The opinion
J-A21001-22
2022 PA Super 205
ESTATE OF RITA QUIGLEY, BY ITS : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
REPRESENTATIVE EDWARD : PENNSYLVANIA
CLEMSON, EXECUTOR :
:
Appellant :
:
:
v. :
: No. 1022 EDA 2022
:
POTTSTOWN HOSPITAL, LLC, TOWER :
HEALTH, JOHN DOES 1-10 :
Appeal from the Order Entered April 7, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at
No(s): 2107-01389
BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., MURRAY, J., and McCAFFERY, J.
OPINION BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED DECEMBER 01, 2022
The Estate of Rita Quigley (Decedent), by its representative Edward
Clemson, Executor (Plaintiff), appeals from the order of the Court of Common
Pleas Philadelphia County sustaining the preliminary objections of Pottstown
Hospital, LLC, Tower Health, and John Does 1-10 (collectively, Defendants) to
Plaintiff’s first amended complaint and transferring venue of the matter to
Montgomery County. Because Defendant Tower Health’s acts are more than
sufficient to establish venue in Philadelphia County, we reverse and remand.
Decedent was a resident of Chestnut Knoll, an assisted living facility
located in Boyertown, Berks County, Pennsylvania. Decedent suffered from
dementia and cognitive impairment. On October 28, 2020, Decedent was
admitted to Pottstown Hospital. Pottstown Hospital is located in Montgomery
County, Pennsylvania, and is owned by Tower Health. Tower Health’s
J-A21001-22
registered office and principal place of business are located in West Reading,
Berks County, Pennsylvania. On November 1, 2020, the Decedent was
discharged and transported from Pottstown Hospital to PowerBack
Rehabilitation Center, which is located in the Phoenixville area. Upon the
Decedent’s arrival at PowerBack, PowerBack’s medical staff conducted a
routine physical exam and discovered Decedent had significant injuries
consistent with a sexual assault.1 Unable to admit Decedent based upon those
injuries, PowerBack immediately transferred Decedent to Phoenixville
Hospital, a facility also owned by Tower Health, where medical personnel
performed a medical examination of Decedent and made notes about her
physical condition.2
On July 23, 2021, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant Tower
Health in Philadelphia County, at 8835 Germantown Avenue, Philadelphia,3
alleging that the Decedent was raped and sexually assaulted while she was a
____________________________________________
1 Decedent passed away on January 2, 2021. Letters Testamentary were
granted to Plaintiff on March 2, 2021.
2 The complaint alleges that Phoenixville Hospital contacted Pottstown Hospital
to inquire about Decedent’s injuries, but Pottstown Hospital denied ever
observing any of the alleged injuries sustained by Decedent. Plaintiff’s
Complaint, 7/19/21, at ¶ 24.
3 This is the address of Chestnut Hill Hospital, another hospital ----a
subsidiary--owned by parent company, Tower Health. Chestnut Hill Hospital
is not a defendant in the matter.
-2-
J-A21001-22
patient at Pottstown Hospital.4 Specifically, the complaint included three
counts: negligence (Count I); premises liability (Count II); assault/rape—
respondeat superior (Count III). The complaint alleges that “Defendant Tower
Health is a Pennsylvania non-profit corporation that operates the Pottstown
Hospital with a registered address of 420 S. Fifth Avenue[,] West Reading[,]
PA 19611 and a Philadelphia address, where it regularly conducts business, of
8835 Germantown Ave[nue], Philadelphia, PA 19118.” Plaintiff’s Complaint,
7/19/21, at ¶ 3. On August 30, 2021, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint
supplementing the original complaint with two additional counts: negligent
supervision (Count IV) and negligent hiring (Count V). The amended
complaint also attached various 2019-2020 financial statements for Tower
Health to support Plaintiff’s allegation that Tower Health regularly conducts
business in Philadelphia.
