YORK – Parents who sued Wellspan York Hospital for not getting the remains of a fetus to their preferred funeral home in a timely fashion have discontinued their case, after one month of litigation.
Chantel Horner and Ryan Madara of Windsor first filed suit in the York County Court of Common Pleas on Jan. 22 versus Wellspan Health, of York.
“On Nov. 24, 2023, plaintiff was a patient at Wellspan York Hospital for a dilation and curettage procedure following the loss of her fetus. Plaintiff Ryan Madara, the father, was also present. At the time of her hospital stay, both plaintiffs informed hospital staff that they wanted the baby’s remains transported to Gladfelter Funeral Home, Inc.,” the suit said.
“Plaintiff Chantel Horner was discharged from the hospital on Nov. 25, 2023. Plaintiff Chantel Horner contacted Gladfelter on Nov. 28, 2023, and was informed that the funeral home had no knowledge of her baby’s remains being transported there. Plaintiff Chantel Horner contacted the defendant by telephone to inquire what had happened and was given no information as to the whereabouts of her baby’s remains. The baby’s remains were not delivered to Gladfelter until Nov. 30, 2023.”
The suit added that this incident was due to the negligence of the defendant and was due to no act or omission on the part of the plaintiffs.
“As a result of the negligence of the defendant, the plaintiffs suffered injuries and damages consisting of severe emotional distress, headaches, grief and nightmares. As a result of the negligence of the defendant, the plaintiffs have undergone, and in the future may undergo, great mental and physical pain and suffering, mental anguish and humiliation, loss of life’s pleasures, and a severe limitation in their pursuit of daily activities, all to their great loss and detriment,” the suit stated.
UPDATE
In a Feb. 21 answer to the complaint, the defendant argued that the baby’s remains were already with Gladfelter as of Nov. 28, 2023, having been delivered on Nov. 27, 2023.
“Plaintiffs have failed to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted. Defendant was not negligent. Any acts or omissions of defendant alleged to constitute negligence were not substantial causes or factors of the subject incident and/or did not result in the injuries and/or losses alleged by the plaintiffs,” the answer’s new matter stated.
“If plaintiffs sustained the injuries alleged, proof of which is specifically demanded, said injuries may have been the result of the negligent or careless acts and/or omissions of plaintiffs and/or other persons and/or entities over who or whom defendant exercised no control. The incident, injuries and/or damages allegedly sustained by plaintiffs were not proximately caused by defendant.”
The following day, Feb. 22, the plaintiffs filed a praecipe to discontinue the case, according to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 229(a).
For a lone count of negligence, the plaintiffs had been seeking damages in excess of the mandatory arbitration limits.
The plaintiffs were represented by Thomas P. Lang of the Law Offices of Dale E. Anstine, in York.
The defendant was represented by Aaron M. Scheibelhut and Ronald H. Pollock of Saxton & Stump, in Lancaster.
York County Court of Common Pleas case 2024-SU-000198
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com