HARRISBURG – The Superior Court of Pennsylvania recently denied the appeal of three health care organizations who were seeking a new trial, after a trial court found them negligently liable for injuries that a now-deceased former resident of Whitestone Care Center sustained in 2014.
On Aug. 22, Superior Court judges John T. Bender, Susan Peikes Gantman and John Gardner Colins turned away the appeal filed by Whitestone Healthcare Group, LLC, Saber Healthcare Group, LLC and Saber Healthcare Holdings, LLC.
The lawsuit was brought in the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas in March 2016 by plaintiff Shirley Arnold, as administratrix of the Estate of Edward J. Arnold.
According to the litigation, Edward was a resident of Whitestone Care Center from April 2, 2014 to April 22, 2014. He was there for rehabilitation and recovery following a below-the-knee amputation of his left leg, and amputation of several toes on his right foot.
During his time at Whitestone, Edward underwent off-premises dialysis treatment three times a week. On April 18, 2014, he was brought back to Whitestone Care Center from his third dialysis treatment of that week, during which he was “fatigued and developing a fever.”
Per trial testimony, Edward was then placed in a wheelchair in his room and left there alone for up to 45 minutes. At approximately 5:00-5:15 p.m., Barbara Carrington, CNA, and Lynn Stettler, RN, made the decision to move him from the wheelchair to his bed.
“Ms. Carrington left the room to retrieve a Hoyer Lift to facilitate the transfer while Ms. Stettler also left the room for unknown reasons. When they returned, Mr. Arnold was on the floor. At the time, Mr. Arnold reported that he had fallen asleep and slipped out of the wheelchair,” the suit states.
“For the next few days, Mr. Arnold continued his daily routines at the defendant facility including physical therapy. On April 21, 2014, an x-ray revealed Mr. Arnold had suffered a right hip fracture. Mr. Arnold was transferred the next day to Pocono Medical Center and never returned to Defendant Whitestone Care Center.”
On Oct. 17, 2015, Edward passed away for reasons unrelated to the case. Five months later, Shirley initiated litigation against the defendants, whom she believed to be negligent and liable for her late husband’s fall and sought both compensatory and punitive damages.
“After seven days of testimony, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff awarding her $250,000 in compensatory damages and $750,000 in punitive damages. Upon a polling of the jury, eleven of the twelve jurors concurred with the verdict,” the suit said.
Six weeks later, an additional judgment of $6,116.43 in delay damages was added.
The defendants then appealed to the Superior Court, petitioning for a new trial on five issues:
-Whether irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial evidence was introduced;
-Whether relevant and admissible evidence was precluded;
-Whether plaintiff’s expert was permitted to offer causation opinions not previously disclosed and beyond the fair scope of his reports
-Whether “extreme, unfair prejudice” was suffered by the defendants due to the trial court’s refusal to bifurcate the compensatory and punitive damages phases of trial; and
-Whether a new trial should be granted due to the “manifestly excessive” punitive damages award.
According to the Superior Court, these matters may only be reversed if a clear “abuse of discretion or error of law” was committed by the trial court – and the judges found it was not.
Gantman explained that “evidence of conditions at Whitestone facility beyond events surrounding Mr. Arnold’s fall were relevant both to issue of corporate negligence and punitive damages," and “sufficient evidence supported jury’s finding that if there had been more staff available, Mr. Arnold would not have suffered harm; there was sufficient evidence to demonstrate causal connection.”
“The court precluded evidence of Mr. Arnold’s fall several months later, at a different nursing facility while attempting to self-transfer, because that event did not occur under sufficiently similar circumstances; Evidence of Mr. Arnold’s later fall was of limited relevance and would have had undue prejudicial effect and the court precluded experts from testifying about Mr. Arnold’s subsequent fall for same reasons,” Gantman added.
Gantman continued that the plaintiff’s expert Dr. Lipson did not testify outside the scope of his report, and the bifurcation of compensatory and punitive damages trial phases was unnecessary because the evidence [on understaffing] the defendants challenged as relevant only to punitive damages was also relevant to the plaintiff’s claim of corporate negligence – plus, it supported the punitive damages award.
“After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinions of the Honorable David J. Williamson, we conclude appellants’ issues merit no relief,” Gantman said.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania case 1592 EDA 2018
Monroe County Court of Common Pleas case 201602396
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com