On September 17, 2021, Defendants filed preliminary objections 5
alleging that venue of the matter properly lies in Montgomery County because
Philadelphia County “has no relationship, let alone a substantial relationship,
to the alleged controversy.” Defendants’ Supplemental Brief in Support of
____________________________________________
4 Following an investigation into the matter, police were unable to definitively
conclude that Decedent was the victim of sexual assault. However, a rape
kit/examination conducted on Decedent by Phoenixville Hospital concluded
that the findings were consistent with Decedent having been the victim of a
sexual assault. Plaintiff’s Complaint, 7/19/21, at ¶ 26.
5 See Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(1) (providing, in relevant part, preliminary objections
may be filed by any party to any pleading on following bases: lack of
jurisdiction over subject matter of action or defendant; improper venue; or
improper forum or service of writ of summons or complaint).
-3-
J-A21001-22
Preliminary Objection to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, 1/13/22, at 6
(emphasis in original). To support their preliminary objections, Defendants
averred that: Decedent was never treated in Philadelphia County at any
relevant time; Decedent was not alleged to have been raped or sexually
assaulted in Philadelphia County; Plaintiff’s allegations centered exclusively
around events purported to have occurred at Pottstown Hospital in
Montgomery County; Tower Health does not have its principal place of
business or registered office in Philadelphia; Tower Health does not regularly
conduct business in Philadelphia County; only one of five non-profit hospitals
that is a part of the Tower Health network is located within Philadelphia
County; Chestnut Hill Hospital and Pottstown Hospital are mere subsidiaries
of their parent corporation, Tower Health; Tower Health is a “separate and
distinct legal entity from either Defendant Pottstown Hospital or non-party
Chestnut Hill Hospital;” the alleged cause of action arose exclusively in
Montgomery County; and, the alleged occurrence out of which the alleged
cause of action arose occurred exclusively in Montgomery County. Id. at 5-
7.
Plaintiff filed an answer to Defendants’ preliminary objections claiming
that Tower Health owns Pottstown Hospital and “the two are inextricably
intertwined.” Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants’
Preliminary Objections, 10/7/21, at 5. Specifically, Plaintiff averred that:
Tower Health’s financial statements group its five Montgomery, Philadelphia,
and Chester County hospitals together; Chestnut Hill Hospital, located in
-4-
J-A21001-22
Philadelphia, is one of the five hospitals owned by Tower Health; Tower
Health’s website states “Chester/Montgomery/Philadelphia hospitals are tax-
exempt not-for-profit corporations providing acute and post[-]acute care;”
Chester/Montgomery/Philadelphia clinics and practices are part of Tower
Health Medical Group (THMG);6 THMG “recruits physicians and provides
administrative services for [Reading] Hospital, including supervision and
instruction for medical students completing their residency training;” and
Chestnut Hill Hospital is located in and regularly conducts business in
Philadelphia County. Id. at 5-6.
The trial court permitted the parties to file supplemental briefs and to
submit affidavits, deposition testimony, as well as documentary evidence to
support their positions on the venue issue. See Pa.R.C.P. 1028 (preliminary
objections raising improper venue cannot be determined from facts of record;
evidence, by deposition or otherwise, must be presented to court deciding
objections). On November 3, 2021, Tower Health filed a motion to have itself
dismissed from the underlying case, attesting to its “non-involvement in the
care and/or treatment rendered to [Decedent].” Tower Health Motion to
Dismiss, 11/2/21, at 1-2. See Pa.R.C.P. 1036. Plaintiff filed an answer
____________________________________________
6 THMG is a tax-exempt entity established to assure access to high quality
primary care physicians and specialty physicians in sufficient numbers to meet
community needs. Tower Health and Subsidiaries, Notes to Consolidated
Financial Statements (June 30, 2020 and 2019) (Statements), at 8.
-5-
J-A21001-22
opposing Tower Health’s motion to dismiss. On February 14, 2022, the trial
court denied Tower Health’s motion to dismiss.
On April 7, 2022, the trial court granted Defendants’ preliminary
objections and transferred venue of the matter to Montgomery County.
Plaintiff filed a timely notice of appeal7 and court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)
concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. On appeal, Plaintiff
presents the following issues for our consideration:
(1) Did the trial court err and/or abuse its discretion by giving
undue consideration to Tower Health’s relationships with its
subsidiaries, as Tower Health is a named party, giving
insufficient consideration to Tower Health’s direct and
uncontradicted contacts in Philadelphia County, and failing
to conduct any quality-quantity analysis when considering
whether venue was proper in Philadelphia County?
