Linda Judge & David Judge v. Wyo. Valley Health Care Sys., Inc.
| Decision Date | 18 May 2015 |
| Docket Number | J-A14023-14,No. 1274 MDA 2013,1274 MDA 2013 |
| Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
| Parties | LINDA JUDGE AND DAVID JUDGE, ADMINISTRATORS OF THE ESTATE OF ASHLEY JUDGE, DECEASED, LINDA JUDGE, IN HER OWN RIGHT Appellants v. WYOMING VALLEY HEALTH CARE SYSTEM, INC.; WILKES-BARRE GENERAL HOSPITAL; CYNTHIA LISKOV, M.D. AND SAPPHIRE EMERGENCY SERVICES, P.C. Appellees |
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appellants, Linda Judge and David Judge, Administrators of the Estate of Ashley Judge, deceased, and Linda Judge, in her own right, appeal from the judgments entered on December 15, 2011 and September 3, 2013. After careful consideration, we affirm.
The factual background of this case is as follows. On February 24, 2005, 15-year-old Ashley Judge ("Ashley") fell down 12 steps at her house. Hanover Township Community Ambulance Association Inc. (the "Ambulance Association") dispatched an ambulance to the residence at 10:34 p.m. Theambulance was staffed by paramedic Keith Feschuk ("Feschuk") and emergency medical technician Kareena Picton ("Picton"). The ambulance arrived at Ashley's residence at 10:43 p.m. Ashley was placed in the back of the ambulance and her mother, Linda Judge, sat up front in the passenger seat. A snowstorm was hitting the area at the time which made vehicular travel difficult.
Ashley informed Feschuk that 20 to 30 minutes earlier she had become lightheaded while walking up the stairs and subsequently fell down the 12 stairs. Ashley did not lose consciousness during the incident and remembered the entire episode. Ashely complained of pain in her lower chest and upper abdomen and some nausea. Ashley's blood sugar level was 475 mg/dL both before and after being given saline.1 At 11:07 p.m., Ashley was immobilized and transferred to the ambulance. Feschuk and Picton planned to transport Ashley to Wilkes-Barre General Hospital (the "Hospital"). At 11:19 p.m., Feschuk called the Hospital for medical direction. This call was answered by paramedic Ronald Redmond ("Redmond"). Dr. Cynthia Liskov ("Liskov"), the medical command physician, listened to this telephone call. Liskov was employed by Sapphire Emergency Services, P.C. ("Sapphire"), which contracted with the Hospital to provide emergency department physicians.
Feschuk relayed to Redmond that Ashley did not have a diabetic history and that it was not necessary to transport Ashley to a trauma center. At 11:30 p.m., Feschuk again contacted the Hospital medical command and advised that Ashley's right pupil had become dilated and less responsive to light. A nurse at the Hospital told Feschuk to divert to Community Medical Center ("CMC"), the nearest trauma center. On the way to CMC, Picton became lost and stopped to ask for directions to CMC. At 11:40 p.m., Ashley's breathing became labored and she began drifting out of consciousness. Around 11:45 p.m., Ashley was provided with oxygen and administered atropine2 and epinephrine.3 At 12:05 a.m. on February 25, 2005, the ambulance arrived at CMC. Seven minutes later, Dr. Andrew Furman ("Furman") pronounced Ashley dead.
The procedural history of this case is as follows. On January 12, 2007, Appellants filed a complaint against the Ambulance Association, Feschuk, Picton, Wyoming Valley Healthcare System,4 the Hospital, CMC, CommunityMedical Center Healthcare System,5 and Furman. That case was docketed at 2007-00469 ("the 469 action").
On February 21, 2007, Appellants commenced an action against Liskov, Sapphire, and Emergency Services, P.C.6 by filing a praecipe for a writ of summons. That case was docketed at 2007-01810 ("the 1810 action"). On June 4, 2007, Appellants filed a complaint in the 1810 action.
On February 23, 2007, Appellants commenced an action against Hanover Community Ambulance Association,7 Wyoming Valley Health Care System,8 Wyoming Valley Healthcare System, Inc. ("WVHCS") (the parent company of the Hospital), and WVHCS-Hospital9 by filing a praecipe for a writ of summons. That case was docketed at 2007-01902 ("the 1902 action"). On May 14, 2007, Appellants filed a complaint in the 1902 action.
