PHILADELPHIA – A panel trio of judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has affirmed a federal court’s denial of a motion to reconsider a personal injury complaint, brought by a man who claimed injury from a cervical medical device used on him during spinal surgery.
A Dec. 9 per curiam ruling from the Third Circuit and its judges Kent A. Jordan, Paul B. Matey and Richard L. Nygaard, upheld the dismissal of plaintiff Albert J. Robus’s complaint versus Dr. Michael S. Yoon, Providence Medical Technologies, Inc. Chief Executive Officer Jeffrey Smith, its Vice President of Regulatory Affairs Janie Mandrusov and Abington Memorial Hospital.
“Robus filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in which he alleged that, when performing spinal surgery, defendant Yoon used a cervical-cage system manufactured by defendant Providence Medical Technologies, Inc. Robus claimed that this system was not appropriate for his condition, that he did not consent to its use, and that it has caused him to suffer severe and permanent pain,” the Third Circuit said.
“In addition to Yoon and Providence, Robus named as defendants Abington Memorial Hospital and two officers of Providence. The District Court granted Robus permission to proceed in forma pauperis, but then sua sponte dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction without prejudice to Robus’s re-filing in state court.”
However, the Court determined that Robus could not maintain claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 because none of the defendants were state actors, and there was no diversity jurisdiction at hand because Robus, Yoon, and Abington Memorial Hospital were all citizens of Pennsylvania.
42 days later, Robus filed a motion to amend/reconsider the complaint. He stated that he did not intend to pursue claims against the out-of-state defendants, and that he “only wanted to assert a claim of ordinary negligence on the part of Dr. Michael Yoon.”
The District Court denied the motion as untimely and ruled Robus was not entitled to relief because his argument – that he sought to pursue claims against only the Pennsylvania defendants – did not cure the lack of diversity jurisdiction.
The Court indicated Robus could pursue his claims in state court, but Robus filed a notice of appeal to the Third Circuit.
Third Circuit judges explained their jurisdiction was limited only to review of the District Court’s order denying Robus’s motion to amend/reconsider, and that a notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of the order that the party seeks to appeal.
As the District Court entered its order dismissing the complaint on Feb. 4, 2019, the defendants argued, Robus not filing his motion to amend/reconsider within 28 days of the order did not toll the time to appeal.
“Robus filed his notice of appeal on March 27, 2019 – more than 30 days after the District Court’s order dismissing his complaint – and we therefore lack jurisdiction over that order. The notice of appeal is, however, timely as to the District Court’s order denying the motion to amend/reconsider, so we have jurisdiction to review that order. We review the District Court’s order for abuse of discretion,” the Third Circuit stated.
The Third Circuit added the District Court did not abuse its discretion, since Robus, as the plaintiff in this case, was required to plead the grounds for jurisdiction.
In his motion to amend/reconsider, Robus stated that he sought to bring only a negligence claim against Yoon. But he pleaded that Yoon is a citizen of Pennsylvania, a fact which Yoon confirmed in his appellate brief.
Therefore, per the Third Circuit, the District Court was correct to deny Robus’s motion to amend/reconsider because “the amended pleading…will not cure the [jurisdictional] defects in the original pleading that resulted in the judgment of dismissal.”
“In this Court, Robus argues that the District Court possessed jurisdiction under a variety of federal statutes. However, he did not identify any of these statutes (or the associated causes of action) in his complaint or his motion to amend/reconsider. We will not consider these claims for the first time on appeal,” the Third Circuit said.
“Further, to the extent that Robus contends that the District Court should have acted in some way to help him preserve the statute of limitations on his claims, we note that Robus may be able to transfer the action to state court. We will therefore affirm the District Court’s order denying Robus’s motion to amend/reconsider.”
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit case 19-1691
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com