(2) Did the trial court err and/or abuse its discretion by failing
to apply the proper burden of proof for preliminary
objections as to improper venue and failing to give proper
weight to Plaintiff’s preferred venue of Philadelphia County,
as well as the presumption in retaining Plaintiff’ choice of
venue, when considering whether venue was proper in
Philadelphia County?
(3) Did the trial court err and/or abuse its discretion by failing
hold an evidentiary hearing on venue prior to transferring
the matter from Philadelphia County to Montgomery County
and failing to state in its order or opinion the reasons why
the [c]ourt did not hold any evidentiary hearing on venue in
this matter?
Plaintiff’s Brief, at 4 (renumbered for ease of disposition).
____________________________________________
7 Although interlocutory, a trial court’s order changing venue in a civil action
is immediately appealable as of right. See Pa.R.A.P. 311(c).
-6-
J-A21001-22
It is well-established that “a plaintiff’s forum selection is given great
weight. Nevertheless, the trial court is vested with broad discretion in
determining whether the original choice of forum was proper. When any
proper basis exists for the trial court’s decision to change venue, that decision
must stand.” Masel v. Glassman, 689 A.2d 314, 320 (Pa. Super. 1997)
(citations omitted).
When reviewing a trial court’s decision to transfer venue, the
appellate court’s standard of review is as follows: A trial court’s
decision to transfer venue will not be disturbed absent an abuse
of discretion. An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial judge
overrides or misapplies the law, or exercises judgment in a
manifestly unreasonable manner, or renders a decision based on
partiality, prejudice, bias[,] or ill-will.
Sehl v. Neff, 26 A.3d 1130, 1132 (Pa. Super. 2011) (citation and quotation
marks omitted). When venue is challenged, “the burden of proving
jurisdiction is upon the party asserting it.” Deyarmin v. Consol. Rail Corp.,
931 A.2d 1, 9 (Pa. Super. 2007). See County Constr. Co. v. Livengood
Constr. Corp., 142 A.2d 9, 13 (Pa. 1958) (“for procedural purposes,
objections to venue are treated as raising a question of jurisdiction”).
The venue rules of this Commonwealth provide, in part, that a personal
action against a corporation8 may be brought in the county where its
registered office or principal place of business is located or a county where
____________________________________________
8In addition, “an action to enforce a joint or joint and several liability against
two or more defendants . . . may be brought against all defendants in any
county in which the venue may be laid against any one of the defendants
under the general rules.” Pa.R.C.P. 1006(c)(1).
-7-
J-A21001-22
it regularly conducts business. See Pa.R.C.P. 2179(a)(1)-(2) (emphasis
added).9 But cf. Pa.R.C.P. 1006(a) (a) (in claim involving individual, venue
is only appropriate where “a transaction or occurrence took place out of which
the cause of action arose” or where “the property . . . which is subject matter
of the action is located”).
In determining where a corporation “regularly conducts business,”
a court must focus on the nature of the acts the corporation
allegedly performs in that county; those acts must be assessed
both as to their quantity and quality.
“Quality of acts” means “those directly, furthering or
essential to, corporate objects; they do not include
incidental acts.” Quantity means those acts that are “so
continuous and sufficient to be termed general or
habitual.” The acts of the corporation must be
distinguished: those in “aid of a main purpose” are
collateral and incidental, while “those necessary to its
existence” are “direct.”
Masel, 689 A.2d at 317 (emphasis added), citing Purcell v. Bryn Mawr
Hospital, 550 A.3d 1320, 1325 (Pa. Super. 1988). “Courts must consider all
of the evidence in context to determine whether the defendant’s business
activities in the county were regular, continuous, and habitual.” Hangey v.
Husqvarna Prof’l Prods., 247 A.3d 1136 (Pa. Super. 2021) (en banc).
