Trial News

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has struck down a seven-year statute of repose for medical negligence claims as unconstitutional because it violates the Pennsylvania Constitution’s “open courts doctrine,” which guarantees injured parties access to legal remedies. The court rejected the defendants’ argument that the claims deadline was needed to control malpractice insurance costs. The decision will allow people injured by medical negligence to seek remedies in court even when they discover the negligence several years later. (Yanakos v. UPMC, 2019 WL 5608534 (Pa. Oct. 31, 2019).)

Susan Yanakos had a genetic condition that limited her body’s production of a protein important for lung function. In 2003, she received a liver transplant to treat that condition, and her son, Christopher, was the donor. Before the procedure, Christopher informed doctors that several family members had the same condition and that he did not know if he also had it. Christopher underwent additional testing but was never informed of lab results showing that he had the condition and was not a suitable donor. Susan’s symptoms returned years after the surgery, and tests revealed that she still had the condition, which the transplant should have cured.

In 2015, Susan, her husband, and Christopher sued the physicians, the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, and the University of Pittsburgh Physicians in Pennsylvania state court, alleging battery, lack of informed consent, medical negligence, and loss of consortium. The defendants raised the affirmative defense that the seven-year statute of repose under Pennsylvania’s Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error (MCARE) Act barred the family’s claims. The trial court granted judgment on the pleadings in the defendants’ favor.

On appeal, the plaintiffs argued that the seven-year limitation violates their constitutional rights, including their rights under the Pennsylvania Constitution’s “open courts doctrine,” which provides that courts must be open to provide remedies to all injured parties. However, the appellate court found that the limitations period “balances the [l]egislature’s initiative to provide affordable, high-quality healthcare with providing fair compensation to victims of negligence,” and affirmed. It relied on Freezer Storage, Inc., v. Armstrong Cork Co., a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision that evaluated the legislature’s authority to modify common law and found that the open courts doctrine “does not prohibit the [l]egislature from abolishing a common law right of action without enacting a substitute means of redress.” (382 A.2d 404 (Pa. 1978).)

On appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, the plaintiffs argued that the lower courts had misapplied Freezer Storage and in doing so, “nullified [their] constitutional right to a remedy.” In a 4-3 ruling, the court said that legislation that denies a constitutional right must be evaluated under intermediate scrutiny and found that the legislature had not specifically determined that a seven-year limitation would reduce malpractice insurance costs, so the limitation was not substantially related to achieving the purported important government interest. Furthermore, the court said the legislature had “clearly recognized the harshness of the statute of repose” when it enacted exceptions to the limitations period for foreign object medical negligence victims and for minors.

Pittsburgh attorney Patrick Cavanaugh, who represented the plaintiffs, said that “the family is pleased that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recognized the importance of permitting medical negligence victims to seek redress in our courts without arbitrary limitations.” He added that “it is very important for our courts to be open to everyone and that cases should be decided on the merits, not on inequitable lines of demarcation drawn to benefit special interests.”

The defendants have filed an application for reargument, questioning the majority’s reasoning and alleging that the decision overlooks the government’s interest in “precluding stale claims” and “[p]roviding stability and certainty to the marketplace.”