Walters, T. v. UPMC , Pet of: Maxim Healthcare

• Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: April 18, 2017
• Docket: Walters, T. v. UPMC , Pet of: Maxim Healthcare - No. 422 WAL 2016 (Granted)
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT

THOMAS D. WALTERS AND CLARA M. : No. 422 WAL 2016 WALTERS, HIS WIFE : : : Petition for Allowance of Appeal from v. : the Order of the Superior Court : : UPMC PRESBYTERIAN SHADYSIDE; : MAXIM HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., : AND MEDICAL SOLUTIONS L.L.C. D/B/A : MEDICAL SOLUTIONS : : : PETITION OF: MAXIM HEALTHCARE : SERVICES, INC. :

LINDA FICKEN AND WILLIAM FICKEN, : No. 423 WAL 2016 HER HUSBAND : : : Petition for Allowance of Appeal from v. : the Order of the Superior Court : : UPMC PRESBYTERIAN SHADYSIDE; : MAXIM HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., : AND MEDICAL SOLUTIONS L.L.C. D/B/A : MEDICAL SOLUTIONS : : : PETITION OF: MAXIM HEALTHCARE : SERVICES, INC. :

WANDA J. BRAUN AND EDWIN J. : No. 424 WAL 2016 BRAUN, HER HUSBAND : : : Petition for Allowance of Appeal from v. : the Order of the Superior Court : : UPMC PRESBYTERIAN SHADYSIDE; : MAXIM HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., : AND MEDICAL SOLUTIONS L.L.C. D/B/A : MEDICAL SOLUTIONS : : : PETITION OF: MAXIM HEALTHCARE : SERVICES, INC. :

RONNIE D. MURPHY AND CONNIE E. : No. 425 WAL 2016 MCNEAL, AS CO-EXECUTORS OF THE : ESTATE OF ELEANOR Y. MURPHY, : AND IN THEIR OWN RIGHT : Petition for Allowance of Appeal from : the Order of the Superior Court : v. : : : UPMC PRESBYTERIAN SHADYSIDE, : MAXIN HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., : AND MEDICAL SOLUTIONS L.L.C. D/B/A : MEDICAL SOLUTIONS : : : PETITION OF: MAXIM HEALTHCARE : SERVICES, INC. :

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 18th day of April, 2017, the Application to File Reply in Further

Support of Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED as moot. The Petition for

Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues as stated by petitioner are:

(1) Whether, in an issue of first impression and of critical statewide importance, the Superior Court Majority violated longstanding precedent and deviated from existing law when it imposed upon a staffing agency a duty in negligence requiring it to protect the public against intentional acts of a former employee, in circumstances where: (i) there was no allegation that the staffing agency had notice that the employee had committed the same or similar offenses while employed with the agency; and (ii) the intentional acts occurred in a different state, two years after the employee's employment relationship with the staffing agency ended?

[422 WAL 2016, 423 WAL 2016, 424 WAL 2016 and 425 WAL 2016] - 2 (2) Whether, in an issue of first impression and statewide importance, the Superior Court Majority violated well-established rules of civil procedure and longstanding precedent by supplying facts, and then relying on those facts for its conclusions, in circumstances where those facts clearly do not appear in Plaintiffs' Complaint?

Justice Mundy did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

[422 WAL 2016, 423 WAL 2016, 424 WAL 2016 and 425 WAL 2016] - 3