2012 PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY UPDATE - Eckert Seamans

espond properly to Plaintiff-Wife’s complaints; and 2) corporate liability for both negligentsupervision of the obstetrician’s care and lack of appropriate procedures and protocols whendispensing “telephonic medical advice” to subscribers.The Court held that the doctrine of corporate liability should extend to HMOs. Central tothe Shannon court’s conclusion was its finding that HMOs, like hospitals, “play central role[s] inthe total health care” of their patients. Id. at 835 (quoting Thompson,591 A. 2d at 708). Thecourt reasoned that the Plaintiff was limited in her health care choices by the HMO, whichrequired her to call either her obstetrician or the HMO’s emergency line (staffed by the HMO’striage nurses) before receiving medical care. Id. Because HMO subscribers are “given little orno say so in the stewardship of their care,” and because HMO’s “involve themselves daily indecisions affecting their subscriber’s medical care,” the Superior Court held that Thompson’scorporate liability duties should “be equally applied to an HMO when that HMO is performingthe same or similar functions as a hospital.” Id. at 836.(e)Extension of Corporate LiabilityIn Milliner v. DiGuglielmo, No. 08-4905, 2011 WL 2357824 (E.D. Pa. June 8, 2011),a prison inmate fell from the top bunk of his cell, resulting in extreme pain throughout hisbody, including his lower back. An MRI eventually revealed “several cervical discherniations, protrusions, and bulges as well as significant compression of the cervical spinalcord and possible edema on an myleomalacia of the cord itself.” Id. at *1. Plaintiffunderwent a surgery at an outside hospital, which left him immediately paralyzed from theneck down, though some movement was eventually regained in other parts of his body.Following the surgery, plaintiff received poor care and submitted numerous complaints tothe prison administrators.Plaintiff eventually filed suit against the doctor who performed the surgery, thehospital at which the surgery was performed, and various other “medical defendants” whoworked at the correctional facility. Plaintiff also filed suit against Prison Health Services,Inc. (“PHS”), a “Delaware corporation [that] contracted with the [Pennsylvania]Department of Corrections to provide health care services to inmates on behalf of theDepartment of Corrections.” Id. at *6. Plaintiff alleged corporate liability on the part ofPHS, amongst other claims.PHS filed a motion to dismiss the corporate negligence claim, arguing that it couldnot be held liable under the theory of corporate liability because the Thompson rule waslimited to entities that play a central role in a patient’s total health care. The Courtdisagreed and denied the motion to dismiss, noting that the plaintiff had sufficiently allegedthat PHS was involved with the inmates’ care to such a degree that it did play a “centralrole” in their care. Moreover, the Court cited prior Eastern District caselaw, i.e., Wheelerv. Prison Health Servs., Inc., No. 09-410, 2010 WL 3489405 at *7 (E.D. Pa. 2010), for theproposition that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court “would extend corporate negligence toan institution responsible for an inmate’s healthcare, like PHS.”3. Peer Review Protection Act (“PRPA”)75