RICHARD SCAMPONE, EXECUTOR OF ESTATE OF MADELINE SCAMPONE v. GRANE HEALTHCARE COMPANY, GRANE ASSOCIATES, L.P., HIGHLAND PARK CARE CENTER, LLC, D/B/A

RICHARD SCAMPONE, EXECUTOR OF ESTATE OF MADELINE SCAMPONE v. GRANE HEALTHCARE COMPANY, GRANE ASSOCIATES, L.P., HIGHLAND PARK CARE CENTER, LLC, D/B/A HIGHLAND PARK CARE CENTER, TREBRO INC. APPEAL OF: HIGHLAND PARK CARE CENTER, LLC, D/B/A HIGHLAND PARK : CARE CENTER, AND GRANE HEALTHCARE : COMPANY, No. 2180 WDA 2007 2010 PA Super 124 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 7/15/2010
	Appeal from the Judgment Entered November 8, 2007, in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Civil Division, at No. G.D. No. 2005-24806.
Before: BOWES, DONOHUE and POPOVICH, JJ.
Opinion by: BOWES, J.
This is an appeal and cross appeal from judgment entered on a $193,500 jury verdict rendered in favor of the plaintiff, Richard Scampone in his capacity as executor of the estate of Madeline Scampone (“Plaintiff”), in this action involving nursing home liability. We find that the evidence was sufficient to support a cause of action for corporate liability and that such liability can be imposed upon a nursing home. We also conclude that the trial court improperly granted nonsuit in favor of Grane Healthcare Company during the course of trial and that there was sufficient evidence of misconduct in this case to warrant submission of the issue of punitive damages to the jury. We reverse and remand for a new trial.

-----------------------------------------------------Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

DANIEL F. ROSS v. FOREMOST INSURANCE COMPANY, SENTRY SERVICES, INC.

DANIEL F. ROSS v. FOREMOST INSURANCE COMPANY, SENTRY SERVICES, INC. No. 529 WDA 2009 2010 PA Super 107 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 6/11/2010
	Appeal from the Order Entered February 23, 2009, In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Civil Division at No(s). GD 05-001848
Before: BENDER, PANELLA and OTT, JJ.
Opinion by: OTT, J.
Daniel F. Ross appeals from the order entered on February 23, 2009 granting a motion for summary judgment filed by Sentry Services, Inc. (“Sentry”) and dismissing his complaint. After careful review, we affirm.

-----------------------------------------------------Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

DEBRA FRENCH, AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF BRIAN P. FRENCH, DECEASED, AND IN HER OWN RIGHT AS AN INDIVIDUAL v. COMMONWEALTH ASSOCIATES, INC.

DEBRA FRENCH, AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF BRIAN P. FRENCH, DECEASED, AND IN HER OWN RIGHT AS AN INDIVIDUAL v. COMMONWEALTH ASSOCIATES, INC.; UNITED CONVEYOR CORPORATION; AND THE BABCOCK AND WILCOX COMPANY, AND/OR A/K/A BABCOCK & WILCOX CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., AND/OR A/K/A BABCOCK & WILCOX EBENSBURG POWER, INC.,AND DEBRA FRENCH, AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF BRIAN P. FRENCH, DECEASED, AND IN HER OWN RIGHT AS AN INDIVIDUAL v. GILBERT/COMMONWEALTH, INC., OF MICHIGAN, FORMERLY KNOWN AS COMMONWEALTH ASSOCIATES, INC. A/K/A AND/OR GILBERT/COMMONWEALTH, INC., FORMERLY KNOWN AS GILBERT ASSOCIATES, INC., A/K/A AND/OR GILBERT/COMMONWEALTH INTERNATIONAL INC. No. 1191 WDA 2008 2009 PA Super 152 Atlantic: n/a Petition for Reargument Denied 10/6/2009 Filed: 7/31/2009
	Appeal from the Order June 18, 2008 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lawrence County Civil, Nos. 10251 of 2003 CA, 10312 of 2003 CA, and 10401 of 2003 CA
Before: LALLY-GREEN, GANTMAN, AND COLVILLE, JJ.
Opinion by: GANTMAN, J.
Dissenting Statement Opinion by: LALLY-GREEN, J.
Appellant, Debra French, as administratrix of the estate of Brian P. French, deceased, and in her own right as an individual, appeals from the order of the Lawrence County Court of Common Pleas, denying her petition to open and/or strike the judgment of non pros, based on the court’s determination that Appellant failed to file a timely certificate of merit under Pa.R.C.P. 1042.3. Specifically, Appellant asks us to determine whether her products liability/breach of warranty claims against the Gilbert defendants (“Appellee”) should survive the judgment of non pros, absent a certificate of merit. We hold the trial court erred when it failed to review Appellant’s entire complaint to determine which counts sounded in professional negligence and which counts sounded in products liability/breach of warranty, so that only the professional negligence claims might be subject to a judgment of non pros for failure to file a certificate of merit. Accordingly, we vacate and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

