# Freach v. Commonwealth

> Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · March 4, 1976 · 23 Pa. Commw. 546

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6362974

## Case

- **Full name:** Gail Freach, Administratrix of the Estate of Paul J. Freach, Deceased Paul Freach and Gail Freach Dorothy Keen, Administratrix of the Estate of Edmund J. Keen, Deceased Edmund Keen and Dorothy Keen v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Department of Welfare Farview State Hospital Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole Pennsylvania Bureau of Correction, Defendants Gail Freach, Administratrix of the Estate of Paul J. Freach, Deceased Paul Freach and Gail Freach Dorothy Keen, Administratrix of the Estate of Edmund J. Keen, Deceased Edmund Keen and Dorothy Keen v. John P. Shovlin John J. Burke J. Harold Hughes Stephen J. McEwen, Jr. Tim Spizer M. H. Truax Ted Densham E. J. McCann Charles F. Genter Bernard J. Willis William H. Horan Ambrose V. Lupcho Joseph F. Comerford Philip Powell Joseph B. Raddin Gerald Stanvich Paul Farrell Frank Walsh Mr. Glaughlin Mr. Cadullo Mr. Fitzgerald John McCrone Al Petrucci City of Scranton William Russell Kenneth Oprisko Northeast Vector Control Assn. John Doe Richard Doe Joseph Doe Mary Doe Ann Doe Jane Doe and William Wright
- **Court:** Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** March 4, 1976
- **Citations:** 23 Pa. Commw. 546; 354 A.2d 908; 1976 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 967
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Blatt
- **Judges:** Blatt, Bowman, Crumlish, Kramer, Mencer, Reargued, Rogers, Wilkinson
- **Cited by:** 22 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6362974

## Opinion text

Dissenting Opinion by
Judge Blatt:
I must also dissent. The almost incredible facts alleged in this case, presenting as they do a terrifying example of the injurious consequences which can result from gross negligence or incompetence on the part of mental hospital personnel, have prompted me to reconsider my position with regard to the sovereign immunity *559 of public mental health institutions and their employees. As the majority here recognizes, this Court did hold in Heifetz v. Philadelphia State Hospital, 22 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 325 , 348 A.2d 455 (1975) that Section 603 of the Mental Health and Mental Retardation Act of 1966 (Act) 1 does not create a cause of action based upon the gross negligence or incompetence of such public institutions and their employees (Judge CRUMLISH dissenting). After a serious reconsideration of the issue now, however, I find that I must agree with Judge CRUMLISH that the legislature in its wisdom enacted Section 603, realizing that individuals suffering injuries as a result of such misconduct on the part of mental hospital personnel must be afforded an appropriate remedy regardless of whether their injury was suffered in a public or in a private institution at the hands of public or of private officials or employees. I now believe, therefore, that Section 603 should be considered a sufficient legislative declaration of waiver of sovereign immunity pursuant to the provisions of Article I, Section 11 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania.
I would, therefore, deny the defendants’ preliminary objections and allow this case to proceed to trial.
. Act of October 20, 1966, Special Sess. No. 3, P. L. 96, as amended, 50 P. S. §4603.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6362974. Public record. Not legal advice.