corporate negligence claim in Pennsylvania

2023Id; see Edwards, 652 A.2d at 1387 (to make out a viable Thompson claim, a plaintiff must prove that a hospital knew or should have known of the mistake or deficiency.) In other words, when a plaintiff claims that the hospital failed to supervise the patient’s treatment, what the hospital should have known under the circumstances becomes a jury question. ____________________________________________ 4 Notably, that case also involved allegations that York breached the second and fourth duties owed under Thompson, supra. The jury similarly rejected the corporate-negligence claim under those theor

2023Id; see Edwards, 652 A.2d at 1387 (to make out a viable Thompson claim, a plaintiff must prove that a hospital knew or should have known of the mistake or deficiency.) In other words, when a plaintiff claims that the hospital failed to supervise the patient’s treatment, what the hospital should have known under the circumstances becomes a jury question. ____________________________________________ 4 Notably, that case also involved allegations that York breached the second and fourth duties owed under Thompson, supra. The jury similarly rejected the corporate-negligence claim under those theor

2025Thus, under this theory, a corporation is held directly liable, as opposed to - 13 - J-A28033-24 vicariously liable, for its own negligent acts.” Welsh v. Bulger, 698 A.2d 581, 585 (Pa. 1997) (citations omitted and formatting altered); see also Bisher v. Lehigh Valley Health Network, Inc., 265 A.3d 383 , 415 n.18 (Pa. 2021) (noting that a claim that a hospital did not have proper protocols in place “implicates the type of systemic negligence that is the hallmark of a corporate negligence claim”).

2025Thus, under this theory, a corporation is held directly liable, as opposed to - 13 - J-A28033-24 vicariously liable, for its own negligent acts.” Welsh v. Bulger, 698 A.2d 581, 585 (Pa. 1997) (citations omitted and formatting altered); see also Bisher v. Lehigh Valley Health Network, Inc., 265 A.3d 383 , 415 n.18 (Pa. 2021) (noting that a claim that a hospital did not have proper protocols in place “implicates the type of systemic negligence that is the hallmark of a corporate negligence claim”).

2024Appellees also claimed that, in a recent case, this Court “explained [that] the doctrine of corporate negligence [did] not require a hospital to direct or override its providers’ clinical judgment.” Id. at 10, citing Ruff v. York Hospital, 257 A.3d 43 (Pa. Super. 2021).

2024Appellees claimed this Court recently “explained [in Ruff that] the doctrine of corporate negligence does not require a hospital to direct or override its’ providers clinical judgment.” Id. at 14; see also Ruff, 257 A.3d at 53-54 .

2023Id; see Edwards, 652 A.2d at 1387 (to make out a viable Thompson claim, a plaintiff must prove that a hospital knew or should have known of the mistake or deficiency.) In other words, when a plaintiff claims that the hospital failed to supervise the patient’s treatment, what the hospital should have known under the circumstances becomes a jury question. ____________________________________________ 4 Notably, that case also involved allegations that York breached the second and fourth duties owed under Thompson, supra. The jury similarly rejected the corporate-negligence claim under those theor

2023Id; see Edwards, 652 A.2d at 1387 (to make out a viable Thompson claim, a plaintiff must prove that a hospital knew or should have known of the mistake or deficiency.) In other words, when a plaintiff claims that the hospital failed to supervise the patient’s treatment, what the hospital should have known under the circumstances becomes a jury question. ____________________________________________ 4 Notably, that case also involved allegations that York breached the second and fourth duties owed under Thompson, supra. The jury similarly rejected the corporate-negligence claim under those theor

2005Subsequent to Thompson , in the case of Shannon v. McNulty, 718 A.2d 828 (Pa. Super. 1998), the Superior Court reviewed the Thompson case and held that it was proper to apply the corporate negligence doctrine from Thompson to health maintenance organizations (HMOs) such as involved with Shannon .

2000The court in Shannon was faced with applying the corporate negligence doctrine to health maintenance organizations and held that because HMOs “involve themselves daily in decisions affecting their subscriber’s medical care,” Thompson’s corporate liability duties should “be equally applied to an HMO when that HMO is performing the same or similar functions as a hospital.” Shannon, 718 A.2d at 835, 836 .

2023Hence, the Thompson Court, for the first time, held that a hospital had a responsibility to “ensure [a] patient’s safety and well-being while at a hospital” and imposed liability directly upon a hospital if it “fail[ed] to uphold any of the . . . four [expressly enumerated] duties.” Whittington v. Episcopal Hosp., 768 A.2d 1144 , 1149 (Pa. Super. 2001), citing Thompson, 591 A.2d at 707-708.

2002As summarized in Whittington v. Episcopal Hospital, 768 A.2d 1144, 1149 (Pa. Super. 2001): “In order to present a prima facie case of corporate negligence, [plaintiff was] required to introduce evidence of the following: (1) [hospital] acted in deviation from the standard of care; (2) [hospital] had actual or constructive notice of the defects or procedures which created the harm; and (3) that the conduct was a substantial factor in bringing about the harm.” As to the first and third elements necessary to support a claim under the corporate negligence doctrine against the hospital, that is, br

2023Hosp., 901 A.2d 1042 , 1045 (Pa. Super. 2006) (element of actual or constructive notice is critical because “the corporate negligence doctrine contemplates a kind of systemic negligence in the actions and procedures of the hospital rather than in the individual acts of its employees”).

2023Hosp., 901 A.2d 1042, 1045 (Pa. Super. 2006) (element of actual or constructive notice is critical because “the corporate negligence doctrine contemplates a kind of systemic negligence in the actions and procedures of the hospital rather than in the individual acts of its employees”).

