Pennsylvania Medical Malpractice Lawsuits

If you were harmed by a medical mistake in Pennsylvania, you want to know whether you have a case, how long you have to file, and what compensation may be available. Our lawyers explain Pennsylvania medical malpractice law and review settlement amounts and jury payouts to help you understand what affects the value of a claim.

Miller & Zois has recovered millions of dollars for victims in birth injury and other medical malpractice cases in Pennsylvania.

For a free consultation about a potential Pennsylvania malpractice claim, call 800-553-8082 or contact our lawyers online.

How Much Are Pennsylvania Medical Malpractice Settlements Worth?

There is no single average that tells you what your Pennsylvania medical malpractice case is worth. The examples below include a $750,000 settlement involving neonatal sepsis and a $32 million settlement involving a child with severe brain damage. Those are selected public outcomes, not a statewide average or a prediction for your case.

The strength of the negligence claim and the extent of the injury are the starting points. Future care costs, lost income, the evidence linking the medical mistake to the harm, available insurance, and the court where the case can be tried also matter. A catastrophic injury can support a large recovery, but we still have to prove that negligent care caused it.

Calculating Pennsylvania Malpractice Lawsuit Settlement Compensation

Settlement amounts for medical malpractice lawsuits in Pennsylvania are calculated based on so many factors, many of which you will not see in an example malpractice lawsuit summary. But there are three umbrella categories:

1. Economic Damages: These include measurable costs such as medical bills, rehabilitation costs, lost wages, and future loss of earnings. The plaintiff is compensated for both past and future expected economic losses. Pennsylvania’s MCARE Act modifies the collateral source rule in medical professional liability cases. Under § 508, recovery of past medical expenses and past lost earnings is generally restricted to the extent those losses were covered by benefits received before trial, subject to statutory exceptions. The analysis must account for the type of benefit, any reimbursement rights, and expenses the patient remains legally responsible for paying. You cannot assume that every bill already paid by insurance will also be recoverable from the defendant.
2. Non-Economic Damages: Compensation for pain and suffering, loss of consortium, and emotional distress. Pennsylvania is a good state to try a medical malpractice lawsuit because it does not have a cap on non-economic damages, although claims against government entities can be subject to separate immunity rules and damages limits.
3. Punitive Damages: In Pennsylvania, punitive damages in a medical malpractice lawsuit are awarded only when the plaintiff can prove that the defendant’s actions were not just negligent but also exhibited willful misconduct, recklessness, or a conscious disregard for the rights of others. The standard for punitive damages is still high. Under MCARE § 505, gross negligence alone is insufficient. Except in cases alleging intentional misconduct, punitive damages against an individual physician cannot exceed 200% of compensatory damages. The statute allocates 75% of punitive damages to the prevailing party and 25% to the MCARE Fund.

Future Medical Expenses and Lost Earnings

A large verdict does not always mean the entire award arrives in one check. MCARE § 509 generally requires future medical and related expenses awarded at trial to be paid periodically. An exception applies when the claimant objects and stipulates that those future expenses do not exceed $100,000. MCARE § 510 separately requires future lost earnings or earning capacity to be reduced to present value. These rules affect how an award is calculated and paid. A negotiated settlement can have different payment terms.

Delay Damages Can Increase a Judgment

Pennsylvania Rule 238 allows qualifying plaintiffs to seek delay damages in bodily injury and death cases. The calculation depends on the rule’s timing requirements, qualifying settlement offers, and other exclusions, including delay caused by the plaintiff. It is not an automatic addition to every settlement.

The Delavern case below shows the difference: the jury’s $6,970,783 award became a $7,291,398.51 judgment after delay damages. That is why an accurate case summary should distinguish the jury’s verdict from the final judgment.

Pennsylvania Medical Malpractice Verdicts & Settlements

Below are recent medical malpractice cases in Pennsylvania and their jury payouts or settlement amounts.

Keep in mind that each case is unique, and the settlement amount for a malpractice lawsuit will depend on the specific circumstances, including the severity of the injury, the impact on the victim’s life, the liability of the healthcare provider, and the strength of the evidence.

But even if those factors seem to line up well with the facts of your claim, it does not mean that you can expect a similar outcome in your case. Still, these examples of malpractice cases are instructive in helping you better understand the potential ranges of values in similar cases.

