Estate of Quigley v. Pottstown Hosp.

1

ESTATE OF RITA QUIGLEY, BY ITS REPRESENTATIVE EDWARD CLEMSON, EXECUTOR Appellant v. POTTSTOWN HOSPITAL, LLC, TOWER HEALTH, JOHN DOES 1-10

No. 1022 EDA 2022

No. J-A21001-22

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

October 28, 2022

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Order Entered April 7, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at No(s) 2107-01389

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., MURRAY, J., and McCAFFERY, J.

MEMORANDUM

LAZARUS, J.

The Estate of Rita Quigley (Decedent), by its representative Edward Clemson, Executor (Plaintiff), appeals from the order of the Court of Common Pleas Philadelphia County sustaining the preliminary objections of Pottstown Hospital, LLC, Tower Health, and John Does 1-10 (collectively, Defendants) to Plaintiff's first amended complaint and transferring venue of the matter to Montgomery County. Because Defendant Tower Health's acts are more than sufficient to establish venue in Philadelphia County, we reverse and remand.

Decedent was a resident of Chestnut Knoll, an assisted living facility located in Boyerstown, Berks County, Pennsylvania. Decedent suffered from dementia and cognitive impairment. On October 28, 2020, Decedent was admitted to Pottstown Hospital. Pottstown Hospital is located in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, and is owned by Tower Health. Tower Health's registered office and principal place of business are located in West Reading, Berks County, Pennsylvania. On November 1, 2020, the Decedent was discharged and transported from Pottstown Hospital to PowerBack Rehabilitation Center, which is located in the Phoenixville area. Upon the Decedent's arrival at PowerBack, PowerBack's medical staff conducted a routine physical exam and discovered Decedent had significant injuries consistent with a sexual assault.^[1] Unable to admit Decedent based upon those injuries, PowerBack immediately transferred Decedent to Phoenixville Hospital, a facility also owned by Tower Health, where medical personnel performed a medical examination of Decedent and made notes about her physical condition.^[2]

On July 23, 2021, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant Tower Health in Philadelphia County, at 8835 Germantown Avenue, Philadelphia,^[3]alleging that the Decedent was raped and sexually assaulted while she was a patient at Pottstown Hospital.^[4] Specifically, the complaint included three counts: negligence (Count I); premises liability (Count II); assault/rape- respondeat superior (Count III). The complaint alleges that "Defendant Tower Health is a Pennsylvania non-profit corporation that operates the Pottstown Hospital with a registered address of 420 S. Fifth Avenue[,] West Reading[,] PA 19611 and a Philadelphia address, where it regularly conducts business, of 8835 Germantown Ave[nue], Philadelphia, PA 19118." Plaintiff's Complaint, 7/19/21, at ¶ 3. On August 30, 2021, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint supplementing the original complaint with two additional counts: negligent supervision (Count IV) and negligent hiring (Count V). The amended complaint also attached various 2019-2020 financial statements for Tower Health to support Plaintiff's allegation that Tower Health regularly conducts business in Philadelphia.

On September 17, 2021, Defendants filed preliminary objections^[5]alleging that venue of the matter properly lies in Montgomery County because Philadelphia County "has no relationship, let alone a substantial relationship, to the alleged controversy." Defendants' Supplemental Brief in Support of Preliminary Objection to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, 1/13/22, at 6 (emphasis in original). To support their preliminary objections, Defendants averred that: Decedent was never treated in Philadelphia County at any relevant time; Decedent was not alleged to have been raped or sexually assaulted in Philadelphia County; Plaintiff's allegations centered exclusively around events purported to have occurred at Pottstown Hospital in Montgomery County; Tower Health does not have its principal place of business or registered office in Philadelphia; Tower Health does not regularly conduct business in Philadelphia County; only one of five non-profit hospitals that is a part of the Tower Health network is located within Philadelphia County; Chestnut Hill Hospital and Pottstown Hospital are mere subsidiaries of their parent corporation, Tower Health; Tower Health is a "separate and distinct legal entity from either Defendant Pottstown Hospital or non-party Chestnut Hill Hospital;" the alleged cause of action arose exclusively in Montgomery County; and, the alleged occurrence out of which the alleged cause of action arose occurred exclusively in Montgomery County. Id. at 5-7.