CAROL HYRCZA, EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF MARGARET MAHUNIK, DECEASED, v. WEST PENN ALLEGHENY HEALTH SYSTEM, INC.; ALLEGHENY GENERAL HOSPITAL;

CAROL HYRCZA, EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF MARGARET MAHUNIK, DECEASED, v. WEST PENN ALLEGHENY HEALTH SYSTEM, INC.; ALLEGHENY GENERAL HOSPITAL; SUBURBAN GENERAL HOSPITAL CO., INC.; SUBURBAN GENERAL HOSPITAL; ALLEGHENY INTEGRATED HEALTH GROUP; CRANBERRY MEDICAL ASSOCIATES; WEXFORD MEDICAL PRACTICE; HILLARY A. STROUD, M.D.; BRUCE E. CONWAY, M.D.; HEALTH SOUTH CORPORATION; CHOICECARE PHYSICIANS, P.C.; YVETTE C. ROSS HEBRON, M.D.; ASSOCIATED NEUROLOGISTS-UPMC; ASSOCIATED NEUROLOGISTS, INC.; HASSAN HASSORI, M.D.; and JONATHAN E. ARTZ, M.D. APPEAL OF: YVETTE C. ROSS HEBRON, M.D. CHOICECARE PHYSICIANS, P.C. No. 135 and 136 WDA 2008 2009 PA Super 119 Atlantic: n/a Petition for Reargument Denied 9/11/2009 Filed: 7/1/2009
	Appeal from the Judgment entered January 3, 2008, Court of Common Pleas, Allegheny County, Civil Division at No. GD-03-010989
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., DONOHUE and COLVILLE*, JJ.
Opinion by: DONOHUE, J.
Yvette C. Ross Hebron, M.D. (“Dr. Hebron”) and ChoiceCare Physicians, P.C. (“ChoiceCare”) (collectively, “Appellants”) appeal from the January 3, 2008 order entering a judgment in the amount of approximately $8.6 million on a jury verdict in favor of Carol Hyrcza (“Hyrcza”), executrix of the estate of Margaret Mahunik (“the Decedent”), and against Appellants. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

Superior Court - FIZZANO BROTHERS CONCRETE PRODUCTS, INC. v. XLN, INC., SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. v. SHORE CONSULTANTS,

FIZZANO BROTHERS CONCRETE PRODUCTS, INC. v. XLN, INC., SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. v. SHORE CONSULTANTS, LTD., GREGG A. MONTGOMERY, DAVID BINDER AND XLNT SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS, INC. APPEAL OF: XLNT SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS, INC. No. 1896 EDA 2007 2009 PA Super 89 Atlantic: 973 A.2d 1016 Filed: 5/15/2009
	Appeal from the Order entered September 14, 2007, Court of Common Pleas, Delaware County Civil Division at No. 01-11752
Before: BENDER, DONOHUE and FREEDBERG, JJ
Opinion by: DONOHUE, J.
Dissenting Opinion by: BENDER, J.
XLNT Software Solutions, Inc. (“XLNT”) appeals from the trial court’s entry of judgment in favor of Appellee Fizzano Brothers Concrete Products, Inc. (“Fizzano”). The trial court applied the de facto merger doctrine to impose successor liability on XLNT for the debts of a company whose assets XLNT purchased. In so ruling, the trial court excepted this asset sale from the general rule that the purchaser of assets is not liable for the debts of the transferor. Since we conclude that the record in this case does not support a finding that the de facto merger doctrine had any application in this case, we reverse the trial court’s order.

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

Superior Court - KAREN PRIDGEN, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF LENDON N. PRIDGEN, DECEASED, AND AS PERSONAL

