Court Opinion

ID: 9913018
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-26 17:08:33.746873+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:06:46.516629
License: Public Domain

J-S39004-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  DONNA J. EARLY                               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                       Appellant               :
                                               :
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  PATIENT FIRST PENNSYLVANIA                   :   No. 805 MDA 2023
  MEDICAL GROUP PLLC, PATIENT                  :
  FIRST OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC.,                 :
  PATIENT FIRST CORPORATION, AND               :
  MARCEL IONITA, MD                            :

                Appeal from the Order Entered May 10, 2023
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Civil Division at No(s):
                                 20 15833

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and McCAFFERY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.:                            FILED DECEMBER 26, 2023

       Appellant Donna J. Early appeals from the Order entered on May 10,

2023, by the Berks County Court of Common Pleas granting summary

judgment in this medical malpractice action. After careful consideration, we

affirm.

       This case involves Appellees Patient First and Dr. Marcel Ionita’s

treatment of Appellant for injuries she suffered to her right hand and left index

finger from a dog bite on September 30, 2018.1           The trial court set forth
____________________________________________

1 Appellant initially named as defendants  Patient First Pennsylvania Medical
Group PLLC, Patient First of Pennsylvania, Inc., Patient First Corporation, and
Dr. Ionita. On February 19, 2021, the parties stipulated to the dismissal of
Patient First of Pennsylvania, Inc., and Patient First Corporation, leaving
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S39004-23

Appellant’s allegations regarding Appellees’ treatment of Appellant on

September 30, 2018:

       Dr. lonita placed a suture on each of [Appellant’s] affected fingers
       and discharged [Appellant] with a prescription of amoxicillin-
       clavulanate. [Appellant] charges that as a result of negligent
       treatment she received from Patient First and Dr. lonita, her
       injuries subsequently worsened with worsening cellulitis, swelling,
       and the inability to bend her left index finger. The next day,
       [Appellant] sought and received treatment at Penn State Health
       St. Joseph’s Medical Center where she was diagnosed with
       tenosynovitis and septic arthritis of the second proximal
       interphalangeal joint of her left finger, which required surgical
       intervention,     and    infection    necessitating     intravenous
       administration of antibiotics.

Trial Ct. Op., 5/10/23, at 1.

       At some point after the accident, after she received treatment, and

before she filed the instant litigation, Appellant, who was unrepresented at the

time, signed a release with the dog owners and their insurer as part of her

settlement with them (“Release”).2             The Release included the following

language:

____________________________________________

Patient First Pennsylvania Medical Group PLLC and Dr. Ionita as the remaining
defendants. We refer to these entities collectively as “Patient First” or
“Appellees.”

2 Appellant revealed the existence of the settlement during her May 31, 2022

deposition. Motion for Summary Judgment, 1/13/23, Exh. B, Appellant’s Dep.,
5/31/22, at 30-31. When Appellant was unable to produce the Release,
Appellees subpoenaed it from Erie Insurance The copy in the record is
undated and does not include the witness signatures. Id., Exh. C., Release.
Nevertheless, Appellant admitted that her signature was on the Release, that
the Release pertained to the relevant dog bite, and that she received $25,000
pursuant to the Release. Id., Exh. D., [Appellant’s] Response to [Appellees’]
Requests for Admissions Directed to [Appellant], dated 12/7/2022, at Part III.

                                           -2-
J-S39004-23

     For the consideration of Twenty Five Thousand and 00/100 dollars
     ($25,000.00), receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, I/we
     release and discharge, and for myself/ourselves and for my/our
     heirs, representatives, executors, administrators, successors and
     assigns, do hereby release and forever discharge Lee and Marilyn
     Messner hereinafter referred to as the releasee(s), his/her/their
     heirs, executors, administrators, insurers, successors and assigns,
     and any and all other persons, firms, corporations,
     associations, of and from any and all causes of action, suits,
     rights, judgments, claims and demands of whatsoever kind, in law
     or in equity, known and unknown, which I/we now have or
     may hereafter have, especially the claimed legal liability of
     releasee(s), arising from or by reason of any and all bodily
     or personal injuries and/or property damage known and
     unknown, foreseen and unforeseen which heretofore has/have
     been or which hereafter may be sustained by me/us arising
     out of the accident on or about September 30, 2018 at or
     near 38 Woodside Ave., T[e]mple in the county of Berks in the
     state of PA, which liability releasee(s) expressly deny(ies).

Release (emphasis added).

     On December 10, 2020, Appellant filed her Complaint against Appellees

asserting claims of negligence relating to their treatment of Appellant’s

injuries on the day she suffered the dog bite. As noted, Appellant did not

reference the settlement or the Release until her deposition on May 31, 2022.

     On January 13, 2023, Appellees filed their Motion for Summary

Judgment, asserting that the Release barred her claims against Appellees.

Appellant responded and included an Affidavit of Appellant asserting that,

when she signed the Release, she intended to release only the dog owners

and not her healthcare providers. She also contended that her claim against

Appellees had not accrued at the time she signed the release because she was

not aware of the full extent of her injuries resulting from Appellees’ medical

treatment.

                                    -3-
J-S39004-23

      On May 10, 2023, following argument on May 1, 2023, the court entered

its Order and Opinion granting Appellees’ Motion for Summary Judgment.

      On May 30, 2023, Appellant filed her Notice of Appeal. After Appellant

complied with the trial court’s order to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement of

Matters Complained of on Appeal, the court entered an Opinion on June 28,

2023, indicating that the issues had been addressed in its Order and Opinion

entered on May 10, 2023.

      Appellant raises the following questions on appeal:

      A. Did the trial court err[] in granting the Appellee’s Motion for
         Summary Judgment based on the general release Appellant
         signed despite said release being ambiguous and broad such
         that Appellant believed that the release was only applicable to
         settle the action between Lee and Marilyn Messner, the owners
         of the dog, and their insurance carrier, Erie.

      B. Did the trial court err[] in granting the Appellee’s Motion for
         Summary Judgment despite the general release having been
         signed prior to the within action being known to Appellant?

      C. Should the trial court have applied the discovery rule and
         denied Appellee’s Motion for Summary Judgment because
         Appellant’s claim for Medical Malpractice had not occurred
         when Appellant signed the release such that Appellant did not
         know of the injury, its cause, and the causal relationship
         between the injury and the conduct of the Appellee?

Appellant’s Br. at 5. As Appellant’s questions largely overlap in her challenges

to the grant of summary judgment, we address them jointly.

                                         A.

      When reviewing a grant of summary judgment, as in the instant case,

appellate courts consider whether “there has been an error of law or an abuse

of discretion.”   Nicolaou v. Martin, 195 A.3d 880, 892 (Pa. 2018).

                                     -4-
J-S39004-23

“[S]ummary judgment is appropriate only in those cases where the record

clearly demonstrates that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that

the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Summer v.

Certainteed Corp., 997 A.2d 1152, 1159 (Pa. 2010) (citation omitted); see

also Pa.R.Civ.P. 1035.2.    “Because the claim regarding whether there are

genuine issues of material fact is a question of law, our standard of review is

de novo[,] and our scope of review is plenary.” Nicolaou, 195 A.3d at 892.

      Like the trial court, when reviewing summary judgment motions, we

“take all facts of record and reasonable inferences therefrom in a light most

favorable to the non-moving party and must resolve all doubts as to the

existence of a genuine issue of material fact against the moving party.” Id.

at 891.   The non-moving party, however, “may not rest upon the mere

allegations or denials of the pleadings” but must, inter alia, identify “one or

more issues of fact arising from evidence in the record controverting the

evidence cited in support of the motion[.]” Pa.R.Civ.P. 1035.3(1).

      In construing releases, as with all contracts, courts seek to “give effect

to the intentions of the parties.” Ford Motor Co. v. Buseman, 954 A.2d 580,

583 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citation omitted). “[T]he primary source of the courts

understanding of the parties’ intent must be the document itself.” Id. (citation

omitted). In discerning the parties’ intent from the language, courts “may

take into consideration the surrounding circumstances, the situation of the

parties, the objects they apparently have in view, and the nature of the

                                     -5-
J-S39004-23

subject-matter of the agreement.” Harrity v. Med. Coll. of Pennsylvania

Hosp., 653 A.2d 5, 10 (Pa. Super.1994) (citation omitted).

      Nevertheless, courts are bound by the “ordinary meaning” of the

language of the release. Buttermore v. Aliquippa Hosp., 561 A.2d 733,

735 (Pa. 1989). “[A]bsent fraud, accident or mutual mistake[,]” courts will

apply the language adopted by the parties regardless of how “improvident

their agreement may be or subsequently prove for either party[.]”          Id.

Indeed, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the plain

language of a broad release bars claims even where the plaintiff did not intend

to release a specific defendant.    Id.   The court warned that a clear, all-

inclusive release should not “be set aside whenever one of the parties has a

change of mind or whenever there subsequently occurs a change of

circumstances which were unforeseen, or there were after-discovered injuries,

or the magnitude of a releasor’s injuries was unexpectedly increased, or [the]

plaintiff made    an   inadequate   settlement.”   Id.   (quoting   Emery v.

Mackiewicz, 240 A.2d 68, 70 (Pa. 1968)). To do otherwise, “would make a

mockery of the English language and of the law.” Id. (citation omitted).

      Releases, however, “are strictly construed so as not to bar the

enforcement of a claim that had not accrued at the date of the execution of

the release.”    Fortney v. Callenberger, 801 A.2d 594, 597 (Pa. Super.

2002); see also Vaughn v. Didizian, 648 A.2d 38, 39 (Pa. Super. 1994)

(refusing to bar a medical malpractice claim where the relevant surgery

occurred months after the plaintiff signed the release). In addressing when

                                     -6-
J-S39004-23

her claim “accrued” for purposes of the Release, Appellant invokes the

“discovery rule.” “The discovery rule applies when critical information about

an injury eludes detection through no lack of diligence on the plaintiff’s part,

and the ‘discovery’ of that information accordingly dictates when a claim

accrues [.]” Reibenstein v. Barax, 286 A.3d 222, 234 (Pa. 2022).

                                      B.

      Appellant asserts that the trial court erred in granting summary

judgment to Appellees based upon the Release.         She argues that, as an

unrepresented layperson, she intended to release only the dog owners and

their insurer and did not intend to release Appellees, who are not named in

the Release. Appellant’s Br. at 12-17. Appellant also claims that the Release

was geographically limited to claims arising from the accident “near 38

Woodside Ave.” in Temple, Pennsylvania, rather than in Wyomissing where

Appellees provided treatment to her. Id. at 12 (quoting Release).

      Invoking the discovery rule, Appellant contends that her injuries

resulting from Appellee’s treatment had “not even developed” at the time she

signed the Release. Id. at 14. Thus, Appellant claims that she “did not know

of the injury, its cause, and the causal relationship between the injury and the

conduct of the Appellee” at the time she signed the Release.         Id. at 18.

Appellant, however, does not provide any details as to what injuries

developed, when she became of aware of the injuries, or what delayed her

knowledge of the causal connection between Appellees’ treatment and the

injuries.

                                     -7-
J-S39004-23

       In light of the broad language of the Release and in the absence of

averments related to Appellant’s discovery of her claim against Appellees, we

conclude that the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment.

Following the Supreme Court’s guidance in Buttermore, the trial court

properly determined that the Release barred Appellant’s claims against

Appellees based upon the following language:

       I/we release and discharge . . . [the dog owners] . . . and any and
       all other persons . . . of and from any and all causes of action . . .,
       which I/we now have or may hereafter have . . . arising from or
       by reason of any and all bodily or personal injuries . . . known and
       unknown, foreseen and unforeseen which heretofore has/have
       been or which hereafter may be sustained by me/us arising out of
       the accident on or about September 30, 2018 at or near 38
       Woodside Ave[.]

Release.     The trial court contrasted the Release’s broad language, with

releases which specifically constrained the reach of the release. Trial Ct. Op.

at 5 (citing Harrity, 653 A.2d 5).3

       Moreover, like the trial court, we reject Appellant’s claim that the

Release is geographically limited to the address where the dog bite occurred.

Rather, the Release is limited to claims “arising out of the accident[.]” The

inclusion of the date and location serve merely to identify the accident.

Appellant’s claims against Appellees for their treatment of injuries suffered

____________________________________________

3 For example, in Harrity, this Court concluded that a release of a tortfeasor

named in a federal suit did not extend to tortfeasors named in a state suit
where the release including “extremely clear limiting language” specifying that
it applied to all actions or claims “arising out of an accident . . . for which suit
was brought in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania” at a specific docket number. 653 A.2d at 11, 6-7.

                                           -8-
J-S39004-23

during the dog bite undeniably “arises out of” the dog bite and are accordingly

barred by the plain language of the Release.

       We additionally find unavailing Appellant’s attempt to invoke discovery

rule principles in claiming that her cause of action against Appellees had not

accrued at the time she signed the Release. Unlike the cases she relies upon,

the medical treatment in this case occurred the same day as the underlying

accident and before she signed the Release. Moreover, she fails to explain

what prevented her awareness of the injuries or when she became aware of

them as would be required for a court to determine that her delayed discovery

did not result from her own lack of diligence.4

____________________________________________

4 In rejecting Appellant’s discovery rule argument, the trial court relies upon

a handwritten note on a Patient First document, dated the day of the accident,
titled “X-ray Readings.” The parties agree that Appellant handwrote the
following note on the document to her Erie Insurance adjuster:

       Please add this issue to the settlement claim #, this issue was not
       in the settlement claim I was offered on June 1 [sic] this has been
       [sic] on-going problem and should be entered into the offer. I
       may have to live the rest of my life . . . with this excruciating
       nerve damage in my arm. I would greatly consider any new
       offer[.]

Motion for Summary Judgment, Exh. E. The trial court found this note to
indicate that Appellee was aware of the extent of her injuries at the time she
negotiated the settlement. Trial Ct. Op. at 7. Appellant, however, reads the
note as requesting that the X-ray cost be included in the settlement, rather
than adding her claims against Appellees. Appellant’s Br. at 16-17.

We need not resolve the factual question as Appellant fails to aver any facts
regarding when she discovered the alleged increased injury due to Appellees’
care or what caused her delayed knowledge.

                                           -9-
J-S39004-23

       After careful review, we affirm the trial court’s grant of summary

judgment because the broad language of the Release barred Appellant’s

claims, entitling Appellees to judgment as a matter of law.5

       Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 12/26/2023

____________________________________________

5 We recognize that the trial court misstated the standard as requiring the
record to be viewed in “a light most favorable to [Appellees] as the moving
party[,]” which is the opposite of the proper standard. Id. at 7. While we
presume that this statement was a typographical error, it does not impact our
analysis after viewing the record in a light most favorable to Appellant.

                                          - 10 -