Young v. Western Pennsylvania Hosp.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Writing for the Court: OLSZEWSKI, J.
• Citation: 722 A.2d 153
• Decision Date: 16 November 1998
• Parties: Joyce YOUNG, Appellant, v. The WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA HOSPITAL and Richard Liposky, D.M.D., Appellees.

722 A.2d 153

Joyce YOUNG, Appellant,
v.
The WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA HOSPITAL and Richard Liposky, D.M.D., Appellees

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued October 8, 1998.

Filed November 16, 1998.

Reargument denied January 1, 1999.

Daniel W. Ernsberger, Pittsburgh, for appellant.

Richard S. Dorfzaun, Pittsburgh, for appellees.

Before EAKIN, SCHILLER and OLSZEWSKI, JJ.

722 A.2d 154

OLSZEWSKI, J

This is an appeal of an order denying appellant's motion for post-trial relief stemming from a discovery order granting appellee's motion to quash a subpoena and for a protective order. Appellant alleges that the trial court erred in denying post-trial relief based on the trial court's alleged error in the interpretation and application of the Peer Review Protection Act. 63 P.S. §§ 425.1-425.4. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the decision of the trial court denying appellant's motion for post-trial relief.

In 1982, appellant underwent oral surgery performed by Richard Liposky, D.M.D. In 1990, the manufacturer of proplast implants informed Dr. Liposky's office that such implants posed potential problems to patients. As a result, Dr. Liposky's staff undertook the task of informing all former patients who either actually had or might have had the proplast implant inserted of the potential problems. During the course of informing these patients, Dr. Liposky's office sent a letter to appellant informing her of the potential problems caused by the implants inserted during her 1982 oral surgery.

Because of this letter, appellant consulted Gary Patterson, D.M.D. about her situation. In 1991, Dr. Patterson performed surgery to remove the implants, but allegedly discovered during the surgery that she never actually received implants.¹ Based on Dr. Patterson's surgical discovery, appellant brought this cause of action against Dr. Liposky alleging that the 1990 letter from his office constituted negligent misrepresentation.

In addition, appellant also brought suit against The Western Pennsylvania Hospital ("appellee") based on corporate negligence.² Appellant alleges that appellee was negligent in granting Dr. Liposky staff privileges at the hospital based on his application and faulty record-keeping.

During the course of pre-trial discovery, appellant noticed appellee for a corporate deposition and requested that appellee produce "all documents, records and information submitted for purposes of reviewing his staff privileges." Appellant's notice of corporate deposition: The Western Pennsylvania Hospital (contained in certified record). Appellant also subpoenaed the Medical Center of Beaver County, PA, as a corporate deponent and demanded "[a]ll documents relating to Dr. Liposky's request for staff privileges and determination of his staff privileges." Subpoena to Corporate Deponent, Medical Center of Beaver County, PA (contained in certified record). Appellee and the Medical Center of Beaver independently moved to quash the subpoena and to obtain a protective order; the trial court granted both motions on September 24, 1996.

Appellant's case proceeded to a jury trial on November 20, 1997. Following the presentation of appellant's case, appellee moved for nonsuit. The trial court granted appellee's motion. Specifically, Judge Joseph James stated:

We find that ... — one of the burdens of proof is to establish the standard that the hospital had an expert — that you needed to have an expert to establish that the hospital breached its duty. I find none. The question says: Documentation previously supplied. It says it's to be attached. He said he previously supplied it. I can find no breach on the part of the hospital in this case.

Furthermore, I find that there is no expert as to causation. There is no one who can testify that as a result of his negligent misrepresentation, if we assume that it was, that is any way that that caused the harm. There is no testimony in the record — and the record is silent as to what steps Dr. Patterson took before he conducted surgery, any records that were

722 A.2d 155

received. The record is silent as to all the things that Patterson could have done or may have done

All these things are so ripe for speculation, that a jury of 12 lay people cannot make a decision based on the status of the record. Therefore, the Western Pennsylvania Hospital motion for nonsuit is granted.

R. at 151-52. At the same time, the case against Dr. Liposky was dismissed due to Dr. Liposky's bankruptcy.

Appellant filed a post-trial motion alleging error based on the trial court's granting of appellee's motion to quash a subpoena and for a protective order, and requesting production of the demanded materials and a new trial. On November 7, 1997, Judge McGowan denied appellant's motion for a new trial. This timely appeal follows.

Appellant sets forth only one question for our review: "Is discovery of original documents under the Peer Review Protection Act limited to the first document and not all original documentation?" Appellant's brief at 6. While we find appellant's question presented interesting, it does not address appellant's real issue in this case. Appellant alleges that the lower court committed reversible error when it precluded appellant from requesting or taking...