Pennsylvania Association for Justice
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE MESSAGE FROM THE CHAIR – PATRICK J. DOYLE, JR., ESQ.
By way of order dated August 25, 2022, the late Chief Justice of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Max Baer, leveled the playing field for victims of medical negligence. For two decades, victims of medical negligence were treated differently than those involved in other civil litigations relating to their choice venue.
As of January 1, 2023, Rule 1006 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, pertaining to venue, will be applied equally to all cases and no longer provide special treatment to medical professionals, hospitals, and health systems. Civil litigation can now be commenced against medical providers where the cause of action arose, where the defendant can be served, or in any other county authorized by law.
The landscape of medical care in Pennsylvania has changed immensely over the past twenty years with large hospitaI systems expanding their footprint across the Commonwealth by acquiring hospitals and providers. Under the revised venue rules, these health systems will be potentially subject to venue in counties where they conduct business. The reverted venue rule will certainly provide plaintiffs options as to what county in which to initiate litigation.
It is no secret that the healthcare industry plans to fight back against the loss of the “special” venue rule that provided the industry inequitable protections. The Pennsylvania Medical Society has “joined a coalition of stakeholders to work towards having this rule reversed and explore possible legislative remedies.” (www.pamedsoc.org/1aws-advocacy. In fact, the state legislature is already considering Constitutional amendments to “strip the Supreme Court’s ability to establish venue and place the matter in the hands of the legislature.” Id.
In the short term, the battles will certainly be fought on a case by case and county by county basis. The Rules of
Civil Procedure provide defendants a remedy against inconvenient venue. Rule 1006(d)(1) states that “for the convenience of the parties and witnesses, the court upon petition of any party may transfer an action to the appropriate court of any other county where the action could originallly have been brought.” This doctrine of forum non convenient has been regularly litigated and interpreted by our trial and appellate courts. Accordingly, there is a well-developed body of jurisprudence to study and rely upon when making determinations as to where to file medical negligence suits.
When litigating challenges to venue based on forum non convenient, it is the defendant that has the burden of establishing that the chosen forum is “oppressive and vexatious.” Powers v. Verizon Pennsylvania, LLC, 230 A.3d 492 (Pa. Super., 2020). Of note, the Superior Court has explained that “claims by a defendant that no significant
aspect of a casc involves the chosen forum and that another forum would be more convenient, re not the type of record evidence that proves that litigating a case in the chosen forum is oppressive and vexatious…
