Walter v. Magee-Womens Hospital
Decision Date | 12 April 2005 |
Citation | 876 A.2d 400 |
Parties | Christine WALTER and Sharon King, on Behalf of Themselves and all Other Similarly Situated Individuals, Appellants v. MAGEE-WOMENS HOSPITAL OF UPMC HEALTH SYSTEM, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Health System, Trevor A. Macpherson and George Michalopoulos, Appellees |
Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Joseph R. Podraza, Philadelphia, for King, appellant.
William A. Pietragallo, Pittsburgh, for appellees.
Before: HUDOCK, MUSMANNO and TAMILIA, JJ.
OPINION BY TAMILIA, J.:
¶ 1 This case arises from a putative class action suit initiated by plaintiffs/appellants Christine Walter and Sharon King, on behalf of themselves and a similar situated class of women, against appellees Magee-Womens Hospital of the UPMC Health System, et. al, for medical monitoring, fraud, negligence, unjust enrichment, and violation of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL).1 According to the trial court:
Trial Court Opinion, Horgos, J., 4/15/04, at 1-2 (citations omitted).
¶ 2 On January 8, 2004, appellees filed preliminary objections to appellants' complaint, arguing that appellants lacked standing to maintain the cause of action and failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. On April 15, 2004, the trial court sustained appellees' preliminary objections, and dismissed appellants' complaint with prejudice. This timely appeal followed.
¶ 3 Appellants raise the following issues for our review:
Appellants' brief at i-ii.
¶ 4 Our standard of review in determining whether a trial court erred in sustaining preliminary objections is well-settled. "[T]his court must consider as true all of the well-pleaded material facts set forth in the complaint and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from those facts." Knight v. Northwest Savings Bank, 747 A.2d 384, 386 (Pa.Super.2000) (citation omitted). However, "[w]e need not accept a party's allegations as true to the extent they constitute conclusions of law." Fay v. Erie Ins. Group, 723 A.2d 712, 714 (Pa.Super.1999) (citation omitted). "In conducting our appellate review, we observe that preliminary objections, the end result of which would be dismissal of the action, may be properly sustained by the trial court only if the case is free and clear of doubt." Knight, supra. "[We] should affirm an order of a trial court ... sustaining preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer where, when all well-pleaded material facts set forth in the complaint and all inferences fairly deducible from those facts are accepted as true, the plaintiff is not entitled to relief." Small v. Horn, 554 Pa. 600, 608, 722 A.2d 664, 668 (1998) (citation omitted).
¶ 5 Proper appellate review dictates we scrutinize appellants' initial claims in conjunction with the trial court's ruling that appellants lack standing to maintain a cause of action. Trial Court Opinion at 3. It is well-settled that "a party seeking judicial resolution of a controversy in this Commonwealth must, as a prerequisite, establish that he has standing to maintain the action." Bergdoll v. Kane, 557 Pa. 72, 83-84, 731 A.2d 1261, 1268 (1999) (citation omitted). "The law of standing provides that one cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court to enforce private rights or to maintain a civil action for the enforcement of such rights, unless he or she has, in an individual or representative capacity, some real interest in the cause of action, or a legal right, title or interest in the subject matter or controversy." Treski v. Kemper Nat. Ins. Companies, 449 Pa.Super. 620, 674 A.2d 1106, 1111 (1996) (citation omitted). To have standing, a party must: "(a) have a substantial interest in the subjectmatter of the litigation; (b) the interest must be direct; and (c) the interest must be immediate and not a remote consequence." Ken R. on Behalf of C.R. v. Arthur Z., 546 Pa. 49, 53-54, 682 A.2d 1267, 1270 (1996) (citations omitted).
¶ 6 Applying the above cited standards, the trial court found that appellants were not aggrieved parties and dismissed their complaint. In so ruling, the court reasoned that appellants failed to demonstrate that they or any members of the proposed class have suffered a legally cognizable injury. Trial Court Opinion at 3.