2018Id. at 41-44.3 This Court has held that “[a] motion for new trial on the grounds that the verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence, concedes that there is sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict.” Commonwealth v. Rayner, 153 A.3d 1049 , 1054 n. 4 (Pa.Super. 2016) (quoting Commonwealth v. Widmer, 560 Pa. 308, 315 , 744 A.2d 745, 751 (2000)).

2018Id. at 41-44.3 This Court has held that “[a] motion for new trial on the grounds that the verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence, concedes that there is sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict.” Commonwealth v. Rayner, 153 A.3d 1049 , 1054 n. 4 (Pa.Super. 2016) (quoting Commonwealth v. Widmer, 560 Pa. 308, 315 , 744 A.2d 745, 751 (2000)).

2005This was clearly a claim for corporate liability, a “cause of action for corporate negligence [which] arises from the policies, actions or inaction of the institution itself rather than the specific acts of individual hospital agents.” White v. Behlke, 69 D.&C.4th 353, 362 (2004) (emphasis added) (citing Welsh v. Bulger, 548 Pa. 504, 513 , 698 A.2d 581, 585 (1997) and Moser v. Heistand, 545 Pa. 554, 560 , 681 A.2d 1322, 1326 (1996)). “[SJince a corporate liability claim is not based solely on respondeat superior principles and except in cases of obvious negligence, must be supported by expert

2005This was clearly a claim for corporate liability, a “cause of action for corporate negligence [which] arises from the policies, actions or inaction of the institution itself rather than the specific acts of individual hospital agents.” White v. Behlke, 69 D.&C.4th 353, 362 (2004) (emphasis added) (citing Welsh v. Bulger, 548 Pa. 504, 513 , 698 A.2d 581, 585 (1997) and Moser v. Heistand, 545 Pa. 554, 560 , 681 A.2d 1322, 1326 (1996)). “[SJince a corporate liability claim is not based solely on respondeat superior principles and except in cases of obvious negligence, must be supported by expert

2005Id. (citations omitted). ¶ 28 With the four duties and the nature of a corporate negligence claim in mind, we now examine the three elements necessary to establish a prima facie case of corporate negligence.

2002This desire to protect individuals has led to the adoption of the doctrine of corporate negligence if it did not fulfill any of the following duties: “[1] a duty to select and retain only competent physicians; “[2] a duty to oversee all persons who practice medicine within its walls as to patient care; and “[3] a duty to formulate, adopt and enforce adequate rules and policies to ensure quality care for the patients.” Rauch v. Mike-Mayer, 783 A.2d 815, 827 (Pa. Super. 2001).

2017See Quinby v. Plumsteadville Family Practice, 907 A.2d 1061 , 1070-71 Pa. (2006). (explaining that, in a medical malpractice action, a plaintiff must present a medical expert to establish the applicable standard of care, the deviation from that standard, causation, and the extent of the injury); Welsh v. Bulger, 698 A.2d 581, 585-86 (Pa. 1997) (noting that a corporate negligence claim requires an expert to identify a defendant medical institution’s standard of care, and the ways in which the defendant’s departure from those standards led to the plaintiff’s injuries); Moure v. Raeuchle, 604 A.2

2017See Quinby v. Plumsteadville Family Practice, 907 A.2d 1061 , 1070-71 Pa. (2006). (explaining that, in a medical malpractice action, a plaintiff must present a medical expert to establish the applicable standard of care, the deviation from that standard, causation, and the extent of the injury); Welsh v. Bulger, 698 A.2d 581, 585-86 (Pa. 1997) (noting that a corporate negligence claim requires an expert to identify a defendant medical institution’s standard of care, and the ways in which the defendant’s departure from those standards led to the plaintiff’s injuries); Moure v. Raeuchle, 604 A.2

2017Whether the trial court abused its discretion by precluding the Estate’s corporate negligence expert, Dr. Thomas Bojko, from testifying about [PMMC’s] corporate negligence (failure to properly credential and supervise) and dismissing the corporate negligence claim because the trial court imposed a novel evidentiary requirement that may be perfected after an appeal notice has been filed upon the docketing of a final judgment.” Id. at 513 (citations omitted). -2- J-A02045-17 the Estate cannot use the same causation expert to provide the causative link between the claims of corporate negligence a

2017Id. at 48-49 (emphasis in original; citations to the record omitted; citing Thompson v. Nason Hosp., 591 A.2d 703 (Pa. 1991); Kit v. Mitchell, 771 A.2d 814, 818-19 (Pa. Super. 2001)).

2014As the Scampone Court stated, and as the Superior Court of Pennsylvania recently clarified, when considering a corporate negligence claim, “the trial court must apply section 323 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts or the Althaus factors in order to determine if a duty of care exists.” Sokolsky v. Eidelman, 93 A.3d at 870 (citing Scampone, 57 A.3d at 606-607 ).

2014Sokolsky, 93 A.3d at 870-71 (internal citations omitted).

2005This was clearly a claim for corporate liability, a “cause of action for corporate negligence [which] arises from the policies, actions or inaction of the institution itself rather than the specific acts of individual hospital agents.” White v. Behlke, 69 D.&C.4th 353, 362 (2004) (emphasis added) (citing Welsh v. Bulger, 548 Pa. 504, 513 , 698 A.2d 581, 585 (1997) and Moser v. Heistand, 545 Pa. 554, 560 , 681 A.2d 1322, 1326 (1996)). “[SJince a corporate liability claim is not based solely on respondeat superior principles and except in cases of obvious negligence, must be supported by expert