Finally, “[a] corporation may perform acts ‘regularly’ even though these acts
____________________________________________
9 Under Rule 2179(a), an action may also be brought against a corporation in:
“a county where the cause of action arose; a county where a transaction or
occurrence took place out of which the cause of action arose[;] or a county
where the property or a part of the property which is the subject matter of
the action is located provided that equitable relief is sought with respect to
the property.” Id. at (3)-(5).
-8-
J-A21001-22
make up a small part of its total activities.” Canter v. American Honda
Motor Corp., 231 A.2d 140, 142 (Pa. 1967).
Here, Plaintiffs claim that they have established venue in Philadelphia
County based upon the fact that Tower Health, a named Defendant in the
underlying action, regularly conducts business there in accordance with Rule
2179(a)(2). Defendants cite to Wimble v. Parx Casino & Greenwood
Gaming & Entm’t, Inc., 40 A.3d 174 (Pa. Super. 2012), for the proposition
that “venue cannot be established against one corporation based on the
activities of a related, but legally distinct and separate, corporation.”
Appellee’s Brief, at 33. However, while Wimble does recognize that a parent
and wholly-owned subsidiary are separate and legal entities, Wimble, supra
at 178, the holding of that case does not categorically prevent a plaintiff from
establishing venue based on a parent corporation’s contacts in a given
jurisdiction. Specifically, where a parent company is a named defendant in
an action and has both the quality and quantity of contacts to prove that it
regularly conducts business in plaintiff’s chosen forum, venue may properly
lie under Rule 2179.
Plaintiff is not attempting to establish venue based solely on the business
activities of one of its sister hospitals, Chestnut Hill Hospital, that is located in
Philadelphia. See Share Communications Servs of 1800-80 JFK Blvd.
Inc. v. Bell Atl. Props. Inc., 692 A.3d 570, 573 (Pa. Super. 1997)
(advancing proposition that corporation may not be subject to venue based
solely upon business activities of sister corporation); see also Krosnowski
-9-
J-A21001-22
v. Ward, 836 A.2d 143 (Pa. Super. 2003) (en banc) (no quantity and quality
of corporate contacts between hospital and sister hospital sufficient to
establish venue in Philadelphia County).
Additionally, Plaintiff does not claim that venue is proper in Philadelphia
County because Pottstown Hospital, where Decedent’s alleged sexual assault
occurred, regularly conducts business there. Cf. Purcell, supra at 1287
(plaintiffs’ wrongful death action alleged negligence solely against Bryn Mawr
Hospital and hospital’s doctors and nurses, situs of alleged negligence where
deceased infant was treated; Philadelphia County not proper venue under Rule
2179(a)(2) where any arrangements Philadelphia-based medical schools had
with Bryn Mawr Hospital did not “go beyond mere incidental contacts rather
than being essential to Bryn Mawr”); Krosnowski, supra at 147 (in wrongful
death and survival action, alleging professional negligence based on failure to
diagnose and treat decedent, sole basis for determining whether venue proper
in Philadelphia County “depends on whether Abington Memorial Hospital[,
where decedent treated,] regularly conducts business there”). Rather,
Plaintiff claims venue is established in Philadelphia County because Defendant
Tower Health, Pottstown Hospital’s parent company, regularly conducts
business in Philadelphia through exercising control and authority over its
Philadelphia subsidiaries. In contrast to Purcell and Krosnowski, Tower
Health, the parent company of the hospital where the alleged negligence took
place, is a named defendant in the action and several of the five counts
forming the basis of Plaintiff’s action—negligent hiring, respondeat superior
- 10 -
J-A21001-22
and negligent supervision—directly implicate Tower Health. See Appellant’s
Brief, at 39 (“[Plaintiff’s] claims against Tower Health are related to its
negligence in its business practices in overseeing the staffing at Pottstown
Hospital and negligence in allowing a dangerous condition to exist on the
premises of Pottstown Hospital leading to the [alleged] sexual assault of
[decedent].”).
Factually, in addition to owning Chestnut Hill Hospital, Tower Health is
also a full or partial owner of multiple properties located in Philadelphia,
including, St. Christopher’s Hospital, two urgent care facilities located on
Roosevelt Boulevard and Bryn Mawr Avenue, and Tower Health Urgent Care.10
Consolidated financial statements (Statements), issued by Tower Health in
June 2019 and 2020, list “Chester/Montgomery/Philadelphia” hospitals as
subsidiaries of Tower, all of which provide acute and post-acute care.
