SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES
Pennsylvania Case Summaries
Educational Comm’n for Foreign Med. Graduates v. Tulp
Pennsylvania Superior Court
No. 3083 EDA 2023
Decided: June 9, 2025
In this unpublished decision, the Superior Court upholds a Trial Court’s entry of summary judgment for Plaintiff on a wrongful use of civil proceedings claim based partially on requests for admission which were deemed admitted, along with deposition testimony.
Background
Dr. Tulp (“Tulp”) appeals from the Trial Court’s entry of partial summary judgment against Tulp in favor of Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates (collectively with the other plaintiff-appellees, “ECFMG”) on ECFMG’s claim of wrongful use of civil proceedings. ECFMG certifies foreign medical schools, and their graduates have met certain criteria, allowing the graduates of these institutions to pursue residencies in the United States. Tulp is the founder and president of a private medical school in the Caribbean. In 2018, ECFMG was alerted that Tulp’s school was providing in-person medical instruction within the United States, which would be in violation of ECFMG’s criteria for accreditation and jeopardized the school’s ability to be certified by ECFMG.
ECFMG advised Tulp of the allegations, which he denied. ECFMG began an investigation which included affidavits to USAT students inquiring where they completed their medical education and training – more than 300 indicated that they had taken classes in different locations within the United States; not a single respondent stated that they had completed the entirety of their education in the Caribbean. ECFMG then advised Tulp that in addition to the allegations, it now believed Tulp had provided ECFMG with false information in his initial response and invited Tulp to attend the credential committee meeting in Philadelphia. At the meeting, Tulp’s attorney refused to provide any information, accused ECFMG of blackmailing Tulp’s students, threatened the committee members with personal liability, and generally refused to cooperate. ECFMG then determined that Tulp provided false information and began disciplinary actions against Tulp and the school.
Tulp filed suit against ECFMG in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania raising various claims. The District Court granted a Motion to dismiss all claims except a common law due process claim. ECFMG later prevailed on a Motion for summary judgment dismissing the common law due process claim. Tulp appealed the District Court’s entry of summary judgment to the Third Circuit, which affirmed.
ECFMG then filed the Complaint underlying this appeal in which they raised claims of wrongful use of civil proceedings, inter alia, against Tulp.
Holding
Reviewing the record, the Superior Court found that the Trial Court’s entry of summary judgment was based on Tulp’s deposition testimony in addition to the requests for admission which were deemed admitted, many of such requests are not challenged by Tulp. The record shows that Tulp initiated the Federal action and continued the proceedings when he had no reasonable belief in the existence of facts upon which he based his claims with a conscious disregard of the consequences to ECFMG. The Superior Court affirmed, concluding that the record supported the Trial Court’s entry of summary judgment on the wrongful use of civil proceedings claim.
Questions about this case can be directed to Laura Daube at (717) 441-3955 or ldaube@tthlaw.com.
Hagelauer v. Main Line Emergency Med. Assocs.
Pennsylvania Superior Court
No. 2064 EDA 2024
Decided: June 2, 2025
Superior Court vacates judgment in favor of Defendants and remands for a new trial based on the doctor’s article summarizing guidelines for treatment used to impeach him at trial because the article was a signed and adopted writing under Pa.R.E. 803.1(1)(B).
Background
Plaintiff decedent, Mr. Hagelauer, collapsed while playing tennis. He was taken to the emergency room and received treatment from Defendants, Main Line Emergency Medicine Associates. Approximately four weeks later, Mr. Hagelauer collapsed again while playing tennis and died from cardiac arrest. Plaintiff, Mrs. Hagelauer, brought a medical malpractice action against Defendants alleging that they failed to properly evaluate and treat Plaintiff’s decedent after his first collapse. Specifically, that the providers failed to meet the standard of care by failing to ensure Mr. Hagelauer was admitted to the hospital and evaluated by a cardiologist for his exertional syncope with follow-up testing, including an echocardiogram and stress testing.