Plaintiff filed an answer to Defendants' preliminary objections claiming that Tower Health owns Pottstown Hospital and "the two are inextricably intertwined." Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants' Preliminary Objections, 10/7/21, at 5. Specifically, Plaintiff averred that: Tower Health's financial statements group its five Montgomery, Philadelphia, and Chester County hospitals together; Chestnut Hill Hospital, located in Philadelphia, is one of the five hospitals owned by Tower Health; Tower Health's website states "Chester/Montgomery/Philadelphia hospitals are tax-exempt not-for-profit corporations providing acute and post[-]acute care;" Chester/Montgomery/Philadelphia clinics and practices are part of Tower Health Medical Group (THMG);^[6] THMG "recruits physicians and provides administrative services for [Reading] Hospital, including supervision and instruction for medical students completing their residency training;" and Chestnut Hill Hospital is located in and regularly conducts business in Philadelphia County. Id. at 5-6.

The trial court permitted the parties to file supplemental briefs and to submit affidavits, deposition testimony, as well as documentary evidence to support their positions on the venue issue. See Pa.R.C.P. 1028 (preliminary objections raising improper venue cannot be determined from facts of record; evidence, by deposition or otherwise, must be presented to court deciding objections). On November 3, 2021, Tower Health filed a motion to have itself dismissed from the underlying case, attesting to its "non-involvement in the care and/or treatment rendered to [Decedent]." Tower Health Motion to Dismiss, 11/2/21, at 1-2. See Pa.R.C.P. 1036. Plaintiff filed an answer opposing Tower Health's motion to dismiss. On February 14, 2022, the trial court denied Tower Health's motion to dismiss.

On April 7, 2022, the trial court granted Defendants' preliminary objections and transferred venue of the matter to Montgomery County. Plaintiff filed a timely notice of appeal^[7] and court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. On appeal, Plaintiff presents the following issues for our consideration:

(1) Did the trial court err and/or abuse its discretion by giving undue consideration to Tower Health's relationships with its subsidiaries, as Tower Health is a named party, giving insufficient consideration to Tower Health's direct and uncontradicted contacts in Philadelphia County, and failing to conduct any quality-quantity analysis when considering whether venue was proper in Philadelphia County?

(2) Did the trial court err and/or abuse its discretion by failing to apply the proper burden of proof for preliminary objections as to improper venue and failing to give proper weight to Plaintiff's preferred venue of Philadelphia County, as well as the presumption in retaining Plaintiff' choice of venue, when considering whether venue was proper in Philadelphia County?

(3) Did the trial court err and/or abuse its discretion by failing hold an evidentiary hearing on venue prior to transferring the matter from Philadelphia County to Montgomery County and failing to state in its order or opinion the reasons why the [c]ourt did not hold any evidentiary hearing on venue in this matter?

Plaintiff's Brief, at 4 (renumbered for ease of disposition).

It is well-established that "a plaintiff's forum selection is given great weight. Nevertheless, the trial court is vested with broad discretion in determining whether the original choice of forum was proper. When any proper basis exists for the trial court's decision to change venue, that decision must stand." Masel v. Glassman, 689 A.2d 314, 320 (Pa. Super. 1997) (citations omitted).

When reviewing a trial court's decision to transfer venue, the appellate court's standard of review is as follows: A trial court's decision to transfer venue will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial judge overrides or misapplies the law, or exercises judgment in a manifestly unreasonable manner, or renders a decision based on partiality, prejudice, bias[,] or ill-will.

Sehl v. Neff, 26 A.3d 1130, 1132 (Pa. Super. 2011) (citation and quotation marks omitted). When venue is challenged, "the burden of proving jurisdiction is upon the party asserting it." Deyarmin v. Consol. Rail Corp., 931 A.2d 1, 9 (Pa. Super. 2007). See County Constr. Co. v. Livengood Constr. Corp., 142 A.2d 9, 13 (Pa. 1958) ("for procedural purposes, objections to venue are treated as raising a question of jurisdiction").

The venue rules of this Commonwealth provide, in part, that a personal action against a corporation^[8] may be brought in the county where its registered office or principal place of business is located or a county where it regularly conducts business. See Pa.R.C.P. 2179(a)(1)-(2) (emphasis added).^[9] But cf. Pa.R.C.P. 1006(a) (a) (in claim involving individual, venue is only appropriate where "a transaction or occurrence took...