In June of 2021, Ms. Somerlot fell and injured her pinky finger. Due to pain and decreased range of motion she sought pain treatment from Dr. Jung at S.E. PA Pain Management, Ltd and Pain Management Centers of America, LLC (“Pain Management”). Pain Management’s office/surgical facility was in Bucks County.
During the summer of 2021, Ms. Somerlot visited Dr. Jung’s office seven times, where she received a series of five ketamine infusions. On September 3, 2021 Dr. Jung inserted a trial surgical implant, Boston Scientific’s Spinal-Cord Stimulator (“SCS”), in Ms. Somerlot’s spine. This temporary device was removed on September 8, 2021, at which time Dr. Jung determined Ms. Somerlot needed the SCS implant and he scheduled the spinal cord surgery for October 1, 2021. On that date, Ms. Somerlot returned to Pain Management’s surgical facility for the outpatient procedure.
Prior to surgery, Pain Management presented her with a one-page form, titled “Consent to Operate, Administration of Anesthetics and Rendering of Medical Services.” The form contained eight, numbered paragraphs and was in single-spaced, ten-point font. Paragraph 7 stated: “NOTICE: Any legal claims or civil actions, including, but not limited to, a claim for medical malpractice in any way related to this admission/procedure, and medical services provided by [Pain Management] or its employees, shall be brought solely in the Courts of Bucks County, in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. If patient . . . does not agree to this paragraph number 6 [sic], then he/she will initial here. _Initials”
Ms. Somerlot signed and dated the contract, but she did not place her initials after the second sentence under paragraph number 7.
As a result of the botched surgery, Ms. Somerlot was left paralyzed from the chest down. She also suffered damage to her vital organs (including a heart attack), cognitive deficits, loss of fine motor skills, emotional distress, and psychological harm. Ms. Somerlot and Mr. Dufresne filed their Pennsylvania medical malpractice action against Dr. Jung, Pain Management, and Boston Scientific in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. They brought claims for medical malpractice, corporate negligence, product liability, and loss of consortium.
Boston Scientific agreed that venue was proper as to it on the product liability claims, because it regularly conducted business in Philadelphia County. However, Dr. Jung and Pain Management preliminarily objected to venue in Philadelphia County based on the venue-selection clause in Ms. Somerlot’s Consent-to-Operate Contract. In Dr. Jung’s and Pain Management’s view, under the venue-selection clause, the only permissible venue was the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County.
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania stated in its July 30, 2025 Opinion: “When Dr. Jung and Pain Management presented Ms. Somerlot with the form containing the venue-selection clause, they made her an offer, because the form manifested an intent to enter a bargain for proceeding with the surgery. If Ms. Somerlot did not wish to accept the offer with the venue-selection clause, the law of contracts allowed her to reject that clause. She could have done so by making a counteroffer that did not include the venue-selection clause.”
“[I]f Ms. Somerlot did not want the venue-selection clause included in the Consent-to-Operate Contract, she could have simply crossed it out, signed the form, and handed it back to Pain Management. This would have rejected the offer from Dr. Jung and Pain Management to perform the surgery in exchange for all the terms in the original form and made the counteroffer to proceed without the venue-selection clause. Ms. Somerlot did not do this. Nor did she reject the offer entirely and leave the surgical facility without undergoing the procedure. Importantly, Ms. Somerlot makes no contention that her life was in danger prior to surgery nor that she was under duress when she signed the Consent-to-Operate Contract.”
“[T]hey have offered nothing of record to persuade us that the venue-selection clause is unreasonable, because enforcing the clause does not “seriously impair[] the plaintiff[s’] ability to pursue [their] cause of action.””
“[T]hey offered no evidence that the venue-selection clause is more favorable to Pain Management than to Ms. Somerlot. Thus, we have no basis to hold that the term unreasonably favors Pain Management. Because Ms. Somerlot and Mr. Dufresne fail to satisfy either prong of the test for unconscionability, we dismiss their last appellate issue as meritless.”
“Orders transferring venue to the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County affirmed.”
Source Somerlot v. Jung, M.D., 2025 PA Super 166.
If you or a loved one suffered harm due to medical negligence in Pennsylvania or in another U.S. state, you should promptly find a Pennsylvania medical malpractice attorney, or a medical malpractice attorney in your state, who may investigate your medical negligence claim for you and represent you or your loved one in a medical malpractice case, if appropriate.
Click on the “Contact Us Now” tab to the right, visit our website, or call us toll-free in the United States at 800-295-3959 to find medical malpractice lawyers in your state who may assist you.
Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.
