2012 PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY UPDATE - Eckert Seamans

The Second Amended Complaint does however contain a detailedrecitation of the facts upon which the corporate negligence claim ispredicated. In addition, he specifically pled, among other things,that Hospital failed to have proper rules, policies, and proceduresin place concerning communication of critical test results andavailability of existing patient medical records from prioradmissions. He also specifically pled that Hospital failed toenforce its existing rules, policies, and procedures concerning suchmatters. These pled facts are certainly sufficient to give notice toHospital that Plaintiff reasonably asserted that its interdepartmentalcommunication procedures were deficient, and that this deficiencywas the predicate upon which the corporate negligence claim wasbased.Id. at 246 (citations omitted).Accordingly, the court concluded that Plaintiff’s corporate negligence claim stated alegally cognizable cause of action under the Federal Rules, and Abington’s motion to dismisswas denied (the corporate negligence claim was ultimately dismissed on other grounds,however). Id.(iii) Expert testimony RequiredUnless the matter under investigation is so simple and the lack of skill or want of care isso obvious as to be within the ordinary experience and comprehension of even non-professionalpersons, a plaintiff must produce expert testimony to establish that the hospital deviated from anaccepted standard of care and that the deviation was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’sharm. Welsh v. Bulger, 548 Pa. 504, 698 A.2d 581 (1997).In Rauch v. Mike-Mayer, 2001 Pa. Super. 270, 783 A.2d 815 (2001), appeal denied, 568Pa. 634, 793 A.2d 909 (2002), the Superior Court held that where a hospital’s negligence is notobvious, Plaintiff’s expert witness must, in order to make out a prima facie case of medicalmalpractice, establish the following: (1) that the hospital deviated from the standard of care; and(2) the deviation was a substantial factor in bringing about the harm. Plaintiff’s experts’ reportsin this case had fulfilled these requirements and, therefore, the trial court had erred in grantingDefendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The Superior Court reversed.(iv) Certificate of Merit RequiredA claim for corporate negligence against a hospital (or other qualifying corporate entity)requires the filing of a proper Certificate of Merit stating that an appropriate licensedprofessional has opined in writing that there is a “reasonable probability” that the care, skill, orknowledge associated with the treatment, practice, or work of the defendant fell outsideacceptable professional standards and that such conduct was a cause in bringing about the harm.See Pa. R. Civ. P. 1042.3; see also, Rostock v. Anzalone, 904 A.2d 943 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006);Weaver v. Univ. of Pittsburgh Med. Ctr., No. 08-411, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57988 (W.D. Pa.July 30, 2008). Critically, a Certificate of Merit submitted in support of a corporate negligenceclaim must allege that the corporate entity itself deviated from the appropriate standard of care,not that the corporate entity’s liability is based solely upon the actions or inactions of other69