J-A08039-17
2017 PA Super 233
MAXAMOR WENTZEL, A MINOR, BY HIS IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PARENT AND NATURAL GUARDIAN PENNSYLVANIA
CHARISMA WENTZEL, AND CHARISMA
WENTZEL, IN HER OWN RIGHT
v.
DOMINIC CAMMARANO, III, D.O.;
READING HEALTH PHYSICIAN
NETWORK; READING OB/GYN, P.C.,
READING OB/GYN & WOMEN’S BIRTH
CENTER, LLC; READING HOSPITAL;
READING HEALTH SYSTEM; ALL ABOUT
CHILDREN PEDIATRIC PARTNERS, P.C.;
TENET HEALTH SYSTEM; ST.
CHRISTOPHER’S HOSPITAL FOR
CHILDREN, LLC; ST. CHRISTOPHER’S
HOSPITAL FOR CHILDREN HEART
CENTER FOR CHILDREN AND ALLEGHENY
INTEGRATED HEALTH GROUP
APPEAL OF: CHARISMA WENTZEL,
INDIVIDUALLY IN HER OWN RIGHT AND
AS PARENT AND NATURAL GUARDIAN OF
MAXAMOR WENTZEL
No. 1159 EDA 2016
Appeal from the Order March 24, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Civil Division at No(s): 4185 August Term, 2015
BEFORE: PANELLA, J., LAZARUS, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
CONCURRING STATEMENT BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED JULY 19, 2017
____________________________________________
*
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A08039-17
I concur. In a medical malpractice claim, a plaintiff's cause of action
arises where the defendants’ alleged negligent acts occurred. It is where the
health care services are furnished, not where the plaintiff’s injury occurred.
See Pa.R.C.P. 1006(a.1). For venue purposes in a medical malpractice
action, the cause of action arises in the county where the negligent act or
omission of failing to provide the needed care occurred. Cohen v. Furin,
946 A.2d 125 (Pa. Super. 2008).
Here, a pediatric cardiologist working for St. Christopher’s Hospital,
located in Philadelphia, interpreted Plaintiff’s Berks County transthoracic
echocardiogram (TEE) in Philadelphia County, wrote a report of her findings,
billed for her services, and forwarded the results of the test to Plaintiff’s
treating providers in Berks County. Accordingly, Philadelphia County is
where the alleged malpractice occurred; it is where the health care services
were rendered to Plaintiff.
Where the review and interpretation of the Berks County TEE took
place in Philadelphia, the diagnosis and recommended course of action was
rendered by a doctor located in Philadelphia County, and that same
Philadelphia doctor did not transmit the results in a timely fashion, venue is
proper in Philadelphia. Pa.R.C.P. 1006(a.1). Because the St. Christopher’s
doctor failed to timely transmit her report to the Berks County providers,
which recommended Plaintiff receive immediate treatment or intervention at
St. Christopher’s Hospital, Plaintiff’s treatment was delayed, which ultimately
caused him harm. This neglect was neither ministerial, secretarial, nor
insignificant. Accordingly, the trial court abused its discretion in sustaining
Defendants’ preliminary objections and transferring venue to Berks County.
-2-