If opinion-writing were a spectator sport, Anthony would probably hear cheers of agreement from a fair number of his colleagues on the bench. The following is a sampling of recent opinions also refusing to acknowledge a cause of action for loss of filial consortium.



* Fayette County Common Pleas Court Judge Gerald Solomon refused to allow plaintiff Darlene Pawlak to pursue damages for loss of filial support in a wrongful death action over the death of her daughter Jennifer in Pawlak v. Wharton Township, PICS Case No. 99-2490 (C.P. Fayette Dec. 9, 1999) Solomon, J. (8 pages).



Solomon said he had to follow the current state of the law.



“The rule that loss of consortium claims may only be brought by spouses has remained undisturbed as the law of Pennsylvania,” Solomon wrote.



* Westmoreland County Common Pleas Court President Judge Charles Loughran said in Balest v. Krafick, PICS Case No. 99-1847 (C.P. Westmoreland Sept. 3, 1999) Loughran, J. (8 pages), that the rule that loss of consortium applies only to spouses “has remained undisturbed and, consequently, is still prevailing law in Pennsylvania.”



* Monroe County Common Pleas Court Judge Linda Wallock Miller also threw out a loss of filial consortium claim in Chang v. Camelback Ski Corp., PICS Case No. 99-2129 (C.P. Monroe Aug. 30, 1999) Miller, J. (11 pages), saying that loss of consortium claims are valid only for a husband or wife.



* And Lackawanna County Common Pleas Court Judge Carmen Minora ruled that parents could not sue to recover for the loss of companionship and services their minor son could have provided them had he not died.



In Verity v. Hershey Medical Center, PICS Case No. 99-1395 (C.P. Lackawanna May 17, 1999) Minora, J. (10 pages), Minora mentioned Wettick’s opinion but said its reasoning was not “sufficiently compelling to warrant our abandoning of the well settled mandatory precedent for denying claims for loss of filial consortium … and until further appellate court guidance is provided, this court shall be guided accordingly.”



In the Company of Wettick

Wettick is not entirely alone in his position, however. Armstrong County Common Pleas Court Judge Kenneth Valasek relied on the Wrongful Death Act in Wynkoop v. Luke, PICS Case No. 99-1846 (C.P. Armstrong Sept. 23, 1999) Valasek, J. (7 pages), in ruling that Craig and Carol Wynkoop could pursue their claim against Gloria Luke and the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation over the death of their son Cory.



Pecuniary losses suffered by an individual making a loss of consortium claim in negligence actions are compensable under the Wrongful Death Act, he said.



“With the above in mind, it becomes evident to the court that plaintiffs may recover for the loss of their deceased son’s ‘comfort and society’ if they can prove that such loss resulted in the destruction of a reasonable expectation of a pecuniary advantage for them,” Valasek said.



“If they cannot so demonstrate at trial, then the loss of comfort and society must be an affectional loss, which is outside the purview of a wrongful death action.”