Sunbury Community Hospital v. Kuster
Decision Date | 30 January 1980 |
Citation | 49 Pa.Cmwlth. 139,410 A.2d 409 |
Parties | SUNBURY COMMUNITY HOSPITAL and Dr. John Dattoli, Petitioners, v. Charles KUSTER et al., Respondents. |
Court | Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court |
Argued Nov. 15, 1979.
James K. Thomas, Joseph P. Hafer, Harrisburg for petitioner.
Terry W. Light, Lewisburg, John R. Moore, Selinsgrove, Harry L Wilcox, Selinsgrove, C. Edward S. Mitchell, Williamsport, for respondents.
Before WILKINSON, BLATT and MacPHAIL, JJ.
Sunbury Community Hospital and Dr. John Dattoli (Petitioners) appeal to this Court from a decision of the Administrator for Arbitration Panels for Health Care (Administrator) sustaining the preliminary objections of Charles Kuster, Robert F Kuster, and Selinsgrove Lodge, Loyal Order of the Moose, No 1173 (Respondents) to Petitioners' complaint against them and ordering the complaint dismissed. The sole issue before us is whether the Administrator erred in ruling that the Arbitration Panels for Health Care (Panels) were without jurisdiction to decide a claim against Respondents. We hold that the Administrator did not err and, accordingly, we affirm his order.
The facts of this case may be stated briefly. Herbert and Joann Riehl (Riehls) instituted this action against Petitioners pursuant to Section 101 Et seq. of the Health Care Services Malpractice Act (Act), Act of October 15, 1975, P.L. 390, As amended, 40 P.S. § 1301.101 Et seq., seeking to recover damages for alleged negligent medical care provided to Herbert Riehl. Petitioners sought to join Respondents as additional defendants before the Panel. They alleged that Respondents were responsible for the injuries to Herbert Riehl necessitating his treatment by Petitioners and that Respondents were solely liable or liable over to Petitioners for any liability Petitioners might owe to the Riehls. Respondents filed preliminary objections before the Administrator asserting that they did not fall within the scope of nonhealth care providers subject to joinder before the Panels pursuant to the Act and that, therefore, they were not proper parties to the action. The Administrator agreed.
The same issue, on similar facts, was raised to this Court and decided adversely to Petitioners' position in Gillette v. Redinger, 34 Pa.Cmwlth. 469, 383 A.2d 1295 (1978). On this appeal, Petitioners assert that the Court's decision in Gillette was in error or, in the alternative, that legal developments subsequent to the Gillette decision require that we overrule it. We disagree.
To continue reading
Request your trial