Young v. UPMC Williamsport, Pa. No. CV-22-00866 (C.P. Lycoming (April 11, 2023) (Linhardt, J.). Plaintiff commenced this medical malpractice action by filing a Complaint on September 1, 2022, and filed an Amended Complaint on December 6, 2022. Essentially, Plaintiff alleges that UPMC’s delay in diagnosing and addressing the cause of his gastrointestinal symptoms increased his risk of harm during a March 12, 2021 laparotomy to treat his condition, as did the failure of surgeon Dr. Gross and anesthesiologist Defendant Kevin P. Kinkead, M.D. (“Dr. Kinkead”) to perform appropriate procedures and follow UPMC’s policies concerning laparotomies. Plaintiff contends that these failures resulted in numerous complications during the laparotomy, seriously injuring Plaintiff and requiring him to undergo additional procedures. The Amended Complaint contains four counts: I) Vicarious Liability against UPMC; 11) Professional Negligence against Dr. Gross; Ill) Professional Negligence against Dr. Kinkead; and IV) Corporate Liability against UPMC. The Court agrees with Plaintiff that at this stage Paragraph 62, read in the context of the entire Amended Complaint, is sufficiently specific to satisfy Pennsylvania’s fact-pleading standard. The Court agrees with Objecting Defendants that Paragraphs 67(b), 68(b), and 72(b) through 72(d) are insufficiently specific to state claims of vicarious liability against UPMC and professional negligence against Dr. Gross. As written, Paragraphs 67(b) and 68(b) assert that UPMC is liable for any violation of (an unspecified, and possibly non-existent) hospital policy by Dr. Gross and Dr. Kinkead, whether that violation is the single act explicitly described or some other, unspecified failure. Under Connor, UPMC is entitled to insist that Plaintiff either 1) confine its allegations of vicarious liability to those narrow factual averments specifically pied, or 2) plead sufficient facts to support its broad allegations of vicarious liability. Similarly, Paragraphs 72(b) through 72(d) assert that Dr. Gross “[failed] to act in accordance with UPMC’s policies with regard to” 1) “exploratory laparotomies”; 2) “patients with bowel obstructions that require surgical intervention”; and 3) “with regard to general surgery.” For the same reasons described above, these allegations would allow Plaintiff to assert theories of liability against Dr. Gross that go far beyond the single allegation that he failed to decompress Plaintiff’s stomach prior to the iaparotomy. Dr. Gross is thus left to guess as to other acts or omissions Plaintiff contends form the basis of his direct liability. The Amended Complaint contains no factual averments that support a contention that UPMC knew or should have known that it failed in any of these duties. The allegation these duties were breached during the course of Plaintiffs treatment is insufficient to establish that UPMC either knew or should have known of the circumstances prior to Plaintiffs treatment. Notice necessarily requires some antecedent knowledge, whether actual or constructive. Here, a fair reading of the Amended Complaint contains no factual allegations concerning UPMC:s adherence to its duties prior to Plaintiffs initial presentation; rather, the Amended Complaint suggests that the first sign that UPMC was violating its duties was the negative outcome Plaintiff suffered on March 12, 2021, which is no notice at all. For the foregoing reasons, the Court sustains Objecting Defendants’ preliminary objections concerning Paragraphs 67(b), 68(b), 72(b) through 72(d), and 84 of the Amended Complaint. The Court overrules Objecting Defendants’ preliminary objection concerning Paragraph 62 of the Amended Complaint.