Case Title: Department of Public Welfare & Clarks Summit State Hospital v. Estate of Schultz (Concurring Opinion)

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: pennsylvania

Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Date: 2004-08-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
[J-69-2004] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE AND CLARK SUMMIT STATE HOSPITAL, Appellees v. LENA SCHULTZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF STEVEN SCHULTZ, DECEASED, Appellant : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 262 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court entered on 5/2/03 at No. 2342 CD 2002 which reversed the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County, Civil Division, entered on 9/3/03 at No. 99 CV 1896 ARGUED: April 13, 2004 CONCURRING OPINION MR. JUSTICE SAYLOR Decided: August 18, 2004 I join the majority opinion, as the common-law precedent of this Court (of which the General Assembly is presumed to be aware in crafting legislation), limits consortium claims to the spousal setting. I note only that, to the extent that the majority opinion relies on a plain meaning approach, I am in alignment insofar as this connotes plain meaning as informed by the common-law development. Absent this context, I would tend toward the broader view of consortium, as reflected, for example, in Black’s Law Dictionary, which includes filial and parental consortium under the general definition. See BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 304 (7th ed. 1999); see also Brandon ex rel. Estate of Brandon v. County of Richardson, 624 N.W.2d 604, 625 (Neb. 2001) (“This court has consistently recognized that in an action for wrongful death of a child, recoverable [J-69-2004] - 2 damages include parental loss of the child’s society, comfort, and companionship.”). In this regard, and in fairness, I also acknowledge that the contrary interpretation is not without support outside of the Pennsylvania common law. See, e.g., BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 958 (defining “loss of consortium” as the “loss of benefits that one spouse is entitled to receive from the other”). Mr. Justice Nigro joins this concurring opinion.