Pennsylvania Medical Malpractice Venue Clause Upheld by Court

In a recent precedential ruling from the Pennsylvania Superior Court, the enforceability of the Pennsylvania medical malpractice venue clause has been clarified. The case involved a patient who wished to sue in Philadelphia, but the contract she had signed before surgery stipulated that lawsuits must be filed in Bucks County. The court ruled that the contract is valid, even though Philadelphia would normally be the proper venue for bringing the case. 

This ruling confirms that in Pennsylvania medical malpractice cases, a signed venue clause can take priority over the usual court rules for choosing where to file a lawsuit. 

The Case: Somerlot v. Jung et al.  

The case revolves around the patient, Saramari Somerlot, and Dr. Soon Jung at Pain Management Centers of America. The patient suffered paralysis below the chest after a spinal procedure. The lawsuit had also named Boston Scientific, the device manufacturer. 

Before undergoing surgery, Somerlot had signed a one-page consent form that not only outlined the risks of the procedure but also included a venue-selection clause requiring any disputes to be filed in Bucks County. 

Since Boston Scientific was conducting significant business in Philadelphia, Somerlot and her husband argued that the venue was proper in Philadelphia. However, the court ruled that the contractual agreement superseded procedural venue rules. 

Why the Court Upheld the Clause 

The appellate panel explained several key points, such as: 

• If it was contractually agreed upon, it mattered. The clause was clear, apparent, and compulsory.  
• While Philadelphia may have been a proper venue, plaintiffs had already agreed to limit venue to Bucks County. 
• The court rejected claims that the clause was unfair. Somerlot could have crossed out the provision and made a counteroffer, but chose not to. 

Broader Legal Implications 

Philadelphia courts are quite often considered a “hotbed” for large verdicts, as per the American Tort Reform Foundation. By affirming the enforceability of venue-selection clauses, the Superior Court is likely to encourage more healthcare providers and medical groups to incorporate similar provisions in patient contracts. 

This decision highlights a larger legal principle: Patients who sign consent forms with venue clauses must be bound by them, even in high-value medical malpractice cases.