Court Opinion

ID: 9756841
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 22:03:21.697868+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:32.096942
License: Public Domain

CONCURRING OPINION BY
Judge LEADBETTER.
I join in the holding of the majority, and with its essential analysis. I write separately to note that, contrary to the majority’s statement in dicta, I believe that the action is barred by the Sovereign Immunity Act. 42 Pa.C.S. § 8528(c), which limits damages recoverable under the Act, provides:
(c) Types of losses recognized—Damages shall be recoverable only for:
(1) Past and future loss of earnings and earning capacity.
(2) Pain and suffering.
(3) Medical and dental expenses including the reasonable value of reasonable and necessary medical and dental services, prosthetic devices and necessary ambulance, hospital, professional nursing, and physical therapy expenses accrued and anticipated in the diagnosis, care and recovery of the claimant.
(4) Loss of consortium.
(5) Property losses, except that property losses shall not be recoverable in claims brought pursuant to section 8522(b)(5) (relating to potholes and other dangerous conditions).
(Emphasis added).
Since Mrs. Schultz’s asserted damages for loss of society and companionship of her son do not fall in any of these categories, they'are excluded.1

. Pennsylvania appellate caselaw clearly establishes that loss of consortium is a claim available only to a spouse. Schroeder v. Ear, Nose and Throat Assoc., 383 Pa. Super. 440, 557 A.2d 21 (1989). The decision in Quinn v. Department of Transportation, 719 A.2d 1105 (1998), did not change this rule. Id. at 1109.