McLaughlin v. Nahata

260 A.3d 222

Alyssa MCLAUGHLIN and William McLaughlin

v.Amit NAHATA, M.D. ; Kathryn Simons, M.D. ; Anne F. Josiah, M.D.; Thomas Pirosko, D.O.; Jessie Ganjoo, M.D.; Ashley Berkley, D.O.; The Washington Hospital ; and Washington Health System Washington Hospital

v.Dialysis Clinic, Inc., Appellant

No. 1115 WDA 2020

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued June 29, 2021

Filed: July 28, 2021

Seth M. Weinberg, Woodbury, NY, for appellant.

Thomas M. Chairs, Harrisburg, for appellees.

BEFORE: MURRAY, J., KING, J., and MUSMANNO, J.

OPINION BY MURRAY, J.:

Dialysis Clinic, Inc. (Appellant) appeals from the order denying its motion for summary judgment and rejecting its claim that Appellee, The Washington Hospital (TWH),¹ may not seek indemnity or contribution from Appellant, TWH's co-defendant in this medical malpractice action. Upon careful review of the law and the record, we affirm.

Procedural History

The trial court detailed the procedural history of this case, noting the "recurring battles" between Appellant and TWH, as follows:

[On] February 5, 2020[, the trial court permitted TWH] ... to proceed to trial in its effort to obtain contribution or indemnity from [Appellant] with regard to a total verdict of $17,263,159.33, [entered in favor of the plaintiffs Alyssa McLaughlin (Mrs. McLaughlin) and William McLaughlin (collectively, "Plaintiffs" or "the McLaughlins")]. TWH is the ostensible employer and [Appellant] is an actual employer of [two physicians who provided medical treatment to Mrs. McLaughlin while she was a patient at TWH in June 2013], Dr. Jessie Ganjoo [(Dr. Ganjoo)] and Dr. Amit Nahata [(Dr. Nahata)² ]. These physicians were found to be at fault for causing catastrophic harm to the Plaintiffs.

***

On September 23, 2015, the Plaintiffs commenced this action against Drs. Nahata and Ganjoo, TWH, and several other physicians[, including Ashley Berkley, D.O. (Dr. Berkley)]. [Appellant] was not named as an original defendant. On September 6, 2016, Dr. [ ] Berkley filed a Complaint to Join [Appellant], as the employer of Drs. Ganjoo and Nahata[; Dr. Berkley asserted Appellant was vicariously liable for the negligence of Drs. Ganjoo and Nahata and sought indemnity and/or contribution from Appellant.] In response, [Appellant] denied that it employed Drs. Ganjoo and Nahata and that they were acting within the course and scope of their employment with [Appellant] when treating Mrs. McLaughlin.

After some period of discovery, [Appellant] began a series of efforts to gain dispositive relief and avoid trial[, including filing a motion for summary judgment on June 26, 2017. Appellant denied any liability to Plaintiffs or entitlement of the other defendants – i.e. , TWH and the various physicians named in the caption – to indemnification/contribution from Appellant.³ ] [The Honorable] Damon Faldowski denied [Appellant's] motion for summary judgment. Judge Faldowski cited the "longstanding principle" that an employer may be liable for the tortious acts of his employee when the employee is acting within the course and scope of his employment. In denying reconsideration of that decision, Judge Faldowski wrote:

It is clear from the record that Defendants Amit Nahata, M.D. and Jessie Ganjoo, M.D. are employees of [Appellant ], therefore this Court denied [Appellant's] Motion for Summary Judgment.

(See Opinion and Order, 9/1/17) (emphasis added).

Following this ruling, TWH filed an Amended Crossclaim on April 13, 2018[, seeking indemnification/contribution from Appellant]. Being filed after a further period of discovery directed to [Appellant], TWH's crossclaim more specifically pleaded [Appellant's] relationship with Drs. Ganjoo and Nahata. [Appellant] filed preliminary objections seeking to dismiss TWH's crossclaim, which [the] trial court overruled. [The] court explained that [Plaintiffs'] cause of action was distinct from the contribution and indemnity claims asserted by TWH. [The] court added that because no settlement or judgment had taken place, the statute of limitations could not have expired as to TWH's claims against [Appellant]. [Appellant] then filed its answer, admitting that it executed employment agreements with Drs. Ganjoo and Nahata but denying that it employed those physicians at times material to this action.

On August 16, 2019, [the trial] court denied [Appellant's] second motion for summary judgment. In denying [the motion, the] court again rejected [Appellant's] claims that the statute of limitations had expired with regard to TWH's indemnity and contribution claims. In doing so, the trial court cited Oviatt v. Automated Entrance Sys. Co., Inc. , 400 Pa. Super. 493, 502, 583 A.2d 1223, 1228 (1990), which directs that the "right to contribution is distinct from the underlying tort action." Id. (citations omitted).

