Allowing medical malpractice attorney Nancy Raynor to bring a Dragonetti Act lawsuit against the lawyers who slammed her with a nearly $1 million sanctions bid could result in a flood of similar wrongful use of civil proceedings actions based on sanctions and contempt motions, attorneys argued before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

The justices heard arguments Wednesday in the case, captioned Raynor v. D'Annunzio, with the session focusing on the question of what constitutes civil proceedings that could form the basis of a lawsuit under the Dragonetti Act. A ruling from the justices could provide clarity for attorneys about exactly what types of conduct could subject them to liability under the act.

Raynor's attorney, Clifford Haines, contended that the proceedings against his client in which several lawyers attempted to recover on the nearly $1 million sanctions fine against her was more than sufficient to support a lawsuit under the statute. Attorneys for defendants in the case, Robert Tintner of Fox Rothschild and Robert Fiebach of Cozen O'Connor, however, argued that Dragonetti cases cannot be based on post-trial motions, but are instead reserved for frivolous lawsuits where the party is entirely unsuccessful on the claims.

Allowing Raynor's case to go forward against the lawyers over a motion would be problematic from a public policy perspective, Tintner told the high court.

"Do we want trial courts and their authority to govern issues like sanctions and contempt, do we want them second-guessed in the middle of the case, when it ultimately may not be a prevailing party?" Tintner asked. "Do we want a floodgate of Dragonetti cases based on individual motions and pleadings?"

The sanction against Raynor stemmed from a medical malpractice case captioned Sutch v. Roxborough Memorial Hospital, which involved allegations that doctors failed to tell a woman that a chest X-ray showed a suspicious nodule. The sanction was imposed after Raynor allegedly failed to instruct a medical expert not to mention the deceased plaintiff's smoking history. That alleged mistake led to a new trial after the first trial resulted in a $190,000 verdict in 2012.

Along with the nearly $1 million sanction, Raynor was also hit with a separate $45,000 sanction for allegedly attempting to pressure a witness in the same case. The Superior Court eventually tossed the $1 million sanction, but affirmed the lesser sanction.

In January 2017, Raynor sued Joe Messa and his firm, Messa & Associates, as well as ­attorneys Matthew D'Annunzio and William T. Hill and the firm Klehr Harrison Harvey Branzburg. Along with the Dragonetti Act claim, Raynor alleged wrongful use of civil proceedings and abuse of process.

In making her claims, Raynor had contended the defendants pursued the sanctions for vindictive purposes and so they could recover "greater fees than those to which the ­attorney defendants were entitled under their contingent fee agreement with [Rosalind Sutch, the plaintiff in the ­underlying ­medical ­malpractice case] for the legal services rendered in the Sutch action."

Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Arnold New, in August 2017, dismissed her civil suit, saying her complaint admitted that Raynor had violated an order in the underlying trial, so her claims had to fail. The Superior Court, however, reversed New's decision in part, saying Raynor had standing to bring her claims.

Arguing to the justices, Haines said the court did not need to worry about opening the floodgates to a wave of lawsuits over motions, arguing the proceedings against Raynor were more than simple motions practice.

"This wasn't handled as a motion. … It was handled as a separate pleading, and characterized as a separate proceeding. There was a claim made, there was testimony taken there was argument by counsel," Haines said. "It's very different than common motions practice."

Some justices, however, expressed concern about where to draw the line, with Justice David Wecht saying he couldn't discern "any satisfactory limiting principle."

"It can't just be something that says, when a bunch of us sitting around a table feels it's high enough," Wecht said.

Haines, however, said his client was subject to actual damages.

"I've got a client who, not only was sanctioned not only did the lawyers go after her bank account, she lost her job for all intents and purposes, she was the subject of ridicule in the legal community probably as far west as Pittsburgh," Haines said. "This is so distinguishable that it cries out to me that this particular contempt proceeding is precisely what the act was designed to cover."

Fiebach, who ­represents Klehr Harrison, Hill and D'Annunzio, told the justices that case law says that, in order to prevail on a Dragonetti case, a party needs to prevail on all the underlying issues, and noted that, although Raynor's nearly $1 million sanction was reversed, the other sanction was ultimately upheld.

"She is not the prevailing party," he said.

Justice Christine Donohue, however, said the statute clearly said Dragonetti cases are aimed at civil proceedings, and the language does not limit that only to civil actions. She also said the fact that an award was entered and attorneys took strides to garnish Raynor's wages made the underlying proceedings against Raynor very close to a more formal lawsuit.

"The essence of what happened here is very hard to distinguish from a civil action," Donohue said.

Fiebach replied that sanctions motions are not different than any other motion, and allowing the case to proceed would go against precedent.

"If you expand the reach of this law that way, you're going to have case after case after case, all within the ancillary proceedings of a larger case where the plaintiff in the ancillary proceeding Dragonetti case may be the loser in the larger case," Fiebach said.