2012 PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY UPDATE - Eckert Seamans

sliced his wrist and arm with a razorblade. Id. at *2. Nearly one (1) year after his initial request,the decedent hung himself with a bed sheet in his cell. Id. at *3. Among other claims, theplaintiff, administrator of the decedent’s estate, set forth a claim of corporate liability againstMHM. Id. at *4. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that “MHM’s policies prevented [thedecedent] from receiving proper in or outpatient psychiatric care, and that these policies weremotivated by MHM’s desire to maximize profits.” Id. at *3. The plaintiff maintains that, due toMHM’s policies, the decedent did not receive appropriate care, which caused a decline in hismental health and ultimately his death. Id.The defendant MHM filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of CivilProcedure 12(b)(6). Id. at *4. In its motion, the defendant argued, inter alia, that the “plaintiffhas failed to state a claim of corporate liability as this is a limited cause of action in Pennsylvaniawhich does not extend beyond hospitals.” Id. at *7. The district court noted that thePennsylvania Supreme Court had not yet ruled on this issue; therefore, it was tasked atattempting to predict how that court would rule. Id. The court agreed with prior decisions of theEastern District of Pennsylvania, as well as other lower Pennsylvania state courts, which havepermitted corporate liability claims against private companies, such as MHM. Id. Specifically,the court explained that the Pennsylvania Courts have held institutions liable where the patients“[h]ad been constrained in their choice of medical care options by the entity sued.” Id.Moreover, the court noted “[n]o difference between the services provided by a hospital and theservices provided by health care institutions in prisons.” Id. Consequently, the court concludedthat “[a] corporation which provides medical services must be held to the same duty of care ashospitals.” Id. at *8. The court further found that the plaintiff had sufficiently pled this claim.Accordingly, the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss was denied on this issue. Id.See also Vochinksy v. Geo Group, Inc., 2009 WL 4017254 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 20, 2009)(holding plaintiff failed to state corporate liability claim where plaintiff failed to allege corporatedefendant’s knowledge of defect in procedure that resulted in harm to plaintiff).In Stroud v. Abington Memorial Hospital, 546 F. Supp. 2d. 238 (E.D. Pa. 2008), theUnited State District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held that, under the moreliberal federal pleading standards, Plaintiff sufficiently pled a claim of corporate negligencedespite failing to allege that Defendant hospital was aware of its inadequate policies andprocedures.In Stroud, Plaintiff sued Defendant Abington Memorial Hospital (“Abington”) followingthe death of his father due to complications after knee surgery. In the Complaint, Plaintiffalleged that Abington was negligent for failing to have in place and enforce proper policies andprocedures for interdepartmental communication. Id. at 242. Defendant Abington subsequentlyfiled a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule 12(b)(6), arguing, inter alia, that Plaintiff’sSecond Amended Complaint failed to state a claim for corporate negligence by “fail[ing] toadequately plead that it knew or reasonably should have known of the alleged failings in itspatient care procedures.” Id. at 245.Taking into the account the relaxed federal pleading standards, the court held thatalthough plaintiff had not expressly pled that Abington actually or constructively knew of thealleged defects in its patient care procedures:68