Birth Injury Settlements and Verdicts

• Delayed Cesarean Section and Severe Brain Injury (Philadelphia County 2024) $32 Million Settlement. A woman, 39 weeks into her pregnancy, sought medical care at the now-defunct Hahnemann University Hospital in Philadelphia after her unborn child showed no signs of movement for several hours. Despite the fetal monitoring indicating distress, a crucial delay of over 10 hours occurred before a cesarean section was performed, by which the baby’s heart rate had drastically fallen. The lawsuit brought by the family detailed the infant’s severe brain damage, leading to quadriplegia, communication challenges, and a lifelong dependency on a feeding tube. These grave consequences were tied to the protracted wait for the cesarean section, despite unmistakable signs of fetal distress such as extended periods of inactivity and concerning heart rate signals. The claim emphasized what our lawyers see in so many birth injury cases we handle: the significant postponement in conducting the Cesarean section.
• Nicholson-Upsey v. Univ. of Penn. (Philadelphia County 2023) $182.7 Million Verdict. A newborn child suffered from HIE that caused his spastic quadriplegic cerebral palsy. To seek justice, the child’s mother hired a Philadelphia birth injury attorney who proceeded to file a lawsuit against Penn Hospital. The lawsuit stated that the hospital’s negligence in delaying a cesarean section, despite being aware of the mother’s chorioamnionitis, resulted in the child’s cerebral palsy and brain injuries. According to the family, if the child had been delivered sooner, cerebral palsy and brain injuries could have been prevented. Penn Hospital, however, argued that they did not negligently delay the delivery and that the uterine infection was the cause of the baby’s injuries. However, the jury favored the plaintiff, awarding a staggering $182.7 million in damages.
• Latham v. Heritage Valley Health Systems (Beaver County 2023) $16 Million Verdict. A 39-year-old woman was experiencing several health issues during her high-risk pregnancy. In the period leading up to the stillbirth, she reported swelling in her extremities, which led to two hospital visits involving tests. According to the plaintiffs, during her second visit, the tests indicated fetal tachycardia, but the doctor did not order additional bloodwork or urinalysis. An ultrasound four days later found no fetal movement or heartbeat, leading to the delivery of the nonviable fetus via C-section. The plaintiffs hired a Pittsburgh medical malpractice lawyer and filed a lawsuit. The suit contended that the stillbirth occurred because the patient’s doctors failed to diagnose her severe preeclampsia. The defendants, however, disputed this, arguing that the conditions cited by the plaintiffs as causing the stillbirth were not supported by evidence. The breakdown of the award included $10 million for wrongful death, $5 million for pain and suffering, and over $1 million payout for loss of income.
• Rasley v Nemours Foundation (Montgomery County 2022) $750,000 Settlement: A newborn baby died four days after birth from the negligent failure of the hospital to recognize and treat neonatal sepsis, including his mother’s urinary tract infection during pregnancy. Case settled before trial.

