The Pittsburgh team of John Burns and Gianna Kelly recently obtained summary judgment in favor of the firm's clients, a neurologist, and the neurology department of a healthcare provider.
The plaintiff’s wrongful death/survival and negligence case arose from an automobile accident in Butler County, Pennsylvania where the co-defendant, who was a patient of the firm's clients, allegedly crossed the center line, striking the plaintiff's vehicle head-on. As a result of the accident the plaintiffs, who were husband and wife, suffered multiple severe injuries. Both plaintiffs underwent multiple procedures and the husband-plaintiff, after several months in the hospital, ultimately died from his injuries.
The plaintiff brought suit against the patient for negligence and the patient’s mother and stepfather, on a negligent entrustment theory. The co-defendant/driver was a patient of the firm's clients for approximately nine months prior to the accident and had been previously diagnosed by another physician as having a seizure disorder. Further, in her last visit, approximately two months prior to the accident, the patient reported to the client that she had experienced multiple "episodes" which she described as not losing consciousness, but staring, and being limited in her abilities. The plaintiffs alleged that these episodes constituted seizures, and pursuant to Pennsylvania's reporting statute, the client was negligent for failing to file the necessary report with the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation which would have resulted in the co-defendant patient's license being suspended. The plaintiffs further alleged that the co-defendant/patient suffered a seizure immediately prior to the accident occurring.
Burns and Kelly, after conducting discovery, filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that under Pennsylvania law, no duty was owed by the firm’s clients to a third-party under the circumstances. They further argued that Pennsylvania courts had interpreted the reporting statute and concluded that third-parties cannot bring a private cause of action based upon an alleged violation/failure to report.
Argument on the motion for summary judgment was held in November 2021. The court ultimately granted summary judgment, holding that a duty is not owed by a physician to a third-party under certain circumstances for its patient’s tortious acts if they are not foreseeable. The court agreed with the Pittsburgh team’s arguments that under the circumstances, the patient/co-defendant was in a superior position to know if she was capable of operating vehicle on the date in question than was the client, and that none of the conduct of the client in any way aggravated the patient's condition.
Given the extensive medical bills/special damages at stake and the minimal available insurance coverage from co-defendants, the clients were the main target of this litigation and the entry of summary judgment clearly assisted the client in avoiding a large exposure.