Thursday, March 22, 2012
Protection of Benevolent Gesture by Healthcare Providers is Approved by House, now in Senate Judciary Committee
After an unexpected outcome resulting in an injury to a patient, most healthcare providers naturally wish to express their sympathy or remorse to the patient and/or family, yet hesitate for fear of such statements being used against them. In many states, such benevolent expressions, including apologies, cannot be used as an admission of liability against the healthcare provider in later civil proceedings. Pennsylvania, however, has no such protection. HB 495 is meant to remedy that, and bring Pennsylvania in line with the majority of other states. This bill has been approved by the House, and is currently pending in the Judiciary Committee for the Senate. See the link on the right side of this blog for the text and related information about this proposed law.
Friday, March 16, 2012
Venue Rules the Day: Superior Court Approves Transfer of Case from Philadelphia to Bucks County
While the change in venue rules for medical malpractice cases has significantly reduced the number of cases filed in Philadelphia county against hospitals and medical practices located in suburban counties, the traditional venue rules still apply to non-medical negligence cases. Thus, premises liability, breach of contract and other actions may still be filed in Philadelphia County against defendants based elsewhere, provided that the plaintiff can establish the necessary contacts with the county in which the action is filed. The applicable Rule of Civil Procedure, 2179, requires that the plaintiff establish that the action arose in one of the following: (1) the county where the
business is located; (2) a county where it "regularly conducts
business"; (3) the county where the cause of action arose; or (4) a
county in which the "transaction or occurrence" giving rise to the cause
of action took place.
In a recent Superior Court case, the appellate court upheld the transfer of a slip and fall action out of Philadelphia County, finding that the defendant, the Parx Casino in Bensalem, PA, did not regularly conduct business in Philadelphia County. The court held that advertising alone was insufficient to make that connection, and also determined that the conduct of a "sister corporation" did not legally connect the defendant to Philadelphia County. See Wimble v. Parx Casino and Greenwood Gaming and Entertainment Inc., PICS No. 12-0531.
In a recent Superior Court case, the appellate court upheld the transfer of a slip and fall action out of Philadelphia County, finding that the defendant, the Parx Casino in Bensalem, PA, did not regularly conduct business in Philadelphia County. The court held that advertising alone was insufficient to make that connection, and also determined that the conduct of a "sister corporation" did not legally connect the defendant to Philadelphia County. See Wimble v. Parx Casino and Greenwood Gaming and Entertainment Inc., PICS No. 12-0531.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)