Deal v. Children's Hosp. of Phila.

• Decision Date: 19 November 2019
• Docket Number: No. 3235 EDA 2018,3235 EDA 2018
• Parties: Melissa DEAL and Richard Deal, Appellant v. The CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF PHILADELPHIA
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

223 A.3d 705

Melissa DEAL and Richard Deal, Appellant

v.The CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF PHILADELPHIA

No. 3235 EDA 2018

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued October 17, 2019

Filed November 19, 2019

OPINION BY COLINS, J.:

This is an appeal from an order of Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (trial court) granting summary judgment for the defendant in a wrongful discharge case brought by Melissa Deal (Deal) and her husband (collectively, Plaintiffs) against Deal's former employer, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (Hospital). For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

The record before the trial court established the following undisputed facts.

Deal was employed by the Hospital from 1999 to 2015, initially as an extern and from July 2000 on as a registered nurse. Deal was an at-will employee. Deal Dep., 6/21/18, at 108-09; Hospital Non-Bargaining Unit Dispute Resolution Policy § 2; Hospital Rules of Conduct § 2. In her work as a nurse at the Hospital, Deal had access to confidential patient information, including patients' dates of birth and social security numbers. Deal Dep., 6/21/18, at 105, 113.

In August 2013, outside of her employment at the Hospital, Deal was hired to provide home care for James Mooney, the father of a neighbor, in the neighbor's home. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶7 & Plaintiffs' Answer to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, Response to Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶¶6-7. Deal began providing those services in September 2013 and was paid $30 per hour for those services. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶9 & Plaintiffs' Answer to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, Response to Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶9; Deal Dep., 6/21/18, at 57-58. On October 1, 2013, Mooney gave Deal a power of attorney and made a revised will that named Deal as executrix. Deal Dep., 6/21/18, at 59-60.

On October 10, 2013, under her power of attorney for Mooney, Deal wrote a $10,000 check payable to herself and a $10,000 check payable to her husband. Plaintiffs' Answer to Defendant' Motion for Summary Judgment, Response to Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶18; Deal Dep., 6/21/18, at 59-60, 67-68. On October 10, 2013, Deal also helped Mooney make changes to the beneficiaries of his investment account that included adding herself as a beneficiary. Deal Dep., 6/21/18, at 68-69; N.T. Criminal Trial, 5/25/17 at 198-202. Mooney, who was terminally ill with prostate cancer, died on October 12, 2013. Deal Dep., 6/21/18, at 56, 69; Plaintiffs' Answer to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, Response to Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶25.

Following Mooney's death, Mooney's family accused Deal of improper conduct with respect to the investment account, the $10,000 checks, and payments that she made as executrix and petitioned to remove her as executrix of Mooney's estate. Petition to Remove Executrix ¶¶13-14, 16, 28-29, 31-36. On August 21, 2015, the Delaware County District Attorney charged Deal with theft and related offenses arising out of the $10,000 checks, the change to the investment account beneficiaries, and checks that Deal wrote on the estate account after Mooney's death. Plaintiffs' Answer to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, Response to Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶38; Police Criminal Complaint. Deal was arrested on these charges on August 26, 2015. Plaintiffs' Answer to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, Response to Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶39. Before the charges were filed, Deal had told the Hospital that the family of a person for whom she had provided care outside of work had made allegations of financial misconduct against her and that there was a criminal investigation. Deal Dep., 6/21/18, at 111-14; Legner Dep., 6/29/18, at 66-68, 78-81.

On August 25 and 27, 2015, Mooney's granddaughter sent emails to the Hospital notifying it of the criminal charges against Deal and Deal's arrest, attaching links to the criminal docket, and stating

Melissa Deal, a registered nurse who works at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) offered to provide hospice care in exchange for monetary compensation. Melissa was paid $3,000 dollars up-front and given a rate of $30 per hour to provide ongoing care and medicinal delivery.

Several days (8) after arriving at the residence, Melissa had convinced my grandfather (James Mooney) that he should change his will and announce that Melissa was to be the executrix of his estate moving forward. We were all in agreement as we trusted Melissa and none of us were in a position or had any experience to be the sole executor/executrix (big mistake).

