# Welsh v. Bulger

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · July 23, 1997 · 548 Pa. 504

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9702476

## Case

- **Full name:** Bobbi Jo WELSH, as Administratrix of the Estate of Kyle A. Gaines, Deceased, and Bobbi Jo Welsh, in Her Own Right, Appellant, v. Donald W. BULGER, M.D., Claysburg Medical Associates, Inc. and Nason Hospital, Appellees
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** July 23, 1997
- **Citations:** 548 Pa. 504; 698 A.2d 581; 1997 Pa. LEXIS 1413
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Flaherty
- **Judges:** Flaherty, C.J., and Zappala, Cappy, Castille, Nigro and Newman
- **Cited by:** 95 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/9702476

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding plaintiff established prima facie case of corporate negligence against hospital based on its failure to oversee all persons practicing medicine within its walls; expert testified that hospital nurses breached applicable standard of care in connection with delivery of i…
- holding that, "unless a hospital's negligence is obvious, a plaintiff must produce expert testimony to establish that the hospital deviated from an accepted standard of care and that the deviation was a substantial factor in causing the harm to the plaintiff"
- holding that appellate courts cannot consider any matter which is not part of the record
- noting that a corporate negligence claim requires an expert to identify a defendant medical institution’s standard of care, and the ways in which the defendant’s departure from those standards led to the plaintiff’s injuries

## Opinion text

FLAHERTY, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
I would affirm the superior court’s decision upholding the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of Nason Hospital. Further, I express my continuing opposition to this court’s creation of such a novel concept as “corporate liability,” which is in every sense of the term an anomaly to established concepts of liability under respondeat superior. I make reference to my dissenting opinion in Thompson v. Nason Hospital, 527 Pa. 330 , 591 A.2d 703 (1991).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9702476. Public record. Not legal advice.