Delayed Diagnosis Settlements and Verdicts

• Delavern v. Health Services of Clarion, Inc. (Clarion County 2024; affirmed 2025) $6.97 Million Verdict: A patient repeatedly sought treatment for rectal pain and bleeding but was treated for hemorrhoids. A colonoscopy thirteen months after his first visit revealed stage four rectal cancer that had spread to his lungs. The plaintiffs alleged that delayed diagnosis allowed the cancer to progress and sharply reduced his chances of survival. The jury awarded $6,970,783, and delay damages brought the judgment to $7,291,398.51. In its January 6, 2025 decision, the Superior Court affirmed. Although the defense objected to closing remarks about systemic failures, it did not request a curative instruction or mistrial. The court also explained that the remarks did not squarely constitute golden rule arguments.
• Heffelfinger v. Shen (Luzerne County 2024; affirmed 2025) $11 Million Verdict: A woman developed advanced tongue cancer after a dentist failed to properly investigate a persistent lesion. Treatment included chemotherapy, radiation, and removal of part of her tongue, leaving lasting speech and other limitations. The evidence also addressed the dentist’s handling of records and an attempt to condition their release on a liability waiver. The jury awarded $3 million in compensatory damages and $8 million in punitive damages. Delay damages increased the judgment to $11,459,513.69. The Superior Court affirmed the judgment on July 21, 2025, including the punitive award. This case involved a dentist and dental entities; the MCARE percentage cap discussed above specifically concerns individual physicians.
• DiMeo v. Gross (Philadelphia County 2023) $3.5 Million Verdict. A Philadelphia man sustained irreversible heart damage after his complaints of chest pain were initially dismissed as gastrointestinal issues by his primary care physician. His persistent health concerns led him to request diagnostic tests like an EKG and chest X-ray, but he was instructed to undergo outpatient testing rather than an immediate, thorough examination. It was only after he experienced severe chest pain and visited an emergency department at another hospital that an EKG confirmed a heart attack. The delay in accurate diagnosis and treatment resulted in permanent damage to his heart, leading to a jury in Philadelphia awarding him $3.5 million for this tragic medical oversight.
• Wolfgang v. Bradford Regional Medical Center (McKean County 2023) $3.25 Million Verdict. The plaintiff alleged that his doctors incorrectly diagnosed and treated an infection in his foot, which eventually necessitated a below-the-knee amputation. The case encountered a significant obstacle when an unexpected testimony contradicted a key aspect of Wolfgang’s claim, but the plaintiff’s legal team managed to unearth a crucial piece of medical documentation to challenge this assertion. Following deliberations, the jury apportioned 99% of the responsibility for the injury to the doctors and 1% to the victim. This was the first malpractice verdict in McKean County in over 20 years.
• Dixon v. Sayeed (Philadelphia County 2023) $1.65 Million Verdict. A woman was suffering from a pulmonary embolism, but was instead treated for a chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation. She subsequently suffered a fatal cardiac arrest stemming from the undiagnosed pulmonary embolism. At trial, the family’s lawyers emphasized the doctor’s refusal to consider alternative diagnoses, arguing that he acted the same way at trial, which underscored his close-mindedness that led him to ignore other possible reasons for the woman’s symptoms. Ultimately, the jury returned a $1.65 million verdict in this survival action and wrongful death malpractice claim.
• MDW v Main Line Hosp. (Montgomery County 2022) $3 Million Settlement: A wrongful death of a 7-year-old boy allegedly caused by the emergency room’s negligent failure to diagnose and treat his infection. The case settled for $3 million.
• Musika v Gomez (Montgomery County 2022) $750,000 Verdict: A malpractice lawsuit over the negligent failure to diagnose cancer by performing a needle biopsy led to a delay in treatment and progression of cancer in a middle-aged male plaintiff. A jury in the Philadelphia suburbs awarded $750,000 in damages.

Injuries and Deaths After Treatment or Discharge

• Plaintiff v. Temple Univ. Hosp. (Philadelphia County 2024) $44.9 Million Verdict: A Philadelphia County jury awarded $44.9 million to a mother and her 19-year-old son in a lawsuit against Temple University Hospital. The case involved claims that the hospital conducted inadequate swallowing tests after the son suffered a gunshot wound to the neck, which led to him choking on food and suffering brain damage. The hospital was found liable for failing to properly assess the son’s ability to swallow different food consistencies before discharging him.
• Koesterer v. Thomas Jefferson (Philadelphia County 2024) $2.5 Million Verdict. An elderly patient died from a pulmonary embolism after developing a deep vein thrombosis following hip surgery. The plaintiff’s medical malpractice lawsuit argued that discontinuing anticoagulation medication and inadequate mobilization were breaches in the standard of care that directly caused the patient’s death. A Philadelphia jury awarded $2.5 million in the wrongful death case against Rothman Orthopaedics and a doctor, finding the medical team negligent in their postoperative care.
• Deger v Choi (Bucks County 2022) $4.85 Million Reported Recovery: A 55-year-old male died from an aortic dissection, and the estate brought a wrongful death case against the hospital for negligently discharging him the night before without ordering the proper tests and consults.
• Lee v Marks (Philadelphia County 2022) $1.15 Million Reported Recovery: A 42-year-old man died from a heart attack after going to the hospital the previous day. Plaintiff alleged the defendants failed to timely perform a cardiac assessment, evaluation, and screening, and failed to timely and properly treat his cardiac condition.

