Baez v. Correct Care Solutions, Inc.

245 A.3d 1059 (Table)

Orlando BAEZ, Appellant v. CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, INC., Denise Coral Smyth, Lori Ann Ridings, Natalie D. Austin, and William J. Nicholson, Appellees

No. 1854 WDA 2019

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Filed December 11, 2020

MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.:

Appellant, Orlando Baez, appeals pro se from the order entered in the Greene County Court of Common Pleas, sustaining the preliminary objections of Appellees, Correct Care Solutions, Inc., Denise Coral Smyth, Lori Ann Ridings, Natalie D. Austin, and William J. Nicholson, and dismissing Appellant's amended complaint in this medical malpractice action. ¹ We affirm.

The relevant facts and procedural history of this appeal are as follows. Appellant was an inmate at SCI-Greene, and he is currently housed at SCI-Phoenix. On June 29, 2018, Appellant filed a pro se complaint against Appellees, who were health care providers at SCI-Greene. Appellant alleged that he filled out sick-call requests ("DC-500 forms") on multiple occasions in March, April, and May 2017, seeking medical treatment from Appellees. Appellant claimed his requests were "related to [Appellant's] [l]upus, its multiple complications, and side effects." (Complaint, filed 6/29/18, at ¶33). Appellant insisted that Appellees did not respond to his requests, their conduct breached a duty of care, and Appellant suffered injuries as a result.

Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1042.3(a), Appellant attached five, separate certificates of merit to his complaint. Each certificate stated, "Expert testimony of an appropriate licensed professional is unnecessary for prosecution of the claim against" Appellees. (Certificates of Merit, filed 6/29/18). Specifically, Appellant asserted "a layperson can easily understand the facts and causation of the injury," and an expert "would not provide requisite information and/or clarity to the elements and/or claims raised." ( Id. )

Appellees Correct Care Solutions, Inc., Smyth, Ridings, and Austin filed preliminary objections, including a claim that Appellant failed to provide proper certificates of merit. On January 25, 2019, the trial court sustained Appellees' preliminary objection pursuant to Rule 1042.3(a), finding "the causes of action, as alleged by [Appellant], are not ones that are within the purview of a layman." (Order and Opinion, filed 1/25/19, at 5). Thus, the court dismissed the complaint without prejudice to Appellant's ability to file an amended complaint with appropriate certificates of merit. ²

Appellant filed a pro se amended complaint on March 27, 2019. In the amended complaint, Appellant reiterated that Appellees "fail[ed] to respond to [Appellant's] ... DC-500" forms, which amounted to a breach of their duty of care. (Amended Complaint, filed 3/27/19, at ¶38). Additionally, Appellant alleged that Appellees "stymied [Appellant's] ability to seek out medical attention and/or in doing so, sought to limit an issue to one medical concern per each DC-500 form, notwithstanding a lack of authority to do so." ( Id. at ¶58). Appellant also claimed "on numerous occasions," Appellees "would reject and return the issued DC-500 ... by placing it in [Appellant's] door, and walking away, and did so under the guise it was improperly filled out." ( Id. at ¶59).

Regarding damages, Appellant argued that Appellees' negligence resulted in the "exacerbation of pain and suffering" for various issues related to his lupus, including breathing difficulties and joint pain. ( Id. at ¶¶71, 74, 77, 80, and 83). Again, Appellant included certificates of merit, claiming that expert testimony was unnecessary for the prosecution of his claims.

All Appellees, including Appellee Nicholson, filed preliminary objections arguing that Appellant continued to provide improper certificates of merit. The court conducted oral argument on October 1, 2019. On October 23, 2019, the court sustained Appellees' preliminary objections and dismissed Appellant's cause of action. ³

Appellant timely filed a pro se notice of appeal on November 15, 2019. ⁴ On December 2, 2019, the court ordered Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. Appellant timely filed his Rule 1925(b) statement on December 16, 2019.

Appellant raises four issues for our review:

Whether the court abused its discretion or committed an error of law when it misapplied the requisites in the filing of a certificate of merit pursuant to [Pa.R.C.P.] 1042.3(a)(3) [.]

