In the last decade, there has been an increasing tendency for medical malpractice plaintiffs to include as defendants not only the health care providers who rendered the allegedly negligent care and the practice groups with which they were affiliated or employed, but also to name those corporations or limited liability companies which either managed or provided support services to the defendant practice groups on a “piercing the corporate veil” or “alter ego” theory. The argument posits that the group and the company by which it is managed are not distinct entities, but rather one enterprise—at least for medical malpractice liability.

Although this trend can be justified for the sake of completeness, (i.e., making sure that every potentially culpable party is joined in one suit), it is more likely an effort by plaintiffs to marshal as much insurance coverage as possible so that a favorable decision, especially the recent inclination to “nuclear verdicts,” can be satisfied in full, or as much as possible. This article explores the historical roots and status of the “piercing the corporate veil” doctrine in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, with some practical suggestions for defending such efforts when applied in medical malpractice cases.

New Jersey Cases