Do You Have a Pennsylvania Medical Malpractice Case?

A bad medical outcome does not automatically establish malpractice. Our lawyers look at whether the provider departed from accepted standards of care, whether that departure caused or contributed to the injury, and what harm followed. The medical records and qualified expert review are central to that evaluation.

You do not need to know which hospital employee made the mistake before contacting us. In some cases, the question is whether a doctor missed a diagnosis. In others, the records point to failures in staffing, communication, or hospital policies. The right theory depends on what actually happened.

For a free consultation about a potential Pennsylvania medical malpractice case, call 800-553-8082 or contact our attorneys online.

Types of Medical Malpractice Lawsuits in Pennsylvania

Medical malpractice lawsuits in Pennsylvania encompass a wide range of claims, reflecting the complex and varied nature of healthcare errors. Understanding these common types of cases can help potential plaintiffs assess whether they have grounds for a malpractice lawsuit:

• Hospital Malpractice Lawsuits: These claims focus on systemic failures within hospitals, such as understaffing, poor communication, or inadequate policies, which result in patient harm.
• Surgical Errors: Mistakes during surgery, including wrong-site operations, leaving foreign objects in the body, or unnecessary procedures, often lead to severe injuries and significant settlements or jury awards.
• Birth Injuries: Medical negligence during labor or delivery can result in conditions like cerebral palsy or permanent physical disabilities, which are common in major medical malpractice cases. These are usually the largest medical malpractice suits in terms of settlement amounts and jury payouts.
• Delayed Diagnosis or Misdiagnosis: Failure to correctly and timely diagnose critical conditions such as cancer or heart disease is a frequent basis for medical malpractice cases.
• Medication Errors: Errors such as incorrect dosages, administering the wrong drug, or overlooking dangerous drug interactions frequently lead to medical malpractice lawsuit settlements.

These types of medical malpractice lawsuits often involve substantial damages, particularly when they result in long-term disabilities or significant financial losses. Plaintiffs may recover compensation for medical expenses, lost wages, and non-economic damages, including pain and suffering. While Pennsylvania law allows victims to seek substantial settlements, navigating the legal process requires compliance with strict procedural rules that we talk about below.

Nursing Home Malpractice

Nursing homes are licensed healthcare providers, just like hospitals, and they can be held liable for failing to provide adequate care to residents at their facilities. Most Pennsylvania nursing home negligence lawsuits will be medical malpractice lawsuits.

Nursing homes get sued very frequently. Some of the most common types of nursing home negligence lawsuits include:

• Nursing home bedsore (pressure ulcer) negligence cases
• Failure to prevent residents from falling
• Neglect
• Abuse

Pennsylvania Medical Malpractice Laws

Pennsylvania Statute of Limitations for Medical Malpractice Cases

All states have a statute of limitations for malpractice and other tort claims, which is essentially a legal time deadline for filing a lawsuit. A potential lawsuit must be filed before the statute of limitations deadline, or the claim will be barred.

For medical malpractice cases in Pennsylvania, the general statute of limitations is two years. 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5524(2). The discovery rule may delay the start of that period until the patient knew, or reasonably should have known, of the injury and its cause. It does not necessarily wait until a doctor or lawyer confirms that malpractice occurred. This rule tolls the commencement of the limitations period until the point at which the plaintiff either knows or, through the exercise of reasonable diligence, should know of both the injury and its cause. This rule acknowledges that the injury or its cause may not be apparent immediately at the time of medical intervention.

Example: You underwent heart surgery in 2021, and everything seemed okay. Four years later, in 2025, you suffered a massive heart attack, and doctors told you that the 2021 surgery was performed incorrectly and probably caused it. If you had no earlier reason to discover the injury and its cause, the discovery rule may delay the start of the two year period until 2025. The date cannot be determined just by when another doctor confirmed that the original surgery was performed incorrectly.

But…a word of caution. Many people mistakenly believe the discovery rule gives them more time than it actually does. Courts apply an objective standard, what a reasonably diligent person should have known, not just what the plaintiff personally understood. That means some claims expire earlier than expected because the plaintiff is deemed to have had enough information to investigate sooner. So calling a medical malpractice attorney as soon as you suspect something went wrong is not just smart. It can be the difference between having a case and having no legal rights left at all.

