Walter v. Magee Womens Hospital of Upmc Health System

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Writing for the CourtPer Curiam
Citation906 A.2d 1194
Decision Date28 September 2006
PartiesChristine 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.
906 A.2d 1194
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.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Argued September 11, 2006.
Decided September 28, 2006.

Appeal No. 53 WAP 2005 from the Order of the Superior Court entered April 12, 2005 at No. 817 WDA 2004, affirming the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County entered April 15, 2004 at No. GD 03-025469. 876 A.2d 400 (Pa.Super.2005).

Thomas E. Groshens, Richard A. Sprague, Robert C. Daniels, Philadelphia, for appellant.

William A. Pietragallo, II, Pittsburgh, for appellee.

Lisa Whitcomb Clark, David Edwin Loder, Philip H. Lebowitz, Philadelphia, for appellee amicus curiae.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.


AND NOW, this 28th day of September, 2006, the Order of the Superior Court is hereby AFFIRMED.

Chief Justice Cappy did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • Beyers v. Richmond, No. 38 EAP 2006.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • December 28, 2007
    ...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 apply to providers of medical services. Walter involved a proposed class......
  • Franks v. Sykes, No. W2018-00654-SC-R11-CV
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Tennessee
    • May 1, 2020
    ...state); Walter v. Magee-Womens Hosp. of UPMC Health Sys. , 876 A.2d 400, 407–08 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2005), aff'd per curiam , 588 Pa. 739, 906 A.2d 1194 (2006) (holding that the processing of lab reports was more like providing medical treatment than consumer-oriented commercial or business act......
  • Rubin v. Paul A.R. Stewart Helm Legal Servs., 2554 EDA 2021
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Pennsylvania
    • February 15, 2023
    ...services." See Walter v. Magee-Womens Hosp. of UPMC Health Sys., 876 A.2d 400, 407 (Pa. Super. 2005) (emphasis added), aff'd per curiam, 906 A.2d 1194 (Pa. 2006). Therefore, the failure to provide Alejandro with her prescription immediately following her medical examination is not actionabl......
3 cases
  • Beyers v. Richmond, No. 38 EAP 2006.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • December 28, 2007
    ...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 apply to providers of medical services. Walter involved a proposed class......
  • Franks v. Sykes, No. W2018-00654-SC-R11-CV
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Tennessee
    • May 1, 2020
    ...state); Walter v. Magee-Womens Hosp. of UPMC Health Sys. , 876 A.2d 400, 407–08 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2005), aff'd per curiam , 588 Pa. 739, 906 A.2d 1194 (2006) (holding that the processing of lab reports was more like providing medical treatment than consumer-oriented commercial or business act......
  • Rubin v. Paul A.R. Stewart Helm Legal Servs., 2554 EDA 2021
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Pennsylvania
    • February 15, 2023
    ...services." See Walter v. Magee-Womens Hosp. of UPMC Health Sys., 876 A.2d 400, 407 (Pa. Super. 2005) (emphasis added), aff'd per curiam, 906 A.2d 1194 (Pa. 2006). Therefore, the failure to provide Alejandro with her prescription immediately following her medical examination is not actionabl......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT