Case Title: EDB v. Gerald Clair and Centre Hospital Apl of: Dept. of Public Welfare (Concurring Opinion)

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: pennsylvania

Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Date: 2009-12-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
[J-42-2009][M.O. - McCaffery, J.] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT E.D.B., AN INCAPACITATED PERSON, BY AND THROUGH D.B. & J.R.B., JR., COURT-APPOINTED GUARDIANS OF THE ESTATE AND PERSON OF E.D.B. v. GERALD CLAIR AND CENTRE COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, A CORPORATION APPEAL OF: COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 78 MAP 2008 Appeal from the Order of Superior Court at No. 2010 MDA 2006 dated 8/15/07, reargument denied on 10/25/07 reversing and remanding the order of Centre County Court of Common Pleas, Civil Division at No. 2003-2042 dated 11/6/06 ARGUED: May 12, 2009 CONCURRING OPINION MR. JUSTICE SAYLOR DECIDED: December 29, 2009 I join the majority opinion, but for its waiver analysis. See Majority Opinion, slip op. at 18-20 n.11. In this regard, DPW argues against application of the waiver doctrine based upon the “significant modification to the published case law” occasioned by Shaffer-Doan v. Commonwealth, Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 960 A.2d 500 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008), which “significantly atler[ed] the legal landscape [and] excuses any failure to preserve an issue.” Reply Brief for Appellant at 2 (citing Cleveland v. Johns-Mansville Corp., 547 Pa. 402, 690 A.2d 1146 (1997)). Given this stance by DPW, it should not benefit from a determination that the Bowmasters have waived the assertion that their [J-42-2009][M.O. - McCaffery, J.] - 2 complaint sought only medical expenses incurred after Emily was no longer a minor. Rather, I would focus on the fact that the allegations of the complaint, which was filed two months before Emily reached the age of majority, involved both medical expenses already incurred and similar expenditures in the future. See Brief for Appellees at 11 (quoting Complaint at ¶30). The presence of such allegations supports DPW’s argument that the “complaint asserted a claim for past medical expenses incurred during [Emily’s] minority, and that claim remained in the case at the time of settlement.” Brief for Appellant at 21.