Judge: NY Hospital Can Be Sued in Phila. for Post-MRI Contact With Patient in Pa.
A Philadelphia judge has allowed a medical malpractice lawsuit to proceed against New York City's Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, finding that jurisdiction is proper in part because the claims revolve around allegedly false MRI results the hospital provided to the now-deceased plaintiff after he had returned home to Pennsylvania.
February 06, 2020 at 01:31 PM
3 minute read
A Philadelphia judge has allowed a medical malpractice lawsuit to proceed against New York City's Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, finding that jurisdiction is proper in part because the claims revolve around allegedly false MRI results the hospital provided to the now-deceased plaintiff after he had returned home to Pennsylvania.
The Estate of David Albert sued Sloan Kettering, along with several other defendants, alleging that Albert died because the hospital failed to inform him and his Pennsylvania doctors that the results of an MRI he underwent at its facility showed he was at risk for bleeding in his head.
Sloan Kettering filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that jurisdiction was improper because "there is no alleged negligence at any of the New York encounters and there is no injury at any of the New York encounters."
The hospital also sought to rely on the Pennsylvania Superior Court's 2012 ruling in Mendel v. Williams, in which a three-judge panel ruled that a plaintiff could not assert personal jurisdiction in Pennsylvania over an out-of-state medical provider in a medical malpractice action for treatment that occurred outside of Pennsylvania.
But in a Jan. 31 opinion, Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Frederica Massiah-Jackson called reliance on Mendel in the Albert matter "misplaced."
"As plaintiff-estate and all co-defendants argue, the claims for negligence here are injuries incurred while plaintiff-decedent was present in Pennsylvania," Massiah-Jackson said. "Specifically, Sloan Kettering affirmatively contacted Mr. Albert in Pennsylvania and gave him false information about his MRI results; Sloan Kettering failed to forward Mr. Albert's medical records to his Pennsylvania physicians while he was in Pennsylvania; Sloan Kettering failed to advise Mr. Albert to stop taking daily aspirin while he was in Pennsylvania; Sloan Kettering failed to coordinate care with Mr. Albert's medical providers while he was in Pennsylvania. It was thee and other failures which caused harm to David Albert."
Massiah-Jackson further noted that at least one of Sloan Kettering's doctors continued to participate in Albert's treatment at co-defendant St. Mary Medical Center in Bucks County and that the plaintiff's expert opined this continued input may have clouded St. Mary's physicians' ability to properly diagnose and treat Albert.
In addition, Massiah-Jackson found that Sloan Kettering had sufficient minimum contacts in Pennsylvania to establish specific jurisdiction, including marketing and clinical trial recruitment efforts aimed at the Lehigh Valley.
Counsel for the plaintiffs, Joel Feller of Ross Feller Casey in Philadelphia, said in an emailed statement: "This is a unique and egregious case where a New York hospital expressly promised to remotely coordinate the care of a Pennsylvania patient, and then called him in Pennsylvania to tell him, incorrectly, that his brain MRI was benign—because the providers had not even bothered to read the full MRI report. Judge Massiah-Jackson thoroughly considered the facts and we are pleased that the judge rejected what is now the fourth attempt by this out-of-state hospital to evade responsibility for the catastrophic brain injuries suffered by Mr. Albert."
Counsel for Sloan Kettering, Daniel Ferhat of White & Williams in Philadelphia, could not be reached for comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
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.
You Might Like
View AllPhiladelphia Bar Association Executive Director Announces Retirement
3 minute readPhila. Jury Hits Sig Sauer With $11M Verdict Over Alleged Gun Defect
3 minute readPhila. Attorney Hit With 5-Year Suspension for Mismanaging Firm and Mishandling Cases
4 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Samsung Flooded With Galaxy Product Patent Lawsuits in Texas Federal Court
- 2How Marsh McLennan's Small But Mighty Legal Innovation Team Builds Solutions That Bring Joy
- 3On the Move and After Hours: Brach Eichler; Cooper Levenson; Marshall Dennehey; Archer; Sills Cummis
- 4Review of Ex-parte orders by the Appellate Division
- 5'Confusion Where Previously There Was Clarity': NJ Supreme Court Should Void Referral Fee Ethics Opinion
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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