O’Shea v. Loyalsock Rehab. Ctr., LLC., 2025 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 57
(July 12, 2025) Carlucci, J.
This matter was commenced by Plaintiff by her original Complaint filed January 27, 2023, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. Upon Preliminary Objection by Defendants, the matter was transferred to Lycoming County. Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint, to which Defendants filed another round of Preliminary Objections. By Order dated November 15, 2024, the Court granted Defendants’ Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint and directed Plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint within twenty (20) days. Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint, to which Defendants filed Preliminary Objections on December 26, 2024. Defendants’ Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint raises many of the same issues raised in earlier Preliminary Objections but now adds the additional claim of a request to remand the matter to compulsory arbitration. It appears to the Court that the Defendants or their counsel did not notice the arbitration provision contained within admission documents until almost two (2) years after this litigation was commenced in Philadelphia County.
Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint is more than 70 paragraphs long and asserts claims in four (4) counts. Count I asserts claims of both common law and corporate negligence. Count II is also a claim in negligence but appears to be a claim of corporate negligence in the hiring and retention of two (2) employees. Since any claim based upon the acts or omissions of those employees would be a claim at common law negligence, it appears to the Court that Count II might simply be redundant of Count I. Count III appears to be a restatement of Count II but is simply labeled “reckless indifference.” Since claims for punitive damages in Pennsylvania are not a separate cause of action but merely an element of claimed damages, the Court cannot understand the significance of Count III. Count IV is yet another restatement of the claim of negligence at Count I, but this time cloaked in the language of res ipsa loquitor. That doctrine, arising from the nineteenth century English courts, is a theory of recovery, rather than a separate cause of action.
It appears to the Court that Plaintiff numbered paragraphs 1 through 36 in the Second Amended Complaint, and then numbered Paragraph 37 as Paragraph 30, and continued thereafter. Thus, it appears that the Second Amended Complaint is actually 77 Paragraphs in length. The Court will attempt to refer to Paragraphs in the Second Amended Complaint clearly, in an effort to avoid confusion.
Defendants’ Preliminary Objections, filed December 26, 2024, seek relief in ten (10) Counts. At Count A, Defendants seek to have this matter remanded to compulsory arbitration. At Count B, Defendants seek a demurrer to Plaintiff’s claims for punitive damages, asserting that the Complaint lacks any allegations of material fact which would support a claim for punitive damages under 40 P.S. § 1303.505(b). At Count C, Defendants seek to strike Plaintiff’s claims of res ipsa loquitor. At Count D, Defendants seek to strike all claims against unnamed agents. At Count E, Defendants seek to strike all references in the Second Amended Complaint to “neglect.” At Count F, Defendants seek to strike all references to increasing revenue, underfunding, and related claims. At Count G, Defendants seek to strike all references to misleading documentation. At Count H, Defendants seek to strike all allegations of’ “misleading and misrepresenting facts” to the Department of Health. At Count I, Defendants seek to strike all allegations regarding events which occurred after the injury to Plaintiff’s decedent. At Count J, Defendants seek to strike allegations of damage from Paragraphs 30 and 31 of the Second Amended Complaint.
QUESTIONS PRESENTED:
• Count A: Whether this matter should be transferred to compulsory arbitration.
• Count B: Whether a demurrer should be entered to Plaintiff’s claims for punitive damages (which is not specifically demanded in Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint).
• Count C: Whether Count IV of the Second Amended Complaint should be stricken.
• Count D: Whether Second Amended Complaint references to unnamed agents should be stricken.
• Count E: Whether Second Amended Complaint references to “neglect” should be stricken.
• Count F: Whether Second Amended Complaint references to “increasing revenue” or “underfunding” should be stricken.
• Count G: Whether Second Amended Complaint references to misleading documentation should be stricken.
• Count H: Whether Second Amended Complaint references to “misleading and misrepresenting facts” to the Pennsylvania Department of Health should be stricken.
• Count I: Whether Second Amended Complaint references to events occurring after the death of Plaintiff’s decedent should be stricken.
• Count J: Whether Second Amended Complaint paragraphs 30 and 31 should be stricken.
BRIEF ANSWERS:
• Count A: This matter will not be transferred to compulsory arbitration.
• Count B: No demurrer will yet be entered to Count III of Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint.
• Count C: Count IV of the Second Amended Complaint will be stricken, without prejudice to the Plaintiff to seek a jury instruction on res ipsa loquitor (13.30) if supported by the evidence at trial.
• Count D: Plaintiff’s 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.
• Count E: Plaintiff’s reference to “neglect” will not be stricken.
• Count F: Second Amended Complaint references to increasing revenue or underfunding will be stricken.
• Count G: Second Amended Complaint references to misleading documentation will be stricken.
• Count H: Second Amended Complaint references to “misleading and misrepresenting facts” to the Pennsylvania Department of Health” will be stricken.
• Count I: Second Amended Complaint references to events occurring after the death of Plaintiff’s decedent will be stricken, without prejudice to Plaintiff to introduce evidence of those events at trial, if relevant.
• Count J: Second Amended Complaint paragraphs 30 and 31 regarding a Medicare lien and other damages will be stricken, without prejudice to Plaintiff to introduce evidence of those events at trial, if relevant, or to claim any damages which are recoverable pursuant to applicable law.
