HARRISBURG – The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has decreed that litigation against the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania from the family of a convicted murderer over the psychiatric care he underwent prior to committing his crimes will not proceed, due to a state law which prevents felons from obtaining financial recovery connected to circumstances resulting from their crimes.
A unanimous complement of the state Supreme Court held in a Nov. 22 opinion that Pennsylvania’s “no felony conviction recovery” rule precluded plaintiff Sandra DiNardo (acting as legal representative for her incarcerated son) from obtaining financial damages versus the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania and Dr. Christian Kohler, and affirmed an earlier ruling from the Superior Court of Pennsylvania in doing so.
Cosmo DiNardo, along with his cousin Sean Michael Kratz, murdered 19-year-old Dean A. Finocchiaro, 21-year-old Thomas C. Meo, 19-year-old Jimi T. Patrick and 22-year-old Mark R. Sturgis in July 2017, on a farm belonging to DiNardo’s parents in Solebury Township.
DiNardo had enticed all four men to come to the property with the promise of selling the victims marijuana – but instead, then killed Patrick with a .22 caliber rifle and buried his body on July 5, 2017; that DiNardo and Kratz killed Finocchiaro, Meo and Sturgis with a .357 handgun, loaded the corpses into a pig roaster, poured gasoline on them and set them ablaze on July 7 of that year and finally, that DiNardo and Kratz used a backhoe to dig out a mass grave and buried the mutilated bodies the following day, July 8.
DiNardo was charged with four counts of criminal homicide, conspiracy to commit criminal homicide, abuse of a corpse and 12 other counts.
In May 2018, he pled guilty and was sentenced to four consecutive life terms in state prison without the possibility of parole.
Kratz was also charged with three counts of criminal homicide, conspiracy to commit criminal homicide, abuse of a corpse, and two other counts – but unlike DiNardo, rejected a plea bargain and went to trial.
In November 2019, Kratz was convicted of first- and second-degree murder in the death of Finocchiaro and voluntary manslaughter in the deaths of Meo and Sturgis, and was also later sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.
In the instant litigation, DiNardo’s mother Sandra alleged that deficient psychiatric care from the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania and a reduction in the dosage of medication her son received in late 2016 and early 2017, later led him to commit the murders.
Sandra DiNardo pursued indemnification for attorney’s fees and costs related to her son’s legal defense, in addition to compensatory damages for restitution her son will pay to the estates of his victims.
The Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas split the difference when it granted the Hospital’s preliminary objections on the concept of indemnification via the “no felony conviction recovery” statute, since it was connected to Cosmo DiNardo’s crimes, but permitted the compensatory damages count, since it was possible they could be connected to the Hospital and Kohler’s negligence.
When the matter was appealed to the state Superior Court, that body ultimately ordered a complete dismissal of the case in January 2022, for failure to state claims upon which relief could be granted and further found that the “no felony conviction recovery rule” properly precluded Sandra DiNardo’s claims for indemnification and attorney’s fees.
The state Supreme Court permitted a review of the matter on the lone point of whether the “no felony conviction recovery” rule precluded “the award of any civil damages or relief where…appellant alleges that [Cosmo DiNardo] would not benefit or profit from his own criminal acts, but rather would be compensated for alleged medical malpractice relating to the crimes for which he pleaded guilty?”
In the eyes of the state’s top court, that preclusion was in fact the case, under both the “no felony conviction recovery” rule and public policy.
“In short, our case law, while somewhat limited, firmly establishes that, under both the ‘no felony conviction recovery’ rule and the in pari delicto doctrine, persons convicted of serious crimes must bear the losses stemming from their criminal acts, and, as a matter of public policy, will not be permitted to shift responsibility for these losses to others. Stated another way, injuries that flow from volitional criminal conduct cannot provide a basis for a recovery in tort,” Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Chief Justice Debra Todd said, in the Court’s unanimous opinion.
“Finally, we elaborate upon the public policy which undergirds the ‘no felony conviction recovery’ rule. Initially, we stress that the rule is founded upon the public interest, and arises from the premise that injuries arising from volitional criminal conduct should not provide a basis for a recovery in tort. Generally speaking, the rule contemplates notions of fairness, personal responsibility and the protection of our legal institutions and public confidence therein…even more compelling, allowing such civil actions would impact the criminal justice system and the public’s perception thereof, as it would undercut the goal of affording finality and respect to the criminal justice system’s allocation of responsibility and allow tort awards that in context would shock one’s sense of ordinary justice.”
Todd continued that “not only would the judiciary and the criminal justice system be negatively impacted by allowing one to recover civil damages for injuries arising from serious criminal conduct, but…there could be detrimental effects on the practice of psychiatric medicine” and also potentially lead to “increasing healthcare costs if medical care providers became ‘guarantors’ of the financial costs of the crimes committed by their patients.”
State Supreme Court Justice Kevin M. Dougherty, in his concurring opinion, urged that in the future, the Court may want to consider exceptions to both the “no felony conviction recovery” rule, as well as the in pari delicto doctrine.
In a brief response statement to the decision, the Hospital said it was “pleased” that Pennsylvania’s “no felony conviction recovery” rule was upheld.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania cases 22 EAP 2022 & 23 EAP 2022
Superior Court of Pennsylvania cases 1905 EDA 2020 & 1906 EDA 2020
Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas cases 190402322 & 190700460
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com