Superior Court 3/31/08 - JOSEPH COHEN AND GALIT DADOUN-COHEN, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN THEIR OWN RIGHT AS CO-ADMINISTRATORS OF THE ESTATE OF ETHAN AMOS DAD

JOSEPH COHEN AND GALIT DADOUN-COHEN, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN THEIR OWN RIGHT AS CO-ADMINISTRATORS OF THE ESTATE OF ETHAN AMOS DADOUN COHEN, DECEASED v. KATHLEEN FURIN, MSW, CCE, MATERNAL WELLNESS CENTER, RONNIE ROTHMAN, CNM, JULIANNA THOMPSON, CNM, WOMAN WISE MIDWIFERY, ERIC CARLSON, D.O., MAIN LINE PERINATAL ASSOCIATES, A DIVISION OF WOMEN’S HEALTH CARE GROUP OF PENNSYLVANIA, LLC AND MAIN LINE HOSPITALS, INC., D/B/A LANKENAU HOSPITA
No. 1270 EDA 2007 2008 PA Super 52 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/31/2008
Appeal from the Order entered April 24, 2007 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Civil, No. 1401 February Term, 2007
Before: KLEIN, GANTMAN and ALLEN, JJ.
Opinion by: KLEIN, J.
Joseph Cohen and Galit Dadoun-Cohen (“Plaintiffs”), individually and as co-administrators of the estate of their son, Ethan Amos Dadoun-Cohen, appeal from a trial court order transferring their case from Philadelphia County to Montgomery County. We affirm.


First, Plaintiffs claim that Kathleen Furin and Maternal Wellness Center, Philadelphia co-defendants, rendered care that creates venue in Philadelphia. The Furin/Maternal Wellness defendants, primarily social service providers, did not render medical care in this case. Their alleged negligence is referring Mrs. Dadoun-Cohen, who had a high risk pregnancy, to midwives instead of a physician. However, making a referral is not “furnishing health care services” to establish venue under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5101.1.

Second, Plaintiffs claim that there is venue created because when Mrs. Dadoun-Cohen first went into labor, she placed a phone call from Philadelphia to Ronnie Rothman of Woman Wise midwifery in Philadelphia. Plaintiffs claim Ms. Rothman negligently told them to cancel an ambulance and wait before going to the hospital in Montgomery County. Pennsylvania case law establishes that telephone communication does not constitute “furnishing health care services” in a county when the physical services are to be rendered in another county.

Third, Plaintiffs further claim error because the trial judge refused to allow additional discovery after he granted preliminary objections and transferred venue from Philadelphia to Montgomery County. Because Plaintiffs have an obligation to present all evidence to the trial judge at the time of the initial preliminary objections, it was not an abuse of discretion to deny further discovery after the ruling had been made.