Statements, 6/20/20 & 6/20/19, at 8.
The Statements also explain that the “Chester/Montgomery/Philadelphia
clinics and practices are part of THMG,” an entity that recruits physicians,
provides administrative services, supervises and instructs medical students
during their residency training, and has “charitable, educational, and scientific
purposes.” Id. Finally, Tower Health Enterprises (THE) is a limited liability
company that was “formed to hold the interest in joint ventures acquired as
____________________________________________
10 Tower Health created Tower Health Urgent Care, which either owns or
leases the Philadelphia properties where its urgent care facilities are operated.
- 11 -
J-A21001-22
part of the acquisition of the Chester/Montgomery/Philadelphia Hospitals in
October 2017.” Id.
Tower Health has also partnered with Philadelphia’s Drexel University,
to create a joint venture called STC Healthcare Partners LLC (STC). STC is
the parent company that owns St. Christopher’s Hospital for Children located
in North Philadelphia. Id. at 9. Tower Health is the managing partner of STC.
N.T. Deposition of Karen Karpovich, 12/9/21, at 68-72. Compare Anthony
v. Parx Casino, 190 A.3d 605 (Pa. Super. 2018) (quality and quantity of acts
necessary to sustain venue in plaintiff’s forum insufficient where: plaintiff’s
accident occurred in transfer venue; corporation operating defendant-casino
only does business in transfer venue; joint venture to obtain license to operate
defendant-casino in plaintiff’s forum had not yet been issued; and, no building,
slot machines, gaming tables, or customers currently existed in relation to
joint venture) with Hangey, supra at 1143 (multi-billion-dollar corporation,
with authorized dealer in Philadelphia, satisfied “quantity” prong of venue
analysis; in transferring venue from Philadelphia, trial court improperly relied
almost exclusively on percentage of company’s Philadelphia business instead
of totality of evidence showing “contacts with Philadelphia . . . were
‘sufficiently continuous as to be considered habitual’”).
Notably, an itemized statement of the services and care rendered to
Decedent at Pottstown Hospital (from 10/28/20-11/1/20) and Phoenixville
Hospital (from 11/1/20-11/11/20) displays “Tower Health” at the top of the
document, with a Philadelphia Post Office Box address underneath it. See
- 12 -
J-A21001-22
Plaintiff’s Exhibits 1-2. Nowhere is Pottstown Hospital, Phoenixville Hospital,
a Pottstown address, or a Phoenixville address listed on the itemized
statement. Id.; see also N.T. Deposition of Karen Karpovich, 12/9/21, at 53-
55. Ms. Karpovich testified that all of the Tower Health acute care facilities
utilize the same medical record system that lists Tower Health and the
Philadelphia P.O. Box address on its itemized care/services statements. Id.
at 56-57. Moreover, each of the tri-county hospital providers can access the
other facilities’ medical records on a central database. Id. at 57-63. In
addition, when accessing one of the five different Tower Health hospitals’
website pages, the visitor it taken to a page labeled “Tower Health.” Id. at
66.
To demonstrate the control and authority that Tower Health has over its
subsidiaries, which includes Philadelphia entities, Plaintiff introduced the
deposition testimony of Richard Newell, the CEO of Pottstown Hospital, from
another unrelated case brought against Pottstown Hospital and Tower Health.
In that case, Estate of Dorothy M. McCampbell, et al. v. Pottstown
Hospital, LLC and Tower Health, et al., No. 2019-21724, Montgomery
County,11 Newell testified that he assumed his role in July 2014, and, in
____________________________________________
11Newell’s deposition is attached as an exhibit to Plaintiff’s Supplemental Brief
on Venue filed in the trial court and included in the certified record on appeal.
See Plaintiff’s Supplemental Brief Regarding Venue, 1/13/22, at Exhibit “C.”
At the time of the underlying fatal accident (October 2018), which formed the
basis for the lawsuit in Estate of McCampbell, supra, Mike Matthews was
the President and CEO of Tower Health. N.T. Deposition of Richard Newell,
11/12/21, at 26.
