PITTSBURGH – A Pittsburgh widower has restated that a University of Pittsburgh Medical Center-affiliated facility is responsible for the eventual death of his wife, after she first fell while being transferred from her wheelchair to her bed.
James Cabbagestalk (as Administrator of the Estate of Barbara Cabbagestalk, deceased) first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on Feb. 13 versus The Heritage Shadyside (doing business as “UPMC Heritage Place”). Both parties are of Pittsburgh.
“On June 5, 2021, the defendant admitted Barbara Cabbagestalk to UPMC Heritage Place. Plaintiff’s decedent, Barbara Cabbagestalk, was admitted to UPMC Heritage Place in order to undergo physical therapy and occupational therapy,” the suit said.
“When Barbara Cabbagestalk was admitted to UPMC Heritage Place, she was accessed as a high fall risk with the maximal assist to transfer from her wheelchair to her bed. On or about July 2, 2021, while Barbara Cabbagestalk was being transferred from her wheelchair to her bed with the assistance of agents, servants and/or employees of the defendant, Barbara Cabbagestalk fell and landed on her left side, resulting in the damages and injuries set forth below.”
The suit added that the employees in question failed to properly transfer Barbara Cabbagestalk from her wheelchair to the bed, among other negligent failures in proper care procedures.
“As a result of the negligence of the defendant as aforesaid, plaintiff’s decedent, Barbara Cabbagestalk, sustained the following injuries: Left side sacral ALAR fracture, large left arm breast and flank hematoma and other possibly serious injuries,” the suit stated.
“As a result of the negligence of the defendant as aforesaid and plaintiff’s decedent’s injuries as set forth above, plaintiff’s decedent, Barbara Cabbagestalk, sustained the following damages: She endured pain, suffering, inconvenience, embarrassment, mental anguish, emotional and psychological trauma; She was required to spend money for medical treatment and care, medical supplies, rehabilitation, medicines and other attendant services; Her general health, strength, and vitality were impaired and she was unable to enjoy various pleasures of life that she previously enjoyed.”
On May 5, the facility filed an answer and new matter in the case which denied liability for the events in question.
“Plaintiff’s claims are barred or, in the alternative, limited by the provisions of the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Act. Any damages to which plaintiff might otherwise be entitled to, are barred or, in the alternative, limited by Sections 508-10 of the MCARE Act. Plaintiff is precluded from recovering damages for future medical expenses to the extent such damages would be covered by a health insurance plan providing minimum essential coverage mandated by the provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and all of its attending rules and regulations,” the new matter stated.
“Plaintiff is barred from recovering any past and/or future premiums, deductibles or other expenses related to the health insurance plan providing minimum essential coverage as required by law. Plaintiff is barred from recovering any past medical expenses to the extent they have failed to obtain the minimum essential coverage, as required by the Affordable Care Act. Defendant asserts Pennsylvania’s Comparative Negligence Statute, as an affirmative defense. Defendant reserves the right to amend this answer and new matter and raise additional defenses as they become available, as permitted by Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1033.”
The new matter continued that the plaintiff’s action is “barred in whole or in part by Pennsylvania’s statute of limitations and/or the doctrine of laches, in that he knew or should have known through the exercise of due diligence of the injury causing conduct more than two years before the date this action was commenced.”
“Plaintiff’s complaint in civil action fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff’s claims are barred due to the lack of any causal relationship between any alleged acts or omissions of defendant and any losses or damages sustained by plaintiff,” the new matter said.
“If plaintiff did sustain any damages, injuries, or losses, which is expressly denied, then the same were solely the result of the actions, inactions, superseding and/or intervening conduct of other parties or entities not under the custody or control of defendant. If plaintiff did sustain any damages, injuries, or losses, which is expressly denied, then the same were due to various conditions from which the patient suffered and are in no way causally related to any alleged acts or omissions of defendant.”
UPDATE
Plaintiff counsel replied to the new matter on May 25.
“The allegations set forth in Paragraphs 26-30 of defendant’s new matter state conclusion of law to which no response is required. In the event that a response is deemed to be required, the same of specifically denied and strict proof is demanded. The allegations set forth in Paragraph 31 are denied pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1030. Paragraph 32 of defendant’s new matter does not state any issues of fact and no response is required. In the event that a response is deemed to be required the same are specifically denied and strict proof demanded. The allegations set forth in Paragraph 33 are specifically denied. To the contrary, this cause of action was filed in a timely manner,” the reply stated.
“The allegations set forth in Paragraph 34 state conclusions of law to which no response is required. In the event that a response is deemed to be required the same are specifically denied and strict proof demanded. The allegations set forth in Paragraph 35 are specifically denied. To the contrary, plaintiff’s injuries and damages were caused by the negligence of the defendant that’s more fully set forth in his complaint. The allegations set forth in Paragraph 36 are specifically denied. To the contrary, all of plaintiff’s damages, injuries, and losses were caused by the actions of the defendant acting through its agents, ostensible agents, servants, and/or employees. The allegations set forth in Paragraph 37 are specifically denied. To the contrary, all of plaintiff’s damages, injuries, and losses were caused by the negligence of the defendant as more fully set forth the complaint.”
For two counts of negligence and corporate negligence, the plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of the arbitration limits of this Court, plus interest and costs.
The plaintiff is represented by Richard C. Levine of Ainsman Levine, in Pittsburgh.
The defendant is represented by M. Brian O’Connor and Erik R. Bennett of Baum O’Connor Cullen Chmiel, also in Pittsburgh.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-23-002006
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com