Case Title: Zane v. Friends Hospital, Dr. John Doe and Ronald E. Anderson (Concurring Opinion)

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: pennsylvania

Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Date: 2003-11-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
[J-48-2002] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT JERILYN ZANE, Appellee v. FRIENDS HOSPITAL, DR. JOHN DOE, AND RONALD E. ANDERSON APPEAL OF: FRIENDS HOSPITAL : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 36 EAP 2001 Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court dated January 29, 2001 at No. 2556 EDA 1999, vacating the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County dated June 29, 1998 at No. 2326 August Term 1996 770 A.2d 339 (Pa. Super. 2001) ARGUED: October 21, 2002 CONCURRING OPINION MR. JUSTICE NIGRO DECIDED: November 19, 2003 While I have previously questioned the validity of the “manifest injustice” exception to the coordinate jurisdiction rule,1 a majority of this Court has embraced that exception. See Gerrow, 813 A.2d 778 (recognizing exception to coordinate jurisdiction rule when prior order was clearly erroneous and would create a manifest injustice if followed). I nevertheless continue to believe that any such exception should be applied only in extremely limited circumstances. Thus, a judge should not label a prior order to be “clearly erroneous” merely because he disagrees with that order, but rather, it must be virtually undisputable that the prior judge erred. Similarly, it should not be considered a “manifest 1 Gerrow v. John Royle & Sons, 813 A.2d 778, 787-92 (Pa. 2002) (Nigro, J., dissenting), and Ryan v. Berman, 813 A.2d 792, 796-99 (Pa. 2002) (Nigro, J., dissenting). [J-48-2002] - 2 injustice” that an erroneous prior order will merely delay correct resolution of a case, but rather, adherence to the prior order must be such that it will cause considerable substantive harm aside from delay and, as the majority states, will result in a situation that is “plainly intolerable.” Slip Op. at 6. As I believe both of these requirements of the “manifest injustice” exception were satisfied in the instant case,2 I concur with the majority that Judge Alejandro did not violate the coordinate jurisdiction rule in refusing to enforce Judge Sheppard’s order.3 2 While the majority dubs this exception the “clearly erroneous” exception, which emphasizes the first prong of the test, I favor emphasizing the second prong and calling the exception the “manifest injustice” exception. My ongoing concern regarding this exception is that without strict limitations, judges will use it too liberally to reverse prior orders with which they merely disagree. As such, my preference is to underscore that the order must be more than simply “clearly erroneous” in the eyes of the subsequent judge, but rather, must clearly threaten to cause a “plainly intolerable” manifest injustice. 3 I feel compelled to point out that had the Superior Court accepted Judge Sheppard’s certification of his order for appeal, this coordinate jurisdiction question would have been avoided altogether. While I recognize that it is within the Superior Court’s discretion whether to permit an interlocutory appeal from an order that the trial court has certified, see 42 Pa.C.S. § 702(b), it appears that the Superior Court may have abused that discretion here.