Title 231—RULES OF
CIVIL PROCEDUREPART I. GENERAL [ 231 PA. CODE CH. 1000 ] Amendment of Rule 1006 of the Rules of Civil Procedure; No. 543 Civil Procedural Rules Doc. [41 Pa.B. 3526]
[Saturday, July 2, 2011]Order Per Curiam
And Now, this 15th day of June, 2011, upon the recommendation of the Civil Procedural Rules Committee; the proposal having been published for public comment at 39 Pa.B. 5412 (September 19, 2009) and in the Atlantic Reporter (Second Series Advance Sheets, Vol. 977 No. 2); and the Committee having reaffirmed its original proposal after reviewing the matter again after submission upon the request of this Court:
It Is Ordered pursuant to Article V, Section 10 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania that Rule 1006 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure is amended in the following form.
This Order shall be processed in accordance with Pa.R.J.A. No. 103(b), and shall be effective August 1, 2011.
Mr. Justice Saylor files a dissenting statement.
Annex A TITLE 231. RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PART I. GENERAL CHAPTER 1000. ACTIONS Subchapter A. CIVIL ACTION VENUE AND PROCESS Rule 1006. Venue. Change of Venue.
* * * * * (a.1) Except as otherwise provided by subdivision (c), 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 provision does not apply to a cause of action that arises outside the Commonwealth.
Official Note: See Section 5101.1(c) of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 5101.1(c), for the definitions of ''health care provider,'' ''medical professional liability action'' and ''medical professional liability claim.''
(b) Actions against the following defendants, except as otherwise provided in subdivision (c), may be brought in and only in the counties designated by the following rules: political subdivisions, Rule 2103; partnerships, Rule 2130; unincorporated associations, Rule 2156; corporations and similar entities, Rule 2179.
Official Note: Partnerships, unincorporated associations, and corporations and similar entities are subject to subdivision (a.1) governing venue in medical professional liability actions. See Rules 2130, 2156 and 2179.
Subdivision (a.1) is a venue rule and does not create jurisdiction in Pennsylvania over a foreign cause of action where jurisdiction does not otherwise exist.
(c)(1) Except as otherwise provided by paragraph (2), an action to enforce a joint or joint and several liability against two or more defendants, except actions in which the Commonwealth is a party defendant, may be brought against all defendants in any county in which the venue may be laid against any one of the defendants under the general rules of subdivisions (a) or (b).
(2) If the action to enforce a joint or joint and several liability against two or more defendants includes one or more medical professional liability claims, the action shall be brought in any county in which the venue may be laid against any defendant under subdivision (a.1). This provision does not apply to a cause of action that arises outside the Commonwealth.
* * * * * 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.
By the Civil Procedural Rules Committee
HONORABLE ROBERT C. DANIELS,
ChairDissenting Statement Mr. Justice Saylor I understand and appreciate the reasoning behind the amendment exempting causes of action arising outside the Commonwealth from the operation of the special venue rule applicable in medical professional liability actions. Nevertheless, to my knowledge the Civil Procedural Rules Committee has presented no analysis of the disparate impact of the amendment on out-of-state defendants or attendant constitutional ramifications. Moreover, the Committee has been presented with a number of compromise alternatives, including a less strict application of the doctrine of forum non conveniens in medical malpractice suits premised on causes arising outside Pennsylvania. In this regard, notably, it was suggested that at least some Pennsylvania courts impose a uniquely high bar impeding transfer. The Committee, nonetheless, has offered nothing to address such concerns, other than to say it rejected them.
In light of the above, I would return the matter to the Committee for a recommendation which would provide a better predicate for informed decision-making.
[Pa.B. Doc. No. 11-1089. Filed for public inspection July 1, 2011, 9:00 a.m.]
