa. Super. Ct.2002)). The court further explained that, “in determining whether to create a duty of care, themost important factor to consider is social policy.” Id. at 904 (citing Ferrara, 804 A.2d at 1231).Applying the Ferrara factors, the Superior Court agreed with the trial court that norelationship existed between Defendant healthcare provider and the decedent, and that Defendantonly had a cognizable duty of care to its patients. Id. In support of this proposition, the SuperiorCourt pointed to the fact that creating a duty of care between healthcare providers and the“public at large” might interfere with the treatment of patients and thus fail to serve the publicinterest. Finally, the Superior Court held that the fact that Defendant took steps to regulate thedissemination of methadone in accordance with federal guidelines and “general principles ofsocial responsibility,” and that Defendant maintained internal guidelines governing theadministration of medication, in no way created a de facto duty of care to persons in decedent’sposition. Id. at 904In F.D.P. ex. Rel. S.M.P. v. Ferrara, 804 A.2d 1221 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2002), appeal denied,847 A.2d 1286 (Pa. 2004), itself, the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s ordergranting Defendant’s preliminary objections. This matter involved a resident of a group homewith a long standing history of sexually deviant behavior. While visiting his family, Ferraramolested a young girl. The child’s family sued the home, alleging that it breached a duty owed5