Rega v. Cmty. Health Choices

• Docket Number: 506 WDA 2021,No. 506 WDA 2021
• Decision Date: 13 May 2022
• Citation: 279 A.3d 1253 (Table)
• Parties: Robert Gene REGA, Appellant v. COMMUNITY HEALTH CHOICES, PA Health and Wellness, a Bridge to Independence, and the Greenery Center for Rehabilitation and Nursing
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

279 A.3d 1253 (Table)

Robert Gene REGA, Appellant

v.COMMUNITY HEALTH CHOICES, PA Health and Wellness, a Bridge to Independence, and the Greenery Center for Rehabilitation and Nursing

No. 506 WDA 2021

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Filed: May 13, 2022

MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.:

Robert Gene Rega (Appellant) appeals pro se from the order sustaining preliminary objections filed by The Greenery Center for Rehabilitation and Nursing (Greenery), Community Health Choices (Community Health), PA Health and Wellness (PA Health) and A Bridge to Independence (ABI) (collectively, Defendants), and dismissing Appellant's complaint with prejudice. Appellant further challenges the denial of Greenery's motion to strike the complaint pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(2). After careful review, we affirm.

Relevant to this appeal, in March 2020, Appellant's elderly mother, Joan Mary Rega (Rega), resided at The Greenery, a rehabilitative and nursing residence/facility and service provider for Community Health. See Complaint, 7/22/20, ¶¶ 2-3, 16. ABI is a service coordinator entity and subcontractor of Community Health. Id. ¶ 4. According to Appellant, Rega suffers from early-stage Alzheimer's Disease, resulting in "physical and cogn[i]tive disabilities[.]" Id. ¶ 8. On March 25, 2020, Appellant, a death-row inmate, sent Greenery a copy of a broad durable power of attorney dated April 9, 2019 (POA).¹ Id. ¶ 14. The POA purportedly authorized Appellant to make decisions on behalf of Rega, including, inter alia , health care and financial decisions. POA, 4/9/19.

On April 27, 2020, Appellant pro se filed a writ of mandamus to compel ABI to recognize Appellant as the lawful agent of Rega under the POA. Writ of Mandamus, 4/27/20. Appellant asserted ABI improperly refused to find Rega an in-home healthcare provider, as directed by Appellant. Id. ¶¶ 14-18. ABI filed preliminary objections challenging the validity of the POA. On January 20, 2021, the trial court denied the writ of mandamus, concluding the POA was invalid. Trial Court Order, 1/20/21.

On appeal, this Court affirmed the trial court's Order. See Rega v. A Bridge to Independence , 260 A.3d 107 (Pa. Super. 2021) (unpublished memorandum). Specifically, this Court concluded that the POA, as it existed prior to May 11, 2020,² failed to comply with Chapter 56 of the Probate, Estates and Fiduciaries Code, 20 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 5601 - 5614 (POA Code):

It is undisputed that the POA was not executed in compliance with 20 Pa.C.S.A. 5601(c) and (d), and Appellant failed to meet his burden to prove the POA complied with the POA Code. See id. § 5601(c) ("In the absence of a signed notice, upon a challenge to the authority of [a purported] agent to exercise a power under the power of attorney, the agent shall have the burden of demonstrating that the exercise of [ ] authority is proper."); accord Vine v. Commonwealth , 607 Pa. 648, 9 A.3d 1150, 1162 (Pa. 2010) ("In its official comment regarding [the pre-amendment version of subsection 5601(c)], the Legislature specified that a primary purpose of the notice requirement is to protect the principal; it was not evidently aimed at protecting third parties." (superseded by statute)).

Rega (unpublished memorandum at 10). This Court further concluded the deficiencies rendered the entire POA invalid, despite the presence of a severability clause. Id.

In the interim, on July 22, 2020, Appellant pro se filed the instant six-count complaint. Appellant asserted causes of action against Defendants based on their failure to honor the April 9, 2020, POA. See Complaint, 7/22/20. Appellant set forth the following causes of action:

Count 1 (against Greenery): Failure to accept POA and comply with an agent's directives

Count 2 (against Defendants): Interference with a contract

Count 3 (against Defendants): Negligence

Count 4 (against Defendants): Conspiracy

Count 5 (against Defendants): Alienation of a parent's affections

Count 6 (against Defendants): Punitive damages

See id.

Defendants each filed preliminary objections to Appellant's complaint. All Defendants challenged the validity of the POA's "Notice" as noncompliant with 20 Pa.C.S.A. § 5601(c). Preliminary Objections (Greenery), 8/27/20, ¶¶ 13, 15-18; Preliminary Objections (PA Health), 8/31/20, ¶¶ 14-16; Preliminary Objections (ABI), 9/3/20, ¶ 12. Defendants also challenged the legal sufficiency of Appellant's remaining causes of action.³ Finally, Defendant Greenery included a motion to strike the complaint pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(2). Preliminary Objections (Greenery), 9/27/20, ¶ 18. At oral argument, Appellant withdrew Count V, alienation of affections, and Count VI, punitive damages. Trial Court Opinion and Order, 4/8/21, at 3.

