Certificates of Merit and Vicarious Liability Claims
I decided to take another look at this interesting and complex question. Under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, a certificate of merit has to be based upon the statement of a licensed professional.
December 05, 2019 at 01:13 PM
11 minute read
When I lecture on medical malpractice issues, I am frequently asked whether in a medical liability claim, and for that matter, any other claim where a certificate of merit is required: "Should I file a certificate of merit on a vicarious liability claim?" I always answer: "It is not necessary, but I would do it anyway." Is my answer correct? In a recent medical malpractice case, I told a paralegal in the office that we did not need to do a certificate of merit in a medical liability claim. She looked at me as though I had lost my mind, and told me I was wrong. She brought in the applicable rule of civil procedure, put it down on my desk, crossed her arms, and demanded that I give her a more intelligent answer than simply "don't do it." Of course, I was ignoring my own advice that I give publicly.
I decided to take another look at this interesting and complex question. Under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, a certificate of merit has to be based upon the statement of a licensed professional. That means, in a medical malpractice case, for example, that the expert has to give the statement that there is vicarious liability even though there is potentially no corporate claim and no direct negligence on the part of the hospital. Isn't this a legal question? How is a doctor going to say there is vicarious liability unless he also happens to be a doctor or a lawyer? Many times, experts, even on corporate liability, are not necessarily doctors since corporate liability can involve matters of administration. A corporate claim is a horse of a different color, and the extent of our discussion here only relates to vicarious liability claims.
The problem is not so much with the rule, but rather with the note to the rule. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1042.3(a)(2) states, as follows: "In any action based upon an allegation that a licensed professional deviated from an acceptable professional standard, the attorney for the plaintiff … shall file a certificate of merit … that either … the claim that the defendant deviated from an acceptable professional standard is based solely on allegations that other licensed professionals for whom this defendant is responsible deviated from an acceptable professional standard, or … In a vicarious liability claim, no one is asserting that the hospital employer, for example, deviated from an acceptable professional standard."
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
Trending Stories
- 1'I'm Staying Everything': Texas Bankruptcy Judge Halts Talc Trials Against J&J
- 2What We Know About the Kentucky Judge Killed in His Chambers
- 3Ex-Prosecutor and Judge Fatally Shot During Attempted Arrest on Federal Corruption Charges
- 4Judge Blasts Authors' Lawyers in Key AI Suit, Says Case Doomed Without Upgraded Team
- 5Federal Judge Won't Stop Title IX Investigation Into Former GMU Law Professor
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholders Christina M. Carroll and A. Michael Pratt have entered appearances for the Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Banking and Securities, Wendy Spicher in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The case, filed Aug. 13 in Texas Northern District Court by Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders; Ashcroft Sutton Reyes; and Locke Lord on behalf of TMX Finance Corporate Services, seeks to challenge the secretary’s ongoing attempt to regulate commercial lending activity outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The suit furthers contends that the secretary issued an investigative subpoena to TMX for potential violations of the Pennsylvania Loan Interest and Protection Law and the Consumer Discount Company Act despite TMX's business activities not being governed by such. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge David C. Godbey, is 3:24-cv-02054, TMX Finance Corporate Services Inc v. Spicher.
Who Got The Work
Joseph J. Mueller and Rachel Bier of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have entered appearances for Omachron Alpha, Omachron Intellectual Property and SharkNinja Operating in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The action, filed Sept. 16 in Massachusetts District Court by Kirkland & Ellis, asserts three patents in connection with SharkNinja's sale of the 'Vertex' and 'Stratos' cordless vacuum cleaners. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs, is 1:24-cv-12373, Dyson, Inc. et al v. SharkNinja, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Shloime Fellig of Latham & Watkins has entered an appearance for Ardelyx the company's CEO and CFO in a pending securities class action related to Xphozah, a drug which treats kidney disease and end-stage renal disease. The complaint, filed Aug. 16 in Massachusetts District Court by Pomerantz LLP, contends that the defendants failed to disclose that the company would not be seeking the drug’s acceptance into the Transitional Drug Add-on Payment Adjustment, a bundled payment system regulated by the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Leo T. Sorokin, is 1:24-cv-12119, Yarborough v. Ardelyx, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Alexander P. Ott, Megan Corrigan and Karen Gover of McDermott Will & Emery have entered appearances for Analog Devices, a Massachusetts-based manufacturer of semiconductor processing equipment, in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, which asserts two patents, was filed July 9 in Massachusetts District Court by Arrowood LLP and the Devlin Law Firm on behalf of Ocean Semiconductors. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Patti B. Saris, is 1:24-cv-11759, Ocean Semiconductors LLC v. Analog Devices Inc.
Who Got The Work
Forrest M. 'Teo' Seger of Clark Hill has entered an appearance for Equifax Information Services in a pending lawsuit for claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The case was filed Aug. 13 in Texas Western District Court by Halvorsen Klote on behalf of Quinton Humphrey. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Fred Biery, is 5:24-cv-00892, Humphrey v. LVNV Funding, LLC et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250