PITTSBURGH – A medical staffing company has denied any and all liability for injuries sustained by a local woman in an altercation more than two years ago, when that plaintiff was stabbed in the back while working as a nurse/school bus aide – by a fellow nurse employed by the corporate defendant.
Allison Wolbert and Nathan Wolbert of Westview first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on Nov. 10, 2023 versus Rochelle Lynn Pinkle of New Castle and STAT Staffing Medical Services, Inc., of Pittsburgh.
“On Nov. 22, 2021, Allison Wolbert was employed at the Watson Institute located at 301 Camp Meeting Road, Sewickley, PA 15143. During the normal course of wife-plaintiff’s employment, part of her job is to walk children into the school from their buses as those children are being dropped off at school. At times, this process entails wife-plaintiff going onto the buses and escorting the students from those buses and then into the school. Defendant Pinkle was employed by defendant STAT. Part of defendant Pinkle’s duties were to act as a nurse/bus aide and escort disabled students from their homes to the school,” the suit stated.
“On the morning of Nov. 22, 2021, defendant Pinkle was working as a nurse/bus aide and was escorting the severely disabled, unnamed student on the bus ride to the school. Defendant Pinkle’s primary responsibility was to provide medical care to the student should he have needed it during the bus ride. The school bus arrived at the school and as usual wife-plaintiff boarded the bus to escort the student off the bus and into the school. Wife-plaintiff has escorted this student off his bus and into the school on many occasions and was well acquainted with him and his needs. As wife-plaintiff was unbuckling the student from his seat, she overheard defendant Pinkle acting strangely and seemed to be making Biblical remarks and shaking her head. Wife-plaintiff overheard Pinkle say that Pinkle was ‘putting today into God’s hands.”
The suit continued that as the wife-plaintiff was accompanying the student off the bus, he tripped and fell to the floor – as a result, defendant Pinkle and wife-plaintiff both helped the student up, while at the same time, defendant Pinkle followed the wife-plaintiff and student towards the front of the bus, “rambling and talking about prayer.”
Subsequently, Pinkle did not stop following the pair off the bus and was actually holding onto the student’s vest, saying that she “had to help wife-plaintiff escort the student into school”, but the wife-plaintiff replied that she did not need any more help.
“At this time, Pinkle pulled the student toward her and raised her voice as she pulled a large kitchen knife from her coat near her zipper. Pinkle knocked wife-plaintiff to the ground. Wife-plaintiff scrambled to her feet screaming ‘Knife’ as many times as she could do so. While wielding the large, black-handled kitchen knife, Pinkle knocked the student to the ground, and wife-plaintiff feared for the student’s safety. Wife-plaintiff ran toward the student, still screaming ‘Knife!’ repeatedly. As she was running, wife-plaintiff heard her walkie-talkie come alive with an alert, saying the school is going into ‘lockdown mode.’ As wife-plaintiff approached Pinkle and the student, Pinkle turned her attention to wife-plaintiff and grabbed her,” the suit said.
“As Pinkle grabbed wife-plaintiff she used her opposite hand to swing the knife at wife-plaintiff and stabbed her twice in the back. At all times, wife-plaintiff was acting to protect the student who she felt was in imminent danger at the hands of Pinkle. The bus driver alighted from the bus and approached Pinkle trying to engage her. The next thing that wife-plaintiff remembered was another employee of the school telling her to go inside. Wife-plaintiff ran into the school building. A nurse met her there and ushered wife-plaintiff into a classroom, where wife-plaintiff was told she had been stabbed. Wife-plaintiff was treated at the scene for her wounds as an ambulance was en route. Wife-plaintiff was rushed to the emergency room in an ambulance. Wife-plaintiff was treated for her wounds and her wounds were stapled shut.”
The wife-plaintiff suffered a collapsed lung, among other serious injuries, and continues to experience scarring, increased anxiety, emotional trauma and extreme fatigue, necessitating that she work under limitations as a result of this attack.
“On information and belief, Pinkle was arrested and charged with various felony crimes as a result of her actions. On information and belief, Pinkle was found not guilty by reason of insanity. Defendant STAT knew, or should have known by any reasonable investigation, experience and diligence, that defendant Pinkle was mentally ill and therefore unfit for the position of nurse/bus aide,” the suit said.
“STAT knew or should have known by reasonable inspection, experience and diligence, that this situation of having a mentally ill person escort a student on a school bus was likely to create a risk of serious physical harm. STAT has a duty to students and people like the wife-plaintiff to have better hiring and training practices and breached these duties through their negligent actions and inactions, and as a consequence of that breach, wife-plaintiff sustained serious and permanent injury.”
UPDATE
On Feb. 21, STAT Staffing Medical Services, Inc. filed preliminary objections to the complaint and denied liability for the incident resulting in Wolbert’s stabbing. It also sought to dismiss the plaintiffs’ counts of respondeat superior/vicarious liability, corporate negligence and loss of consortium.
Among other arguments, the company said that it “cannot be held liable for Pinkie’s outrageous criminal conduct committed outside the scope of her employment, nor her alleged negligence in failing to maintain her mental health.”
