# Boyd v. Albert Einstein Medical Center

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · September 22, 1988 · 377 Pa. Super. 609

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9697759

## Case

- **Full name:** Wayne K. BOYD, in His Own Right and as Administrator of the Estate of Chardella Boyd, Deceased, and as Parent and Guardian on Behalf of Darren Boyd, and Patrice Boyd, Minor Children of the Deceased, Appellant, v. ALBERT EINSTEIN MEDICAL CENTER, Northern Division, the Health Maintenance Organization of Pennsylvania, David E. Rosenthal, M.D., Perry L. Dornstein, M.D., Erwin Cohen, M.D., Appellees
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** September 22, 1988
- **Citations:** 377 Pa. Super. 609; 547 A.2d 1229; 1988 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2583
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by McEWEN
- **Judges:** McEwen, Olszewski, Cercone
- **Cited by:** 31 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/9697759

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that an HMO may be held liable for malpractice under an ostensible agency theory where a patient looks to the HMO for care and the HMO's conduct leads the patient to reasonably believe that he or she is being treated by an employee of the HMO

## Opinion text

McEWEN, Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the result reached by the majority since the author, after a very careful analysis of the issues presented in this appeal, reaches the quite basic principle that issues of material fact may not be resolved by summary judgment.
I write only because it appears to me that the learned trial court improperly resolved by summary judgment the basic factual issue of whether the literature, in which HMO “guaranteed” and “assured” the quality of care provided to its subscribers, had been distributed to appellant or to other subscribers of HMO.
It might also be mentioned that while the court was understandably uncertain as to the theories upon which plaintiff was proceeding 1 , it appears that the amended complaint of plaintiff does contain factual averments supporting a breach of warranty claim. See: Alpha Tau Omega Fraternity v. University of Pennsylvania, 318 Pa.Super. 293, 298 , 464 A.2d 1349, 1352 (1983) (“Pennsylva *623 nia is a fact-pleading state.”). Accord: Smith v. Brown, 283 Pa.Super. 116, 119 , 423 A.2d 743, 745 (1980).
. The trial court noted in its opinion that "the gravamen of plaintiffs complaint is that HMO of PA guaranteed or warranted the quality of care provided---- Plaintiffs theory of recovery ... is not entirely clear. A reading of the complaint suggests Plaintiff is proceeding upon grounds of corporate liability. However, in his answer to the motion of HMO of PA for summary judgment, plaintiff contends HMO of PA is vicariously liable through ostensible agency."

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9697759. Public record. Not legal advice.