There are some exceptions to this rule, most notably for minors. When the injured patient is under 18, the two-year limitation period does not begin to run until the minor reaches the age of 18.

Wrongful Death and Survival Filing Deadlines

When malpractice results in death, MCARE § 513(d) generally requires wrongful death and survival claims to be filed within two years after the death. The statute provides a limited exception for affirmative misrepresentation or fraudulent concealment of the cause of death. Families should not assume that learning about a medical mistake later restarts the deadline.

In Reibenstein v. Barax, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court explained that death triggers the duty to investigate and that the exception concerns concealment of the medical cause of death. It does not generally postpone the deadline until the family identifies every potentially responsible provider. If the patient’s own claim had already expired before death, the death does not give the family a new deadline for it.

The Former Seven Year Statute of Repose

Pennsylvania’s MCARE Act included a seven year statute of repose, but the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that provision unconstitutional in Yanakos v. UPMC in 2019. It should not be treated as an automatic seven year deadline that bars a malpractice case regardless of discovery.

That does not remove the statute of limitations. The two year deadline and the discovery rule still require careful analysis. Claims involving government providers may also have separate notice or administrative requirements, so identifying the responsible provider matters from the beginning.

Pennsylvania Follows Comparative Negligence

If you missed a follow-up appointment or did not take medication as directed, that does not automatically defeat your case. The question is whether your conduct actually contributed to the injury and how any proven fault should be allocated. Our lawyers need to understand why the appointment was missed, or the medication was not taken, including what instructions and warnings you received.

Pennsylvania applies a modified comparative negligence rule in medical malpractice tort cases. If the defense proves that your own negligent conduct contributed to the injury, the jury assigns percentages of fault. Your compensation can be reduced by your share of fault.

If your share of fault exceeds 50%, you cannot recover. If it is 50% or less, your damages are reduced by that percentage. For example, if a jury awards $1 million and finds you 25% responsible, the award is reduced to $750,000.

Certificate of Merit Required

Pennsylvania law requires medical malpractice claims to be supported by a certificate of merit under Pa. R.C.P. No. 1042.3. For a claim alleging a departure from professional standards, this generally requires a written statement from an appropriately qualified licensed professional supporting a reasonable probability that the care fell below accepted standards and caused the harm.

This means that if you want to file a malpractice lawsuit in Pennsylvania, you generally need another qualified medical professional to review your case and support the claim. The certificate must ordinarily be filed with the complaint or within 60 days after the complaint is filed. The rule permits extensions for good cause.

Missing the initial deadline does not cause an automatic dismissal on day 60. However, failure to comply can lead to a judgment ending the claim under Rule 1042.7. The purpose of this requirement is to filter out potentially frivolous or excessive malpractice lawsuits. There are different certification grounds for certain claims, so the certificate must fit the theory being pursued.

First Responder Immunity

Pennsylvania provides limited protection from civil liability for certain emergency medical care. Under 35 Pa. C.S. § 8151(2), an EMS agency, EMS agency medical director, or EMS provider acting in good faith to render or facilitate emergency medical care authorized by the statute generally cannot be held liable without a showing of gross negligence or willful misconduct.

The Superior Court applied this provision in Fry v. Montrose Minute Men, Inc., a nonprecedential decision issued July 28, 2023. The court affirmed summary judgment for the EMS defendants because the evidence did not support the required showing.

Corporate Negligence

Pennsylvania does have corporate negligence, which is a useful weapon when suing a hospital for malpractice. With a corporate negligence claim, a hospital has a direct obligation to its patients to ensure their safety and well-being during their stay. You also see this claim in Pennsylvania nursing home lawsuits.

So a hospital is required to fulfill several key responsibilities: (1) to exercise reasonable care in maintaining safe and adequate facilities and equipment; (2) to hire and retain competent medical staff; (3) to supervise all medical personnel working within the hospital in relation to patient care; and (4) to develop, implement, and enforce comprehensive rules and policies that ensure quality care for patients.