At trial, counsel for Mrs. Hagelauer sought to introduce an email Plaintiff’s decedent sent, stating a doctor had cleared him to play tennis if he ate and drank something beforehand. Mrs. Hagelauer also sought to cross-examine Defendants’ expert witness, Dr. Raja, with an article he had authored regarding guidelines for evaluating syncope patients. These were both deemed inadmissible hearsay by the judge. The jury returned a verdict finding no negligence on the part of any Defendant. Mrs. Hagelauer filed a Post-Trial Motion seeking a new trial based upon these two pieces of evidence being deemed inadmissible.
Holding
Both issues concern the admissibility of evidence. Regarding the email, the Court found that it contained both a statement of Mr. Hagelauer’s state of mind (that he felt able to play tennis) and a fact-bound statement (that a doctor had cleared him), making it inadmissible hearsay under the state of mind exception. Regarding the article authored by Dr. Raja, the Court found that Dr. Raja’s article summarizing guidelines was a writing he had signed and adopted as his own under Pa.R.E. 803.1(1)(B), making it admissible as a prior inconsistent statement to impeach his contrary trial testimony. The Superior Court vacated the judgment in favor of Defendants and remanded for a new trial.
Questions about this case can be directed to Gabrielle Martin at (610) 332-7003 or gmartin@tthlaw.com.
Scheibe v. Woodloch Resort
Pennsylvania Superior Court
2025 Pa. Super. 109
Decided: May 20, 2025
Praecipe considered timely filed when it complied with state rules of civil procedure and was received by the Prothonotary within the statute of limitations.
Background
Plaintiff Steven Scheibe was injured in an accident at Woodloch Resort on July 15, 2021. Plaintiff sought to commence a negligence action against Defendant Woodloch Resort before the two-year statute of limitations expired. On July 11, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel mailed a Praecipe for Writ of Summons with an electronic signature via overnight delivery to the Pike County Prothonotary’s office. The Praecipe was delivered to the Prothonotary’s office on July 12, 2023, as confirmed by USPS tracking. The Prothonotary did not accept the Praecipe, citing non-compliance with a local rule requiring an original signature. Plaintiff sent a new Praecipe which complied with the local rules via overnight mail on July 17. The Prothonotary docketed this Praecipe on July 18.
After the pleadings closed, Defendant filed a Motion for judgment on the pleadings based on the fact that the Praecipe for Writ of Summons was not accepted for filing until July 18, 2023, after the statute of limitations had expired. On May 9, 2024, the Trial Court granted Defendant’s Motion and dismissed the action with prejudice. Plaintiff filed a Motion for reconsideration, which the Trial Court denied. Plaintiff then filed a timely notice of appeal with the Pennsylvania Superior Court.
Holding
Pursuant to 1 Pa.C.S. § 1908, when a statutory filing deadline falls on a weekend or holiday, the deadline is extended to the next business day. In this case, Plaintiff had until Monday July 17, 2023 to file because the two-year limitations period expired on Saturday July 15, 2023. Under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, a legal document is deemed filed when received by the Prothonotary’s office, regardless of when it is later docketed or time-stamped. The undisputed evidence showed the Praecipe was delivered to the Prothonotary’s office on July 12, 2023, within the limitations period. While local courts can adopt their own rules of procedure, Pa.R.C.P. 205.2 prohibits prothonotaries from refusing to file pleadings that comply with the statewide rules of civil procedure based solely on non-compliance with a local rule. The Superior Court vacated the Trial Court’s Order and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Questions about this case can be directed to Briana Vetter at (267) 861-7584 or bvetter@tthlaw.com.
Bernavage v. Green Ridge Healthcare Group, LLC
Pennsylvania Superior Court
No. 1576 MDA 2023
Decided: May 19, 2025
Plaintiff not permitted to add punitive damages claim during trial.