¶ 7 Appellants argue the trial court erred in finding "that the injury for which Plaintiffs sought compensation is the `fear of being at an increased risk of having a serious medical condition.'"2 Appellants' brief at 21-22, quoting Trial Court Opinion at 4. They contend this conclusion "directly contradicts Plaintiffs' allegations and argument" and is clearly not supported by the record. Id. at 21. They maintain their complaint properly states a claim for medical surveillance and retesting costs, and cite numerous examples in the record which enforce this claim. Id. at 21-24. Nonetheless, we find it was reasonable for the trial court to infer that appellants' subsequent retesting, although not specifically noted in their complaint, was motivated in part out of a genuine concern or fear that appellees' purported failure to administer reliable Pap smear reports could result in a serious medical condition, if in fact, the condition went undetected. See Id. at 15-16, 21. No relief is due. ¶ 8 Contrary to appellants' assertions, they have not satisfied the requisite elements of a medical monitoring claim. See Appellants' brief at 26-33. Redland Soccer v. Dept. of The Army, 548 Pa. 178, 696 A.2d 137 (1997) is the definitive case on medical monitoring claims in Pennsylvania. In Redland, our Supreme Court was faced with determining whether Redland Soccer Club was entitled to a medical monitoring trust fund as a result of the United States Department of Army's disposal of hazardous materials in a local park used by the club. Id. at 182, 696 A.2d at 139. The Court set forth seven elements that a plaintiff must prove in order to prevail on a common law claim for medical monitoring:
Id. at 195-196, 696 A.2d at 145-146.
¶ 9 Similarly, medical monitoring was recognized as a viable cause of action in Simmons v. Pacor, 543 Pa. 664, 674 A.2d 232 (1996). In Simmons, the Court disallowed recovery for the increased risk and fear of cancer endured by asymptomatic plaintiffs exposed to asbestos-causing cancer, but adopted a limited rule of law permitting plaintiffs with asbestos-related, asymptomatic pleural thickening to recover for medical monitoring. Id. at 678-679, 674 A.2d at 239.
¶ 10 Appellants argue that the court narrowly interpreted Redland and Simmons to preclude recovery based on exposure to a hazardous condition. Appellants' brief at 26-28. They claim they were exposed to dangerous and unsafe medical care in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Am. v. Jerry's Sport Ctr. Inc
...of unjust enrichment does not apply simply because it may also have benefited from Royal's actions. See Walter v. Magee Womens Hosp. of UPMC Health Sys., 876 A.2d 400 (Pa. Super. 2005). Insured notes that in recent years, a growing number of jurisdictions have rejected Buss and adopted the ......
-
Beyers v. Richmond
...579 A.2d at 976. The holding in Gatten was embraced by the court in Foflygen. Foflygen, 615 A.2d at 1354. In Walter v. Magee-Womens Hosp., 876 A.2d 400, 407 (Pa.Super.2005), aff'd per curiam, 588 Pa. 739, 906 A.2d 1194 (2006), the Superior Court held that the UTPCPL was not intended to appl......
-
Rahemtulla v. Hassam
...between the parties, which requires the defendant to pay the plaintiff the value of the benefit conferred. Walter v. Magee-Womens Hosp., 876 A.2d 400, 407 (Pa.Super.Ct.2005); Wilson Area Sch. Dist. v. Skepton, 586 Pa. 513, 895 A.2d 1250, 1254 (2006) ("[T]he doctrine of unjust enrichment con......
-
Commonwealth v. Golden Gate Nat'l Senior Care LLC
...422 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010). Nonetheless, the UTPCPL does not apply to providers of medical services. See Walter v. Magee–Womens Hosp. of UPMC Health Sys. , 876 A.2d 400 (Pa. Super. 2005) ;7 see also Foflygen v. R. Zemel, M.D. (PC) , 420 Pa.Super. 18, 615 A.2d 1345 (1992). "Nursing homes are not......
-
Pa. Needs Regulatory Compliance Defense To UTPCPL Actions
...Water Co., 39 A.3d 473 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2012), appeal denied, 51 A.3d 839 (2012). 11 Walter v. Magee-Womens Hospital of UPMC Health System, 876 A.2d 400 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2005), aff'd, 906 A.2d 1194 12 Algrant v. Evergreen Valley Nurseries, Ltd., 126 F.3d 178 (3d Cir. 1997). 13 Beyers v. Richm......