West v. Abington Mem’l Hosp., 2025 Pa. Super. LEXIS 390 (August 28, 2025) Bowes, J.
BEFORE: BOWES, J., OLSON, J., and McLAUGHLIN, J.
OPINION BY BOWES, J. // DISSENTING OPINION BY McLAUGHLIN, J.
Sean West and Amy West, as parents and natural guardians of Juliana West, a minor, individually and in their own right (collectively “the Wests”) appeal from the order that granted the motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by Abington Memorial Hospital, Regina P. Sturgis-Lewis, M.S.N., and Joel I. Polin, M.D. (collectively “Appellees”). We affirm.
On April 18, 2008, [the Wests] filed a medical malpractice action against [Appellees] captioned as West v. Abington Hospital, et al., C.C.P. Montgomery County, No. 2008- 09957 (“West I”). This medical malpractice action claimed damages due to the mismanagement of Amy West’s labor and delivery resulting in the rupture of [her] uterus and catastrophic brain injuries to her child, Juliana West.
A jury trial commenced on January 8, 2013. On January 16, 2013, following six days of trial and the conclusion of [the Wests]’ case-in-chief, the parties notified the court that they agreed to settle the case for the full insurance policy limits of $19 million.
On January 25, 2013, [the Wests] executed a Full and Final Release (“Release” or “Settlement Agreement”) . . . The Honorable Stanley A. Ott, then Administrative Judge of the Orphans’ Court Division, approved the settlement and proposed distribution on March 14, 2013.
Upon careful review of the plain language of the Release, we agree with Appellees that the Wests’ position relies upon too narrow an interpretation of the terms “arising from,” “in any way connected with,” and “arising out of” appearing in ¶¶ 1, 2, and 8 of the Release. The plain meaning of the word “arising” is “(1) (a) : to begin to occur or to exist : to come into being or to attention . . . (b) : to originate from a source.” https://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/arising (cleaned up, internal parentheses added).
The term “in any way connected with” is, on its face, even broader, requiring no cause and result relationship between the past claims and the present suits, but merely some logical association between the malpractice and the new damages claim. See https://www.merriamwebster. com/dictionary/connected (defining “connected” as “(1): joined or linked together (2) : having the parts or elements logically linked together”) (internal parentheses added).
Here, the Wests have instituted new suits seeking damages to be calculated as the difference between (1) the $19 million for which they agreed to settle their claims for the injuries they suffered as a result of Appellees’ provision of healthcare services, and (2) the amount that they would have received for those claims had they not relied to their detriment on Appellees’ representation that they had produced all documents responsive to the Wests’ discovery requests. These suits are not only “in any way connected with” the occurrence underlying the claims the Wests released, they originated from the same source: the alleged malpractice. Had not the initial provision of medical services taken place, West I would not have been filed and Appellees would have had no cause to produce the discovery documents alleged in West II and West III to have been wrongfully withheld. To prevail in West II and West III, the Wests would essentially have to relitigate the underlying medical malpractice case to prove that the production of an additional document pertinent to the standard of care would have increased the jury’s assessment of the losses the Wests sustained by virtue of Appellees’ deviation from that standard. Appellees’ provision of medical services was thus a but-for cause of the instant controversies.
Moreover, this interpretation of ¶¶ 1 and 2 of the Release is consistent with, and reinforced, by ¶ 8 in which the Wests declared that they were “making a full and final compromise adjustment and settlement of any and all claims on account of the injuries and damages above-mentioned, and for the express purpose of precluding forever any further or additional suits arising out of the aforesaid claims.”
Accordingly, we hold that the actions sub judice arose from the underlying provision of medical services and from the claims litigated in West I. Consequently, the Release discharged the new claims and precluded these new suits raising them unless the Wests are able to avoid the terms of that agreement, in particular its integration clause.
The Wests do not dispute that the Release was a fully integrated contract. Indeed, as highlighted above, the Release expressly provided: “It is further understood and agreed that this is the complete release agreement, and that there are no written or oral understandings or agreements, directly or indirectly, connected with this release and settlement, that are not incorporated herein.”
Hence, they do not allege a claim of fraud in the execution that would be permissible despite the parol evidence rule. Instead, they seek to prove that Appellees made false representations that induced them to agree to the Release. However, based upon Pennsylvania law, the Wests are prohibited from admitting evidence to show that they signed an agreement, which indicated that it did not include any understanding that did not appear within the writing, because they had justifiably relied upon an understanding that was not included in the writing.
They signed a contract acknowledging that they had no understandings omitted therefrom, agreeing to accept $19 million in exchange for a release of any and all claims for known and unknown injuries connected in any way with the medical services Appellees rendered.
Consequently, the trial court correctly granted Appellees’ motion for judgment on the pleadings because the Wests’ new claims were barred by the Release. Therefore, we affirm. Order affirmed.
Judge Olson joins this Opinion. Judge McLaughlin filed a Dissenting Opinion.
· Full and final release entered into.
· Claimant took the position that the release was not binding as to a later claim.
· West position relies upon a narrow interpretation of the terms “arising from” and “in anyway connected with” and “arising out of” these terms appear in the release.
· The plain meaning of these terms would bind a future claim even if it was on a different basis, such as fraud.
· Here the Wests instituted new suits seeking damages to be calculated as a difference between the $19 million dollars, which they agreed to settle their claims for and the amount they would have received for those claims, had they not relied on their detriment of the representation that they had received all documents responsive to discovery requests in the first case.
· These claims all relate to the original source, the alleged malpractice.
· Had the initial provision of medical services not taken place, there would be no second case and would have been no first case.
· To prevail in the second case, the Wests would essentially have to relitigate the underlying medical malpractice claim to prove that the production of additional documents would have increased the jury’s assessment of the lawsuits.
· The release is final, and no further claim can be brought.