My Grandfather passed away prematurely in early October 2013 in Melissa Deals arm and just hours after she made online changes to his beneficiary accounts to illegally include herself as a 1/6th recipient of a $350,000 account. She spent the next 18 months bullying me and my mother and taking thousands of dollars, jewelry, family treasures and caused horrible pain at a time of attempting closure and grieving for the loss of life of our loving family member.

8/25/15, 8/27/15 Mozol Emails; Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶¶51-52 & Plaintiffs' Answer to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, Response to Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶¶51-52. The granddaughter sent the Hospital a further email on September 2, 2015 with a link to a local newspaper story with a heading "nurse-faces-charges-of-stealing-88000-from-dying-mans-account." 9/2/15 Mozol Email; Legner Dep., 6/29/18, at 74-75.

On September 7, 2015 Deal sent the Hospital an email that stated the following concerning the criminal charges against her:

I was executor for an estate and the gentleman, [J]ames [M]ooney, had left my fami[l]y and I some money. He did not want the family aware until the estate was closed, but I had to be honest and tell them after he died. I still managed the estate and had it completed by [D]ec 20, 2014. Of course, under his POA and Will, my legal fees were to be paid out of estate money, which is what we did.

* * *

The number [in the criminal charges], 88,000.00-none of us know where that number is coming from. We are looking at paying back legal fees that I knew may need to be paid back by me.

9/7/15 Deal Email to Legner; Plaintiffs' Answer to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, Response to Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶¶54-55; Deal Dep., 6/21/18, at 117.

On September 9, 2015, the Hospital placed Deal on 90-day unpaid administrative leave during which Deal continued to receive her employee benefits and sent her a letter stating:

Due to the criminal charges pending against you related to theft from an elderly person in your care and the surrounding publicity, and because as a CHOP nurse you likewise care for a vulnerable population and have access to patient demographic information and identifiers, in the interest of caution, CHOP is removing you from your role as a registered nurse. In particular, you will be placed on a 90-day, unpaid administrative leave. If, during this 90-days, you are exonerated from the charges, you will be returned to your position and paid back pay. However, if the process takes longer than 90-days or there is a conviction on any of the charges, your employment will be terminated.

9/9/15 Legner to Deal Letter; Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶60 & Plaintiffs' Answer

to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, Response to Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶60. The criminal charges were not resolved within the 90 days and remained unresolved in January 2016, and Hospital terminated Deal's employment on January 8, 2016. 1/8/16 Legner Memorandum; Legner Dep., 7/24/18, at 104. On May 26, 2017, Deal was acquitted of the criminal charges. Plaintiffs' Complaint ¶60; Defendant's Answer ¶60. Deal did not apply to be rehired or reinstated by Hospital after her acquittal. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶74 & Plaintiffs' Answer to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, Response to Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶74.

On September 11, 2017, Plaintiffs filed the instant action against the Hospital. Plaintiffs' two-count complaint asserted a claim by Deal for wrongful discharge alleging that Hospital's termination of her employment based on the criminal charges violated public policy and a claim by Deal's husband for loss of consortium. Plaintiffs' Complaint ¶¶61-72. During discovery, the Hospital sought to subpoena records from the criminal case and the civil actions between the Mooney family and Deal, and Plaintiffs objected. The trial court on May 22, 2018, overruled Plaintiffs' objections and ordered that the subpoenas could be served but that no privileged information was to be produced in response to the subpoenas. Trial Court Orders, 5/22/18.

On August 6, 2018, the Hospital filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that Plaintiffs had no cause of action for Deal's discharge because Deal was an at-will employee. On October 4, 2018, the trial court granted the Hospital's motion for summary judgment. This timely appeal followed.

Plaintiffs presents the following issues for our review:

A. Did the Trial Court err as a matter of law in granting CHOP's Motion for Summary Judgment where there were genuine issues of material fact that precluded a finding that CHOP's termination of Deal's employment did not contravene any important Pennsylvania public policy.

B. Did the trial court err as a matter of law in granting CHOP's Motion for Summary Judgment where there were ... genuine issues of material fact that precluded a finding by the court that ... CHOP's termination of Deal's employment was based upon separate plausible and legitimate reasons not in contravention of any important Pennsylvania public policy requiring that the issue be determined by a jury pursuant to McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green , 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36

...