Freddy Munoz took his four-year-old son, S.M., to the Einstein ED on June 7, 2015, for treatment of a fever. S.M. had been treated at the same facility for pneumonia in January of 2015. At the conclusion of the June 7 visit, S.M. was discharged with a diagnosis of a herpes lesion on his lip, was given Ibuprofen, and was directed to follow up with his pediatrician in two days…medicalmalpracticelawyers, Pennsylvania Appellate Court Upholds $14M Medical Malpractice Verdict Against CHOP
S.M. returned to the ED the following day because he had developed congestion and was having difficulty breathing and was examined by Dr. Parrillo who first diagnosed S.M. with asthma, then with cancer. An x-ray revealed pneumonia.
Dr. Parrillo called CHOP’s emergency services department and informed CHOP of S.M.’s condition, which Dr. Parrillo described as an emergency. Dr. Parrillo was connected with CHOP’s pediatric intensive care unit (“PICU”), which agreed to admit S.M. Dr. Parrillo then engaged in a series of conversations with Matt Taylor, M.D. (“Dr. Taylor”), a pediatric intensive care fellow in CHOP’s PICU.
The plaintiffs filed their initial medical malpractice complaint against Einstein-Elkins Park, Dr. Parrillo, and other Einstein physicians and entities (“Einstein defendants”) in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas in early 2016. With respect to CHOP, the plaintiffs argued that CHOP was responsible for the acts and omissions of its agents who knew or should have known of the decedent’s critical illness, need for immediate return to CHOP’s PICU for high level management, as well as his high likelihood of suffering further respiratory distress and requirement for highly specialized pediatric intensivist care unavailable at Einstein Elkins Park. They alleged that CHOP personnel were negligent in dispatching a critical care team that did not include a PICU physician, which removed any chance of the decedent getting the benefit of CHOP’s pediatric expertise in intubating children such as the decedent.
On appeal, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania stated in its May 27, 2025 non-precedential decision: “we find that CHOP has conflated its duty to care for Decedent with the application of the relevant standard of care. We reject CHOP’s assertion that it did not owe any duty of care to Decedent based on its allegation that its “undertaking to render services” was limited to its agreement to transport Decedent to CHOP for advanced care. Rather, there is ample evidence to support the trial court’s finding that CHOP entered a physician-patient relationship with Decedent for treatment purposes, which then imposed a duty on CHOP to proceed with reasonable care.”