# Farago v. Sacred Heart General Hospital

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · July 10, 1989 · 522 Pa. 410

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9540867

## Case

- **Full name:** Jessie L. FARAGO and Sandor L. Farago, Appellants, v. SACRED HEART GENERAL HOSPITAL, Appellee
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** July 10, 1989
- **Citations:** 522 Pa. 410; 562 A.2d 300; 1989 Pa. LEXIS 325
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Nix
- **Judges:** Nix, Larsen, Flaherty, McDermott, Zappala, Papadakos, Stout, Former
- **Cited by:** 30 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/9540867

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- reasoning that “[t]o allow an individual to claim immunity under this provision but in turn to preclude [his] employer the same benefit of the immunity would indeed undermine the stated purpose of the limited immunity conferred under the Act”
- affirming a finding that the MHPA immunity applied and holding that plaintiff failed to establish gross negligence where plaintiff claimed that she was sexually assaulted by another patient as a result of the hospital’s failure to adequately supervise and protect her
- stating that the clear intent for enacting Section 7114 of the MHPA was "to provide limited protection from civil and criminal liability to mental health personnel and their employers in rendering treatment in this unscientific and inexact field."
- describing the MHPA’s immunity provision as “a limited immunity provision from civil and criminal liability for specific decisions regarding the treatment of the patient”

## Opinion text

NIX, Chief Justice,
concurring.
I concede that Mr. Justice Larsen offers an interesting argument, based upon the statutory construction, in an effort to support his view that the facility is not immunized under Section 114 of the Mental Health Procedures Act, Act of July 9, 1976, P.L. 817, No. 143, § 101 et seq., 50 P.S. § 7101 et seq. Notwithstanding, I do not find it persuasive.
As recognized by the majority, it would be difficult to comprehend the logic of a provision which would attempt to protect from civil liability those persons managing the business entity and yet expose the entity itself to liability under a theory of respondeat superior.
I join the majority opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9540867. Public record. Not legal advice.