On April 18, 2008, Sean and Amy West (the Wests) filed a medical malpractice action claiming damages due to the mismanagement of Amy West’s labor and delivery resulting in the rupture of her uterus and catastrophic brain injuries to her child, Juliana West. A jury trial commenced on January 8, 2013. On January 16, 2013, following six days of trial and the conclusion of the Wests’ case-in-chief, the parties notified the court that they agreed to settle the case for the full insurance policy limits of $19 million.
On January 25, 2013, the Wests executed a Full and Final Release that was approved by the Administrative Judge of the Orphans’ Court Division, on March 14, 2013.
On November 14, 2016, the Wests filed a lawsuit claiming they were fraudulently induced to enter into the parties’
settlement agreement in West I due to the hospital’s failure to identify and produce an August 30, 2006 memo from Dr. Joel Polin, then Chair of Abington’s OBGYN Department, in discovery. The Polin memorandum was issued less than six months before Amy West’s labor and delivery. This document specifically addressed Pitocin use in labor and delivery and was responsive to the Wests’ discovery requests in West I. The Wests alleged this document was significant because the 2006 Policy Memorandum addressed the same issue at the heart of West I—the risk of uterine rupture resulting from excessive oxytocin, which was disputed by the defendants in West I. The Wests first discovered the 2006 Policy Memorandum on March 9, 2015, when the hospital produced it during discovery in an unrelated case involving the Wests’ attorneys. The Wests claimed that if the 2006 document had been produced in West I, they would have obtained a settlement or jury verdict substantially in excess of the $19 million settlement they negotiated.
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania stated in its August 28, 2025 Opinion: “Upon careful review of the plain language of the Release, we agree with Appellees that the Wests’ position relies upon too narrow an interpretation of the terms “arising from,” “in any way connected with,” and “arising out of” appearing in ¶¶ 1, 2, and 8 of the Release. The plain meaning of the word “arising” is “(1) (a) : to begin to occur or to exist : to come into being or to attention . . . (b) : to originate from a source” … Here, the Wests have instituted new suits seeking damages to be calculated as the difference between (1) the $19 million for which they agreed to settle their claims for the injuries they suffered as a result of Appellees’ provision of healthcare services, and (2) the amount that they would have received for those claims had they not relied to their detriment on Appellees’ representation that they had produced all documents responsive to the Wests’ discovery requests. These suits are not only “in any way connected with” the occurrence underlying the claims the Wests released, they originated from the same source: the alleged malpractice. Had not the initial provision of medical services taken place, West I would not have been filed and Appellees would have had no cause to produce the discovery documents alleged in West II and West III to have been wrongfully withheld. To prevail in West II and West III, the Wests would essentially have to relitigate the underlying medical malpractice case to prove that the production of an additional document pertinent to the standard of care would have increased the jury’s assessment of the losses the Wests sustained by virtue of Appellees’ deviation from that standard. Appellees’ provision of medical services was thus a but-for cause of the instant controversies.”
The Pennsylvania appellate court held: “Accordingly, we hold that the actions sub judice arose from the underlying provision of medical services and from the claims litigated in West I. Consequently, the Release discharged the new claims and precluded these new suits raising them unless the Wests are able to avoid the terms of that agreement, in particular its integration clause … the trial court correctly granted Appellees’ motion for judgment on the pleadings because the Wests’ new claims were barred by the Release.”
Source West v. Abington Memorial Hospital, 2025 PA Super 188.
If you or your baby suffered serious harm during pregnancy, labor, and/or delivery in Pennsylvania or in another U.S. state, you should promptly find a Pennsylvania medical malpractice lawyer, or a medical malpractice lawyer in your state, who may investigate your birth injury medical malpractice claim for you and represent you and/or your baby in a birth injury medical malpractice case, if appropriate.
Click here to visit our website or call us toll-free in the United States at 800-295-3959 to find medical malpractice attorneys in your U.S. state who may assist you.
Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.