KAREN PRIDGEN, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF LENDON N. PRIDGEN, DECEASED, AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ANTHONY W. CIPPARONE, DECEASED; DENISE DIGGEN, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF DANIEL DIGGEN, DECEASED; AND DEBRA JOHNSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF TYLER JOHNSON, AS PARENT AND NATURAL GUARDIAN OF TYLER JOHNSON, A MINOR v. PARKER HANNIFIN CORPORATION, BASCO FLYING SERVICE, INC., TEXTRON LYCOMING RECIPROCATING ENGINE DIVISION, TEXTRON, INC. AND AVCO CORPORATION APPEAL OF: TEXTRON, INC., AVCO CORPORATION AND TEXTRON LYCOMING RECIPROCATING ENGINE DIVISION No. 974 EDA 2008 2009 PA Super 90 Atlantic: 974 A.2d 1166 Petition for Reargument Denied 7/28/2009 Filed: 5/15/2009
	Appeal from the Order Entered February 19, 2008, Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Civil Division, at Nos. 003838 and 004008, July Term, 2001.
Before: KLEIN, SHOGAN, JJ. and McEWEN, P.J.E.
Opinion by: SHOGAN, J.
Textron, Inc., AVCO Corporation and Textron Lycoming Reciprocating Engine Division (collectively “Appellants”) appeal from the order entered on February 19, 2008, in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas that denied Appellants’ motion for summary judgment. The appellees in this matter are Karen Pridgen, individually and as Personal Representative of the estate of Lendon N. Pridgen, deceased, and as Personal Representative of the estate of Anthony W. Cipparone, deceased; Denise Diggen, individually and as personal representative of the estate of Daniel Diggen, deceased; and Debra Johnson, individually and on behalf of Tyler Johnson, as parent and natural guardian of Tyler Johnson, a minor (collectively “Appellees”). Additionally, we are faced with a motion to quash filed by Appellees. Upon review, we grant Appellees’ motion to quash.

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

Superior Court - JEFFREY TINDALL and SILVIA TINDALL, Husband and Wife v. BRAD S. FRIEDMAN, D.O., and MARK SCHWEITZER, M.D. and JEFFERSON IMAGING

JEFFREY TINDALL and SILVIA TINDALL, Husband and Wife v. BRAD S. FRIEDMAN, D.O., and MARK SCHWEITZER, M.D. and JEFFERSON IMAGING and THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL and JEFFERSON HEALTH SYSTEM APPEAL OF: MARK SCHWEITZER, M.D. APPEAL OF: BRAD S. FRIEDMAN, D.O. APPEAL OF: JEFFERSON IMAGING No. 3390, 3391 and 3422 EDA 2004 3494 EDA 2005 2009 PA Super 50 Atlantic: 970 A.2d 1159 Petition for Reargument Denied 6/1/2009 Filed: 3/24/2009
	Appeal from the Judgment Entered November 3, 2004, in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Civil Division, at No. 4056 January Term, 2001.
Before: BOWES, SHOGAN and FITZGERALD, JJ.
Opinion by: BOWES, J.
Concurring and Dissenting Opinion Opinion by: SHOGAN, J.
Dr. Brad S. Friedman, Dr. Mark Schweitzer, and Jefferson Imaging have filed separate appeals from the judgment entered on a jury award in favor of Jeffrey and Silvia Tindall, and the Tindalls have appealed the trial court’s post-trial entry of judgment notwithstanding the verdict (“n.o.v.”) in favor of Jefferson Imaging. We reverse the entry of judgment n.o.v. in favor of Jefferson Imaging and remand for reinstatement of the judgment against that company. We affirm the jury award in favor of the Tindalls, but remand for recalculation of delay damages imposed on that verdict.

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

Superior Court - ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY v. MICHAEL O’HANLON, STEVEN GARFINKEL, JOHN BOYLE, TERRY CADY, RICHARD MILLER, ANTHONY TUREK,

ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY v. MICHAEL O’HANLON, STEVEN GARFINKEL, JOHN BOYLE, TERRY CADY, RICHARD MILLER, ANTHONY TUREK, GERALD COHN, NATHAN SHAPIRO, WILLIAM GOLDBERG, HARRY T.J. ROBERTS, JOHN MCHUGH, PHILIP JACKSON, MATTHEW GOLDENBERG, MATTHEW COLASANTI, LISA CRUIKSHANK, RAYMOND FEAR, KENNETH GROSSMAN, CEDAR STREET FUND, CEDAR STREET, OFFSHORE FUND, WM HIGH YIELD FUND, WM INCOME FUND, AT HIGH YIELD FUND, WM VT FUND, AT INCOME FUND, EVERGREEN FUNDING LTD., STELLAR FUNDING LTD., DENNIS BUCKLEY, FLEET NATIONAL BANK APPEAL OF: DENNIS BUCKLEY, THE TRUSTEE OF THE DVI LIQUIDATING TRUST No. 1193 EDA 2008 2009 PA Super 42 Atlantic: 968 A.2d 765 Filed: 3/16/2009
	Appeal from the Order Entered March 17, 2008 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at No.: February Term, 2006 No. 001948
Before: BENDER, PANELLA and KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: BENDER, J.
Dennis Buckley, the Trustee of the DVI Liquidating Trust, appeals from the order granting summary judgment in favor of Zurich American Insurance Company in Zurich’s action in equity against the Trustee in which Zurich sought reformation of an insurance policy that it issued to DVI, Inc. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here