The trial court denied Greenery's motion to strike pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1028(c)(2) without prejudice to file a motion for sanctions or similar relief. Id. at 15. The trial court sustained all of Defendants’ preliminary objections, and dismissed Appellant's complaint with prejudice. Trial Court Opinion and Id. at 17. Importantly, the court further stated:

"[T]o the extent that the complaint is an effort by [Appellant] to establish the validity of the power of attorney, that issue is an Orphans’ Court matter. ... Such matter has been previously transferred to that Division. (See Order 11/19/20, at docket 2020-2288)."

Trial Court Opinion and Order, 4/8/21, at 16.

Appellant timely appealed. Both Appellant and the trial court have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. Appellant presents ten issues for review:

(A) Whether the court abused its discretion or committed an error of law by concluding that Appellant's directives fell within the purview of a monetary directive thus requiring 20 Pa.C.S.A. § 5601(c) & (d) to be attached[?]

(B) Whether the court abused its discretion or committed an error of law in sustaining [Defendants’] preliminary objections as to [Defendants’] specious good faith belief that [Appellant's POA] was not valid contrary to statute when 20 Pa.C.S.A. § 5601(e.2) exempted § 5601(c) & (d) thus negated § 5608.1, where § 5608.1(b)(2)(i) did not apply due to § 5608.1(b)(2)(ii) waiving such requirements[?]

(C) Whether the court abused its discretion or committed an error of law in sustaining [Defendants’] preliminary objections by failing to issue an order compelling [Defendants] to accept the power of attorney pursuant to § 5608.1(c)(2) due to the POA being legally valid pursuant to 20 Pa.C.S.A. § 5601(e.2) [?]

(D) Whether the court abused its discretion or committed an error of law in denying Appellant[ ] injunctive relief to compel [Defendants] to comply with Appellant's directives to, inter alia , discharge [ ] Rega as the directives were not monetary in nature, but a medical and/or mental health directive; 20 Pa.C.S.A. § 501(e.2)[?]

(E) Whether the court abused its discretion or committed an error of law in sustaining [Defendants’] preliminary objections as to the [Defendants’] interference with Appellant's contract when the POA constituted a contract and [Appellant] also had a verbal contract to "manage all of her needs" as pled; (Cmplt. at ¶¶ 9-10)[?]

(F) Whether the court abused its discretion or committed an error of law in sustaining [Defendants’] preliminary objections as to Appellant's negligence cause of action where a duty of care existed pursuant to 20 Pa.C.S.A. § 5608.1(a), and when [Defendants] failed to comply with 20 Pa.C.S.A. § 5608.1(a)(1)(B), and due to § 5601(e.2) negating a good faith belief as § 5601(c) & (d) were not required[?]

(G) Whether the court abused its discretion or committed an error of law in sustaining [Defendants’] preliminary objections as to Appellant's conspiracy cause of action when [ ] PA Health [ ] circulated a specious letter rejecting Appellant's POA (without performing an independent determination) so as to maintain [ ] Rega in a nursing home against her will[?]

(H) Whether the court abused its discretion or committed an error of law by denying [ ] the Greenery's motion to strike without prejudice solely for the purpose of allowing them to file sanctions when no legitimate grounds for sanction existed, the [Greenery] failed to comply with Pa.R.C.P. 1023.2(b) notice requirements[,] and the court deliberately failed to issue a time frame for such sanctions to be filed[?]

(I) Whether the court abused its discretion or committed an error of law by denying Appellant's right to amend his complaint where said claims as raised therein are of arguable merit upon amendment[?]

(J) Whether the court abused its discretion or committed an error of law by failing to hold and construe Appellant's allegations to a less stringent standard in determining whether Appellant stated a claim upon which relief could be granted and/or Appellant's filing satisfied the gist of Appellant's intent pursuant to Pa.R.[C.]P. 1019 [?]

Appellant's Brief at 5 (issues reordered for disposition).

Our standard of review in determining whether a trial court erred in sustaining preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer is well settled. "[A] trial court's decision to grant or deny a demurrer involves a matter of law, [and] our standard for reviewing that decision is plenary." Donaldson v. Davidson Bros. , 144 A.3d 93, 100 (Pa. Super. 2016) (citations omitted).

When reviewing the dismissal of a complaint based upon preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer, we treat as true all well-pleaded material, factual averments and all inferences fairly deducible therefrom. Where the preliminary objections will result in the dismissal of the action, the objections may be sustained only in cases that are clear and free from doubt. To be clear and free from doubt that dismissal is appropriate, it must appear with certainty that the law would not permit recovery by the plaintiff upon the facts averred. Any doubt should be resolved by a refusal to sustain the objections.

Stewart v. FedEx Exp. , 114 A.3d 424, 426 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citations omitted). "The impetus of our inquiry is to determine the legal...