O’Shea v. Loyalsock Rehab. Ctr., LLC., 2025 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 57 (July 12, 2025) NO. 2023-01142
Second, Defendants’ demand for arbitration is untimely. Defendants’ demand for arbitration was not asserted through the first two sets of Preliminary Objections and was not raised until the parties had engaged in many months of discovery. It may be that the Defendants did not notice the arbitration language in the admission agreement until nearly two (2) years after this litigation commenced. Notwithstanding that possibility, Plaintiff has soldiered on through multiple sets of Preliminary Objections addressing multiple drafts of the Complaint, including the transfer from Philadelphia County to Lycoming County, and many months of discovery. This Court concludes that it would present significant prejudice to the Plaintiff, having engaged nearly two (2) years of litigation, to be directed to “Return to Go” and commence the litigation, over through compulsory arbitration. For that reason, Count A of Defendants’ Preliminary Objections will be denied.
Defendants seek a demurrer to Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages, despite the fact that no such claim is stated within the demands for relief contained in Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint. The Court infers that Defendants seek a demurrer to Count III, labeled “Reckless Indifference.” The Court sees little need for an Order striking a demand for punitive damages from the Second Amended Complaint, since it contains no such specific demand.
Plaintiff claims that Plaintiffs decedent was wrongfully administered an “opioid cocktail” and suffered damages as a result. Plaintiff further claims that the injury to Plaintiff’s decedent would not have occurred, absent negligence. The Court notes, however, that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor is a rule of evidence, not a cause of action.
It is entirely possible that Plaintiff’s evidence at trial will support the trial court providing the jury with Pa. Suggested Standard Civil Jury Instruction 13.30. That rule of circumstantial evidence is not, however, a separate cause of action at Pennsylvania law.
Plaintiffs reference to unnamed agents will not yet be stricken, but Plaintiff’s reference to unnamed agents will be addressed either in response to a future dispositive motion, or at trial. Despite the Order of November 5, 2024, which directed Plaintiff to provide greater specificity in the allegations regarding unnamed agents of the Defendants, the allegations on that issue in Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint appear vague. The Court is mindful that discovery is not yet complete, and thus that Plaintiff might not yet know the identity of Defendants’ agents who participated in the care of Plaintiffs decedent. For that reason, the Court will not require Plaintiff to file yet another amended pleading, but the Court may further address this issue in response to a future dispositive motion, or at trial.
Paragraphs 27 and 95 of Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint accused the Defendants of “attempted murder,” but contained no material allegations of fact beyond recklessness and negligence. The essence of Plaintiffs claim is that Defendants owed Plaintiffs decedent a duty of care, that they breached that duty by the wrongful administration of opioid medications, and that the breach was the legal cause of her falls and other damages suffered by her. In the Order of November 15, 2024, the Court directed Plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint, which deleted some of those references.
The Second Amended Complaint no longer accuses the Defendants of attempted murder but does include allegations of neglect. In the view of the Court, allegations of neglect in a pleading seeking damages for medical negligence does not constitute scandalous matter.
Since references in the Second Amended Complaint to increasing revenue or underfunding are not related to Plaintiff’s claim that Defendants wrongfully administered opioid medications, those allegations will be stricken.
In her First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff repeatedly referred to Defendants’ “fraudulent documentation” but failed to allege any material facts which support that conclusion. In the Order of November 15, 2024, the Court directed Plaintiff to either delete those references or assert material allegations of fact which connect them to the injury to Plaintiff’s decedent. Since those allegations do not appear to be material to Plaintiff’s claim that Defendants wrongfully administered opioid medications, those allegations will be stricken.
Paragraph-26 of Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint alleges that Defendant reported inaccurate data to the Pennsylvania Department of health. While those events may prove relevant at-trial, Plaintiff has no need to plead that evidentiary material. As such, those allegations will be stricken, without prejudice to introduce that evidence at trial, if relevant and otherwise admissible.
Paragraphs 28 and 29 and 30 of the Second Amended Complaint allege facts related to an investigation which occurred after the events upon which Plaintiff’s claim is based. Plaintiff has no need to plead that evidentiary material. As such, those allegations will be stricken, without prejudice to introduce that evidence at trial, if relevant and otherwise admissible.
The second Paragraph 30 of Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint, which is located immediately after Paragraph 36, alleges a medical lien. The following paragraph alleges other economic damages. While those damage claims may or may not be admissible at trial, Plaintiff has no need to plead that evidentiary material. As such, those allegations will be stricken, without prejudice to introduce that evidence at trial, if relevant and otherwise admissible.
