The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania amends Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1006 allowing out-of-state medical malpractice cases to be brought in Pennsylvania.

On June 15, 2011, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania amended Rule of Civil Procedure 1006, effective August 1, 2011. The amendment effects subsection a.1 of the Rule which previously stated, ". . . a medical professional liability action may be brought against a health care provider for a medical professional liability claim only in a county in which the cause of action arose." This language was originally enacted to prevent forum shopping by plaintiffs who sought venues with traditionally sympathetic juries, such as Philadelphia. Under Searles v. Estrada, 2004 PA Super 265, 856 A.2d 85 (Pa. Super. 2004), if the medical treatment at issue occurred outside of Pennsylvania, the claim could be dismissed under Rule 1006 (a.1) as there was no proper venue within the Commonwealth. The newly amended subsection a.1, however, appears to prohibit this method of dismissal by adding the following additional language to Rule 1006 (a.1): "This provision does not apply to a cause of action that arises outside the Commonwealth." According to the Explanatory Comment, "Currently a lawsuit based on medical treatment furnished in another state cannot be brought in Pennsylvania even if the defendants have substantial contacts with the state whereas Pennsylvania defendants can be sued in any state in which they have at least minimum contacts. The amendment to this rule would eliminate this discrepancy." Justice Saylor filed a dissenting statement criticizing the lack of analysis by the Rules Committee on the disparate impact on out-of-state defendants, which is the rationale on which the Rule was amended. The newly amended rule arguably creates a new avenue for forum shopping. Under Amended Rule 1006(a.1), if the cause of action arose from medical treatment outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the cause of action may be brought in Pennsylvania if the plaintiff can successfully establish personal jurisdiction through sufficient contacts between the defendant medical provider and Pennsylvania.

Case Law Alert - 4th Qtr 2011