Fisher v. Gingerich, 2025 Pa. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2205
(August 27, 2025) Stevens, P.J.E.
OPINION BY STEVENS, P.J.E.
Plaintiffs/Appellants, Mary and Brett Fisher, (hereinafter “Appellants”) appeal from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Perry County granting summary judgment in favor of Donna Gingerich, Defendant/Appellee, and dismissing the matter with prejudice. This case arose from injuries allegedly sustained by Appellant Mary Fisher (hereinafter “Appellant”) while acting as in-home caregiver to Appellee, during which time Appellant attempted to transfer Appellee from her bed to her wheelchair. Appellants allege Appellee caused injury to Appellant by failing to reasonably participate, cooperate or assist in her own care. After careful review, we affirm.
At oral argument before the trial court, Appellants’ counsel maintained that Appellee had a duty to cooperate which was breached by the following conduct: “specifically here [. . .] [Appellee] was provided with a Hoyer lift device meant to assist with this transfer that [Appellant] was making manually, and she refused to utilize it[,]” and further “when [Appellant was] required to make the manual transfer, the patient insist[ed] that there be no skin-to-skin contact, leaving [Appellant] with the only mechanism she had, which is to grab [Appellee], [to] lift her by [. . .] the waistline of [her] sweatpants [. . .] and, essentially, swing and pivot her.”
In examining the relationship between the parties, we note it is not disputed that Appellee was an elderly and disabled woman, suffering from multiple sclerosis, with significant physical limitations that left her reliant on Appellant, as her hired in-home caregiver, to accomplish such goals as eating, bathing, and getting in and out of bed.
While this relationship certainly imposes duties upon Appellant as caregiver, consistent with her training, experience, and ability, the same cannot be said for Appellee based upon Appellants’ allegations and the record before this Court. It is apparent that Appellee had insufficient ability to move from her wheelchair to her bed without assistance, and there is no indication that she herself was a trained care provider with knowledge of safe or appropriate practices for moving patients.
It is for this reason, as well, that we, in agreement with the trial court, find that the nature of the risk imposed, and foreseeability of the harm also weigh heavily against imposition of a duty.
There is indeed nothing in the record to indicate Appellee was a trained, medical professional, and while the risks inherent in utilizing improper techniques to move a patient may be perfectly obvious to an individual with such training or experience, we will not impute that specialized knowledge to the lay person, let alone a care-dependent individual relying upon the training and expertise of a care provider.
Finally, in assessing the overall public interest in imposing the duty Appellant proposes, we find that to hold Appellee owed a duty to her caregiver under these circumstances would open the floodgates of litigation from any care provider who struggled to care for a patient they deemed uncooperative and would allow for individual care providers to file suit against patients they deem difficult. Under the facts of this case, we decline to impose a duty upon a patient to oversee the practices of medical professionals from whom they receive care and treatment.
Thus, for all the foregoing reasons, we hold that Appellee indeed owed no duty of care as proposed by Appellant, and thus we affirm the ruling of the trial court in granting summary judgment in favor of Appellee.
Order Affirmed.
• Case properly dismissed caregiver who inadvertently injured patient while moving an elderly difficult to move patient.
• No duty of care owed by this person who is just a helper.
• There is nothing in the record to indicate that the helper was a trained, medical professional and while the risks are inherent in utilizing proper techniques to move a patient may be perfectly obvious to an individual with such training or experience, we will not impute that specialized knowledge to the lay person, let alone a care-dependent individual relying upon the training and expertise of a care provider.
• This is an unpublished decision.
