2012 PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY UPDATE - Eckert Seamans

Plaintiff’s Contract ClaimsThe Court held that under Pennsylvania Law, a breach of contract action is permissible inthe medical malpractice context, only when the parties have contracted for a specific result,which was not the situation in the instant case. The Court dismissed plaintiff’s breach ofcontract claims.In Kauffman v. Franz, No. 07-CV-5043, 2010 WL 1257958 (E.D. Pa. 2010), thismemorandum opinion was issued in response to defendants’ Motion For Reconsideration.Defendants claimed that the Court should reconsider its denial of their Motion for SummaryJudgment based on the recent Third Circuit Opinion in Torretti v. Main Line Hospitals, Inc.The facts presented to the Court in Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment are asfollows: Plaintiff’s decedent contacted a friend and explained to her that he was experiencingchest pains and was having difficulty breathing and that he may be having a heart attack.Decedent’s friend took him to the ER where he was admitted with a diagnosis of “difficultybreathing.” The Triage Nurse listed decedent’s chief complaint as an “anxiety attack.” Decedentwas seen by the ER attending who upon seeing a chief complaint of anxiety ordered a psychiatricassessment. The assessment was performed by a mental health worker who noted that decedenthad come to the ER with complaints of chest pains. The mental health worker informed theattending that decedent had complained of chest pains. The attending followed up with decedentwho at that point denied experiencing chest pain. Decedent was discharged from the hospitalwith a prescription for Ativan and died of a myocardial infarction six hours later.The Court recognized that under Torretti, the plaintiff must show that the hospital hasactual knowledge of a patient’s emergency condition before they can be successful under the“stabilization prong” of the EMTALA. In the instant case the Court found that the hospital hadactual knowledge of decedent’s emergency condition once decedent told the mental healthworker that he was experiencing chest pain, despite denying the chest pain when asked by theattending later on.Based on the above, the Court denied defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration holdingthat even after Torretti, it was unable to determine plaintiff’s EMTALA claim at summaryjudgment.(d)Corporate Negligence(i)General RuleIn Thompson v. Nason Hospital, 591 A.2d 703 (Pa. 1991), the Pennsylvania SupremeCourt held that a hospital owes a non-delegable duty directly to a patient. If the hospitalbreaches that duty, it is subject to direct liability under the theory of corporate negligence.Unlike the theories of respondeat superior and ostensible agency, it is not necessary to show thenegligence of a third party to establish a cause of action for corporate negligence. Rather, it issufficient to show that the hospital itself acted in a negligent manner.62