- 13 -
J-A21001-22
September 2021, became the President and CEO of Phoenixville Hospital. N.T.
Deposition of Richard Newell, Jr., 11/12/21, at 11. As CEO of Pottstown
Hospital, Newell testified that he is responsible for the hospital’s clinical,
operational, and financial statuses. Id. at 13. With regard to his involvement
with Tower Health in his capacity as CEO of two of its subsidiary hospitals,
Newell testified that he reports, at least once every two weeks, to Sue
Perrotty, the CEO of Tower Health. Id. at 14. See id. at 26 (Newell referring
to Tower Health CEO as “his boss”). During their meetings, Newell testified
they discuss “strategy, service line development, financial performance, news
in terms of awards or recognitions that [they] receive as a hospital[, and]
projects that [they are] looking to undergo from a service[-]type perspective
to [] create a safe environment for [their] patients and employees.” Id. at
14-15. Newell also testified that he discusses hospital policies with Perrotty,
including call policies for central scheduling. Id. at 15-16. Newell testified
that Perrotty “is responsible to do [his] performance evaluation[s],” id. at 17,
and, if necessary, would handle any disciplinary actions. Newell also testified
that Human Resources would suggest any pay bonuses to Sue Perrotty, who
would then bring the proposal to the Tower Health Board of Directors which
gives final approval for staff increases. Id. at 18.
Joanne Judge, general counsel for Tower Health, testified that while
Tower Health does not have day-to-day operational involvement with the five
acute-care hospitals it owns, it does have the power to ratify or reject
nominees for each hospital’s board of directors, has a say in its hospitals’
- 14 -
J-A21001-22
federal legal mandates, provides infrastructure support services to the
hospitals, including payroll services, and that the hospitals cannot borrow
money without Tower Health’s consent. See N.T. Deposition of Joanne Judge,
11/11/21, at 14, 16, 28, 21. See also id. at 106-07 (Joanne Judge testifying
that depending on scope of land improvement project and total projected cost,
individual hospital would have to “go to Tower Health” to get final approval in
capital budget from its board of directors). See Hausmann v. Bernd, 271
A.3d 486, 494 (Pa. Super. 2022) (percentage of company’s overall business
conducted in given county, standing alone, not meaningful and not
determinative of “quantity” prong of venue analysis) (citing Hangey, 247
A.3d at 1142-43).
Bearing in mind that “each case rests on its own facts,” Purcell, supra
at 1286, we conclude that Tower Health regularly conducts business in
Philadelphia County to establish venue. Specifically, Tower Health has the
requisite quality and quantity of contacts with that county where it: (1) wholly
and partially owns multiple Philadelphia properties, including an acute-care
hospital, two urgent care facilities, and a children’s hospital; (2) is the
managing partner of an LLC that owns a Philadelphia children’s hospital; (3)
conducts medical billing of all of its subsidiary hospitals through a Philadelphia
post office box; (4) actively asserts control and authority over its subsidiaries
by: procuring their insurance policies, providing them general counsel,
conducting hospital CEO performance reviews and disciplinary actions,
ratifying the hospitals’ boards of directors, implementing acute-care hospitals’
- 15 -
J-A21001-22
federal mandates, providing infrastructure support to hospitals, and making
final decision on hospitals’ large capital projects. Cf. Battuello v. Camelback
Ski Corp., 598 A.2d 1027 (Pa. Super. 1991) (corporate defendant’s single act
of soliciting business in Philadelphia not enough to confer venue).
Here, the evidence demonstrates that Tower Health, a parent
corporation and named defendant, regularly conducts business in Philadelphia
County for purposes of establishing venue in Plaintiff’s chosen forum.
Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion when it
granted Defendants’ preliminary objections and transferred the action from
Philadelphia County to Montgomery County.
Order reversed. Case remanded. Venue of matter transferred to
Philadelphia County. Jurisdiction relinquished.12
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/1/2022
____________________________________________
12Having reversed the trial court’s order, we need not address Plaintiff’s
remaining issues.
- 16 -