“STAT Staffing cannot be held vicariously liable for Pinkie’s intentional torts of assault and battery because her willful act of stabbing Wolbert does not fall within the scope of her employment. Pinkie’s outrageous conduct furthered no purpose of her employment, nor can it be characterized as being of the kind and nature that STAT Staffing employed her to perform. When faced with similar claims seeking to hold employers vicariously liable for their employees’ outrageous criminal conduct, our courts have repeatedly held that the employer cannot be liable. STAT Staffing also cannot be held vicariously liable for Pinkie’s negligence. In Count III of their complaint, plaintiffs aver that Pinkie was negligent for allowing her mental health to deteriorate to the point that she was delusional the morning of her crimes,” the preliminary objections stated, in part.
“An employer is liable only for their employee’s conduct that is of a kind and nature that the employee is employed to perform; occurs substantially within the authorized time and space limits; and is actuated by a purpose to serve the employer. None of this criteria applies to Pinkie’s failing to prevent her legal insanity. Plaintiffs fail to plead facts showing how Pinkie’s failure to monitor her condition could be considered conduct falling within the scope of her employment. Rather, plaintiffs are essentially seeking to hold STAT Staffing liable in all instances for any crimes that their employees commit while legally insane at the time of the commission of the offense.”
The objections further asserted that the plaintiffs’ negligent hiring, supervision and training claim should be dismissed, because the plaintiffs “fail to allege sufficient facts that STAT Staffing knew or should have known that Pinkie had a propensity to commit criminal acts.”
“Despite raising a putative claim for corporate negligence based on the wrongful acts of an employee, plaintiffs still insist on averring in negligence their claim that ‘the care, as a nurse/bus aide, provided to the unnamed student was under the direction and supervision of [STAT Staffing], acting through its agents, employees, servants, workman and/or independent contractors, including, but not limited to defendant Pinkie.’ Nowhere in their claim do plaintiffs allege that Pinkie ever acted outside the scope of her employment. In the absence of such an allegation, plaintiffs cannot maintain their claim for corporate negligence. Plaintiffs’ negligence claim still fails because of their failure to plead any, let alone sufficient, facts to establish that STAT Staffing negligently hired, trained or supervised Pinkie,” the objections continued.
“Here, plaintiffs do not plead that there was anything in Pinkie’s past before STAT Staffing hired her that would have put them on notice she may commit a violent crime in the future. Plaintiffs speculatively assert that STAT Staffing ‘failed in its duty to hire competent personnel’ that fulfill their duties as nurse/bus aides; were not a danger to themselves or others; not a danger to students; and not in crisis or legally insane. Plaintiffs also generally alleging that STAT Staffing was negligent in not promulgating policies or screening prospective employees ‘for their fitness to perform as nurse/bus aides for [STAT Staffing] and their capacity to use reasonable care to safeguard the health, safety and welfare of the individuals to whom they were assigned to provide care for.’ To properly plead a negligent hiring claim, plaintiffs needed to go beyond their conclusory and general allegations and plead specific facts that STAT Staffing knew or could have discovered through investigation that Pinkie was a danger and that employing her would create a situation where a third person might be harmed. By failing to allege such facts, plaintiffs’ negligent hiring claim is legally insufficient.”
The plaintiffs also alleged that STAT Staffing was “negligent for failing to adequately supervise and monitor its employees in using reasonable care in safeguarding the health, safety and welfare of the students under their care” – a charge the defendants again denied.
“Plaintiffs’ supervision claim fails because there are no [required] allegations about foreseeability. Plaintiffs make no allegations that Pinkie committed any misconduct during her employment that would have put STAT Staffing on notice that she was a danger to others and needed to be controlled or even terminated. In the absence of such allegations rather than conclusory conclusions of law, plaintiffs’ negligent supervision is legally insufficient,” the objections continued.
“Plaintiffs assert that STAT Staffing failed to promulgate polices or adequately train its ‘nurse/bus aides to use reasonable care to safeguard the health, safety and welfare of the individuals to whom they were assigned to provide care for.’ Plaintiffs do nothing more than plead conclusory statements that STAT Staffing failed to train Pinkie to use reasonable care in safeguarding the students. Plaintiffs need to identify the particular issue on which STAT Staffing had a duty to train Pinkie and show that their failure to do so proximately caused the resulting injury, which in this case would be Pinkie stabbing Wolbert. Plaintiffs fail to set forth sufficient facts to support their negligent training claim. In the event that STAT Staffing’s preliminary objections are sustained and both Count IV (respondeat superior/vicarious liability) and Count V (corporate negligence) are dismissed, this Court should also dismiss Count VI for loss of consortium as to STAT Staffing.”
For counts of assault, battery, negligence, respondeat superior/vicarious liability, corporate negligence and loss of consortium, the plaintiffs are seeking damages in excess of $50,000, interests, costs and such other relief as the Court deems appropriate.
The plaintiffs are represented by Trent Echard, Matthew Marquette and Paul Staub of Echard Marquette, in Allison Park.
Defendant STAT Staffing Medical Services, Inc. is represented by Mary Jo Rebelo and Ryan D. Gleason of Burns White, in Pittsburgh.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-23-013034
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com