Whether the court abused its discretion or committed an error of law when it concluded that Appellant was required to file a certificate of merit pursuant to [Pa.R.C.P.] 1042.3(a) (1 or 2), when no medical treatment was ever provided during the times in question so as to require an expert to opine on whether [the] course of treatment (or lack thereof) deviated from an expected standard of practice[.]

Whether the court abused its discretion or committed an error of law when it concluded Appellant was required to file a certificate of merit pursuant to [Pa.R.C.P.] 1042.3(a) (1 or 2), in a simple negligence lawsuit pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 8522(b)(2), against agents of the Department of Corrections where Appellant alleged a breach of duty in their failing to respond to requests for medical treatment when a duty so existed, despite what type of complaints Appellant was seeking medical treatment for[.]

Whether the court abused its discretion or committed an error of law when it concluded Appellant's certificate of merit pursuant to [Pa.R.C.P.] 1042.3(a) (1 or 2), in a simple negligence lawsuit pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 8522(b)(2), against agents of the Department of Corrections was inadequate despite a layman's ability to understand the causation between the breach of duty and the injury; that being, Appellees' failure to respond resulted in pain and suffering.

(Appellant's Brief at 5).

The relevant scope and standard of review in examining a challenge to an order sustaining preliminary objections are as follows:

Our review of a trial court's sustaining of preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer is plenary. Such preliminary objections should be sustained only if, assuming the averments of the complaint to be true, the plaintiff has failed to assert a legally cognizable cause of action. We will reverse a trial court's decision to sustain preliminary objections only if the trial court has committed an error of law or an abuse of discretion.

All material facts set forth in the complaint as well as all inferences reasonably [deducible] therefrom are admitted as true for [the purpose of this review]. The question presented by the demurrer is whether, on the facts averred, the law says with certainty that no recovery is possible. Where a doubt exists as to whether a demurrer should be sustained, this doubt should be resolved in favor of overruling it.

Lerner v. Lerner , 954 A.2d 1229, 1234 (Pa.Super. 2008) (emphasis in original) (internal citations omitted). "To the extent that the question presented involves interpretation of rules of civil procedure, our standard of review is de novo ." Gray v. PennyMac Corp. , 202 A.3d 712, 715 (Pa.Super. 2019).

Appellant's arguments are related, and we address them together. Appellant insists that expert testimony is not required "if the issues presented to a jury are such that a layperson can understand the nexus between the breach of duty and the injury." (Appellant's Brief at 12). As such, Appellant argues the allegations in his amended complaint do not require expert testimony. Appellant emphasizes his claims are limited to Appellees' "failure and/or refusal to even respond to a request for medical treatment as obligated ... by well-established federal law." ⁵ ( Id. at 14). Appellant reiterates he is not challenging Appellees' medical judgments, and an expert's testimony should not be required to demonstrate that Appellees breached a duty by failing to respond to Appellant's DC-500 forms. Appellant concludes the trial court erred in sustaining Appellees' preliminary objections, and this Court must reverse the order at issue and remand the case for further proceedings. We disagree.

A "medical professional liability action" is defined in the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error ("MCARE") Act as "[a]ny proceeding in which a medical professional liability claim is asserted, including an action in a court of law or an arbitration proceeding." 40 P.S. § 1303.103. Moreover, a "medical professional liability claim" is "[a]ny claim seeking the recovery of damages or loss from a health care provider arising out of any tort or breach of contract causing injury or death resulting from the furnishing of health care services which were or should have been provided." Id. (emphasis added).

Rule 1042.3 requires complaints sounding in medical professional liability to include certificates of merit:

Rule 1042.3. Certificate of Merit

(a) In any action based upon an allegation that a licensed professional deviated from an acceptable professional standard, the attorney for the plaintiff, or the plaintiff if not represented, shall file with the complaint or within sixty days after the filing of the complaint, a certificate of merit signed by the attorney or party that either

(1) an appropriate licensed professional has supplied a written statement that there exists a reasonable probability that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or exhibited in the treatment, practice or work that is the subject of the complaint, fell outside acceptable professional standards and that such conduct was a cause in bringing about the harm, or

(2) the claim that the defendant deviated from an acceptable professional standard is based solely on allegations that other licensed professionals for whom this defendant is responsible deviated from an acceptable professional standard, or

(3) expert testimony of an appropriate licensed professional is unnecessary for prosecution of the claim.

*

...