What our lawyers like about the corporate negligence doctrine is that it holds the hospital directly accountable for upholding an appropriate standard of care to the patient. It provides real accountability. The hospital’s responsibility can arise from its own institutional failures, rather than solely from the negligence of an individual doctor or nurse. In Thompson v. Nason Hospital, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recognized this direct duty. A plaintiff must establish that the hospital had actual or constructive knowledge of the defect or procedures that created the harm and that its negligence was a substantial factor in causing the injury. Expert support is generally needed unless the institutional negligence is obvious.

Informed Consent in Pennsylvania Malpractice Cases

Informed consent claims are a specific category of medical malpractice lawsuits in Pennsylvania. Unlike typical negligence claims, which focus on the quality of medical care provided, informed consent actions center on the patient’s right to understand the risks, benefits, and alternatives to a proposed treatment or procedure. Under Pennsylvania’s Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error (MCARE) Act, a physician has the obligation to obtain the informed consent of the patient for certain high-risk interventions, including surgery, radiation, chemotherapy, and blood transfusions. The law requires that this consent be based on a meaningful dialogue between doctor and patient, not just a signature on a form.

To succeed on an informed consent claim, a plaintiff must establish the failure to provide the required information and show that receiving it would have been a substantial factor in deciding whether to undergo the procedure. MCARE § 504 sets out that standard. Most of the informed consent lawsuits our malpractice lawyers see turn on the provider’s communication and the documentation of what was or was not explained.

You always want to protect yourself by having an expert witness in any informed consent lawsuit in Pennsylvania. MCARE § 504 calls for expert testimony to identify the covered procedure, its risks, and the alternatives and their risks. A claim about negligent treatment or medication management must be evaluated on its own terms; describing it as informed consent does not eliminate the need for appropriate expert support. If you have a good case, flying without a good expert is not a risk worth taking.

Litigating Medical Malpractice Cases in Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania is a large state geographically and has various social demographics within its various regions. There are two major cities in Pennsylvania: Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. Both are favorable jurisdictions for plaintiffs in medical malpractice and other personal injury cases. The state capital, Harrisburg, is also a good venue for medical malpractice plaintiffs.

Outside of these three major urban areas, however, most of the venues in Pennsylvania are not good for plaintiffs. That makes venue an important part of evaluating a case. Effective January 1, 2023, Pennsylvania rescinded the special malpractice venue restriction that generally confined these claims to the county where the cause of action arose. Medical malpractice cases now follow the ordinary venue rules applicable to the defendants. That can permit filing outside the county where treatment occurred, but it does not make Philadelphia an available venue in every case.

February 18, 2026 Venue Update: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court removed the expired provisions requiring reexamination of the 2023 venue amendments. The official comment to Rule 1006 confirms that the court will consider future proposals through its usual rules committee process. This amendment did not restore the former special malpractice venue restriction.

A separate issue for victims who want to get to Philadelphia is a case decided in the summer of 2025 involving contractual venue restrictions. This case involves venue selection clauses shamelessly buried in pre-treatment paperwork. The Pennsylvania Superior Court enforced a venue clause in a surgical consent form that required all legal claims to be filed in Bucks County, even though the plaintiffs sued in Philadelphia and a co-defendant did business there. The court unfortunately ruled that the contractual clause took priority over procedural rules that would have allowed venue in Philadelphia.

This decision gives healthcare providers a way to limit where they can be sued by adding venue language to routine consent forms. If you are considering a claim, bring us every consent form and admission document you signed. A restriction buried in medical paperwork may become a major issue in deciding where the case can be filed.

Medical Expert Evidence

Most malpractice cases require qualified medical experts to explain the accepted standard of care, what went wrong, and how it harmed the patient. Pa.R.Civ.P. 4003.5 governs disclosure of expert opinions developed for litigation. Failure to make required disclosures can prevent an expert from testifying at trial.

Opinions formed by physicians during treatment are treated differently under Rule 4003.5. That does not make every medical opinion from a treating physician ordinary fact testimony. Our lawyers must identify the purpose and scope of the testimony and comply with the applicable disclosure requirements.

Pennsylvania Medical Malpractice FAQs

Contact Us About Pennsylvania Medical Malpractice

If you are dealing with a serious injury or the death of someone you love, you may have questions the hospital has not answered. You do not need to know exactly what went wrong before contacting our lawyers. Call 800-553-8082 or contact us online for a free consultation about your Pennsylvania medical malpractice case.