The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently handed down its decision in Toney v. The Chester County Hospital , and for the first time it recognized a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress outside the traditional context of bystander recovery. The Supreme Court in Toney adopted a rule that will impose liability on health care providers (as well as, possibly, others) for an emotional distress claim even where there is no physical impact or injury to the plaintiff. This article will review the facts and circumstances of the case, the en banc Superior Court opinions and the Supreme Court’s opinions in the matter. It will also address the practical implications of the decision.
One of the issues that will be discussed is the true precedential value of the decision given the unique circumstances of the case. The Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s en banc decision recognizing an expanded negligent infliction claim based upon an evenly divided court (three justices for affirmance and three for reversal). The Supreme Court was equally divided because Justice Joan Orie Melvin did not participate in the decision, as she had been on the en banc Superior Court panel. However, then-judge, now-Justice Orie Melvin had dissented from the majority decision at the Superior Court level; and thus, four justices of the Supreme Court have actually ruled against the expansion of the negligent infliction claim as presented in the Toney case.