Brief in Support of Motion for Consolidation, 6/30/10, at 3. On August 24, 2010, the trial court granted Appellants' motion. The trial court consolidated all three actions under the 469 action. On December 15, 2011, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Picton, the Hospital, and Wyoming Valley Healthcare System in the 469 action and WVHCS-Hospital, Wyoming Valley Health Care System, and WVHCS in the 1902 action.10 See generally Judge v. Hanover Twp. Cmty. Ambulance Ass'n, Inc., 2011 WL 12526056 (C.C.P. Luzerne Dec. 15, 2011).
On January 15, 2012, Appellants filed a motion to reconsider the trial court's December 15, 2011 order granting summary judgment. In the alternative, Appellants sought certification under Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 341(c).11 The trial court denied the motion forreconsideration on February 28, 2012. On March 15, 2012, Appellants filed a petition for permission to appeal the December 15, 2011, summary judgment order. On April 11, 2012, this Court denied the petition as untimely. See Judge v. Hanover Twp. Cmty. Ambulance Ass'n, Inc., 23 MDM 2012 (Pa. Super. Apr. 11, 2012) (per curiam).
Trial commenced on June 10, 2013 against the two remaining defendants in the 1810 action, Liskov and Sapphire. On June 17, 2013, the jury found in favor of Liskov and Sapphire. Also on June 17, 2013, the Ambulance Association and Feschuk settled with Appellants.12 No judgment was ever entered in the Ambulance Association or Feschuk's favor and no discontinuance was filed with respect to those two defendants. Instead, on August 23, 2013, the Ambulance Association and Feschuk filed a supplemental new matter that raised the June 17, 2013 settlement as an affirmative defense.
Appellants filed a timely post-trial motion.13 While the post-trial motion remained pending, Appellants filed a notice of appeal on July 12,2013.14 The notice of appeal contained the captions for all three cases and read, "Notice is hereby given that [Appellants] hereby appeal[] to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania from the [j]udgment entered in the above consolidated matter on the 14th day of December 2011."15 Notice of Appeal, 7/12/13, at 2. The notice of appeal was docketed in the 1902 action and later transferred to the 469 action by the trial court prothonotary.16 The trial court denied Appellants' post-trial motion on August 13, 2013.17 On August22, 2013, this Court ordered Appellants to have the trial court enter judgment in favor of Liskov and Sapphire. The trial court entered judgment on September 3, 2013.18
Appellants present six issues for our review:
1. [Did the trial court err by granting summary judgment in favor of the Hospital?
2. Did the trial court err by granting summary judgment with respect to Linda Judge's claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress ("NIED")?
3. Did the trial court err by failing to preclude testimony about mononucleosis?
4. Did the trial court err by permitting Feschuk to appear on the verdict slip?
5. Did the trial court err by failing to grant a new trial because of alleged jury irregularities?
6. Did the trial court err by granting summary judgment with respect to Appellants' claim for punitive damages?]
"A threshold question is whether this Court has jurisdiction to decide the appeal." Commonwealth v. Wright, 78 A.3d 1070, 1077 (Pa. 2013). Although the parties have only raised certain questions regarding our jurisdiction, we may raise subject matter jurisdiction concerns sua sponte. See Sheard v. J.J. DeLuca Co., 92 A.3d 68, 75 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citationomitted). Thus, we first concentrate our attention on whether we possess jurisdiction over this appeal. See Coulter v. Ramsden, 94 A.3d 1080, 1084 (Pa. Super. 2014), appeal denied, 403 WAL 2014 (Pa. Dec. Dec. 10, 2014) (citation omitted). As a pure question of law, our standard of review in determining whether we possess jurisdiction is de novo and our scope of review is plenary. See Beneficial Consumer Disc. Co. v. Vukman, 77 A.3d 547, 550 (Pa. 2013) (citation omitted).
In general, a party invokes appellate jurisdiction by filing a notice of appeal within 30 days of a judgment, decision, decree, sentence or adjudication that disposes of all claims and all parties. See Pa.R.A.P. 903(a) (); Pa.R.A.P. 102 (); Pa.R.A.P. 341(a) and (b)(1) (providing that appeals as of right may be taken from "final orders" and defining that term). Appellants here rely upon a notice of appeal that they filed on July 12, 2013. As we stated in our recitation of the facts, Appellants initially filed their notice in the 1902 action and the prothonotary later filed a copy in the 469 action. Moreover, as we stated in footnote 17, we shall treat Appellants'...
To continue reading
Request your trial