Also on August 16, 2019, [Appellant] sought to have the trial bifurcated. [Appellant] argued that "no party should be permitted to introduce evidence of actual agency or the employment of Drs. Ganjoo and Nahata by [Appellant]." Further, [Appellant] requested that the trial court preclude evidence, argument or proof with respect to all claims for contribution or indemnity against [Appellant]. The [trial court found that the] probability of juror confusion and speculation regarding the [claims] ... that [Appellant] would present in a common proceeding, where jurors would not be told of [the cross]claims against [Appellant] or its relationship to Drs. Ganjoo and Nahata, was real. The trial court directed separate trials and severed Dr. Berkley and TWH's claims against [Appellant].

The McLaughlins and several of the individual original defendants [moved] to include Dr. Berkley, then agreed to settlements. The McLaughlins, TWH, Drs. Ganjoo and Nahata then consented to the discontinuance of claims against Dr. Berkley and the other individually named physicians. Because [Appellant] had been granted a separate trial and had not raised any claims against the settling original defendants, its objection to this discontinuance was overruled.

The McLaughlins, TWH, Drs. Ganjoo and Nahata agreed to try their dispute non-jury and to submit reports in lieu of live expert testimony. [Appellant] did not agree to a non-jury consideration of TWH's crossclaims. The claims of the McLaughlins and the crossclaims of TWH remained severed.

Th[e] trial court viewed a separate trial of crossclaims against [Appellant] as a means to protect the Plaintiffs' procedural due process rights. Due process not only requires an opportunity to be heard, but also that the opportunity is provided "at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner." Mathews v. Eldridge , 424 U.S. 319, 333 [96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18] (1976) [; see also ] Smith v. City of Philadelphia , 147 A.3d 25, 32 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016). The pre-trial litigation of this medical negligence action was unique. The parties did not vigorously dispute the [merit] of the Plaintiffs' claims. Instead, pre-trial litigation was dominated by recurring battles between TWH and [Appellant] regarding the sufficiency of crossclaims pleaded, discovery of related insurance matters and [Appellant's] potential liability for indemnity and contribution. Meanwhile, the Plaintiffs' "day in court" was delayed while they continued to endure ongoing harm and economic loss due to the catastrophic injury Mrs. McLaughlin sustained.

On October 11, 2019, following a September [23, 2019] non-jury trial and extended consideration thereafter of the evidence presented, the trial court issued a Memorandum and Order that included 92 separate findings of fact and a non-jury verdict. The trial court determined that Dr. Nahata was 75% causally negligent and Dr. Ganjoo was 25% so. The trial court accepted the parties' stipulated findings that both Dr. Ganjoo and Dr. Nahata were not employees but ostensible agents of TWH.^[4] The trial court entered a verdict against Dr. Ganjoo, Dr. Nahata and TWH, in a total amount of $15,054,950. [Appellant was not a party to the non-jury trial or the stipulations.] On November 13, 2019, in an unopposed motion for delay damages, $2,208,209.33 was added to the verdict for [Plaintiffs].

Following the non-jury verdict, both [Appellant] and TWH presented post-trial motions regarding the court's non-jury decision. [Appellant] filed a "Motion for New Trial as to liability only," which TWH opposed and the trial court denied[, ruling that Appellant lacked standing]. TWH presented a post-trial motion to mold the verdict to include a verdict on indemnity claims against Dr. Nahata and Dr. Ganjoo. Such relief was granted without opposition from Drs. Ganjoo and Nahata.

Meanwhile, TWH's contribution and indemnity claims against [Appellant] remained scheduled for trial to commence on February 10, 2020. However, within a month of jury selection, TWH filed a motion for summary judgment on its crossclaims against [Appellant]. TWH argued that through no fault of its own, it has been required to pay liabilities of [Appellant's] employees, Drs. Ganjoo and Nahata. [Appellant] responded by filing multiple supplemental pre-trial statements and its third motion for summary judgment. [Appellant] argued that TWH released its claims, could not prove its right to indemnity and was demanding an equitable remedy with unclean hands.

On February 5, 2020, the trial court issued a written decision denying [Appellant's and TWH's] competing motions for summary judgment. The trial court pointed to [Appellant's] Fifth Supplemental Pre-Trial Statement, filed within three weeks of the February trial date. In that filing, for the first time, [Appellant] identified its expert witnesses with regard to TWH's direct liability. The trial court ruled that such evidence could show TWH's active fault and defeat its indemnity claim.^{[5 ]} Further, the issue of control over Drs. Ganjoo and Nahata remained a jury question. The possibility existed that both TWH and [Appellant] could be determined to have jointly controlled these physicians while they

...