Background
The Superior Court vacated a jury’s $2.7 million punitive damages award in a suit accusing a nursing home of negligently causing a resident’s fractured hip. By way of background, Mildred Bernavage, who was 90 years of age, fractured her hip after falling in the shower facility of Green Ridge Care Center. Ms. Bernavage was wheel-chair bound and characterized as a high fall risk resident. As a CNA was preparing Ms. Bernavage to be bathed, she began to lift Ms. Bernavage out of the wheelchair. In the process, however, the CNA fell to the ground after slipping on water and took Ms. Bernavage down with her. Ms. Bernavage was not admitted into a hospital until 12 hours later, where she remained for five days to undergo hip surgery. Ms. Bernavage ultimately passed away in March 2020, at the age of 92, from unrelated comorbidities.
In 2019, Ms. Bernavage’s daughter and power-of-attorney, Carolyn Vanston, filed a Complaint against Green Ridge Care Center as well as Saber Healthcare Group, the owners of the nursing home. Until trial, Plaintiff’s Complaint asserted only a general negligence claim. However, on the first day of trial, Plaintiff’s counsel began eliciting testimony from key witnesses regarding Defendant’s conscious disregard of known risks, which ultimately led to multiple witnesses describing Defendant’s conduct as “reckless.” Despite no new facts emerging to support a recklessness theory, the Trial Court allowed Plaintiff to amend her Complaint to add a recklessness claim over the defense’s objection. The jury ultimately found that Defendant’s conduct demonstrated a reckless disregard for patient safety and awarded $300,000 in compensatory damages and $2.7 million in punitive damages.
Holding
On appeal, the Court affirmed the compensatory damages award but vacated the punitive damages award. The Court underscored the fact that while amendments to pleadings should be liberally allowed, permitting an amendment at “the last possible minute” without any newly discovered facts caused unfair surprise and prejudiced the defense. It further explained that the primary prejudice inquiry for amendments to complaints should focus on whether new allegations are offered late rather than in the original pleading, not on whether the opponent may lose his case on the merits if the pleading is allowed. Thus, where amendment is sought after the testimony has been concluded, prejudice will always result to the extent that the opposing party has not contemplated the subject matter of the proposed amendment in the preparation and trial of the case.
Questions about this case can be directed to Haley Obrzut at (717) 255-7646 or hobrzut@tthlaw.com.
Janik v. Zoological Soc’y of Phila.
Pennsylvania Superior Court
2025 Pa. Super. 90
Decided; April 22, 2025
Lower Court erred in excluding Zoo’s architectural plans and failing to instruct the jury on the open and obvious doctrine, warranting a new trial.
Background
Plaintiff was walking in the Philadelphia Zoo’s Big Cat Falls exhibit when his left foot struck the bottom of a decorative boulder, causing him to fall and be injured. Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, alleging that the Zoo was negligent in placing the decorative boulder near the walkway. At trial, the jury awarded Plaintiff $255,000 dollars in non-economic damages and $10,000 in economic damages. Defendant filed a Post-Trial Motion for relief, arguing that the Court erred in excluding the Zoo’s architectural plans and excluding mention of the open and obvious doctrine from the jury instruction and verdict slip. Based on Defendant’s Motion, the Trial Court ordered a new trial.
Holding
On appeal, the Superior Court analyzed the Trial Court’s decision, asking whether the Trial Court made any mistakes and whether it abused its discretion in ordering a new trial. The Superior Court held that Defendant’s witness established her firsthand knowledge of the plans and how the Zoo used them. Thus, the architectural plans were relevant and probative, and it was error for the Trial Court to exclude them. In addition, the Superior Court disagreed with Plaintiff that his lack of knowledge of the boulder precluded it from being open and obvious. It emphasized that the doctrine applies when a condition is known or obvious and the test for obviousness is usually a question for the jury. It further held that the Trial Court erred by allowing the Zoo to argue the open and obvious doctrine and then excluding the doctrine from the jury instructions. The Court thus affirmed the decision to grant a new trial.
Questions about this case can be directed to Trevor Flynn at (717) 255-7239 or tflynn@tthlaw.com.