On January 5, 2024, Alexandro DaSilva went to the emergency room at the defendant hospital and stayed into the next day. The nursing staff evaluated him and noted his unusual behavior and him making very odd statements. When Alexandro’s nurse left him to care for another patient, Alexandro walked out of the hospital and was hit by a car. He was seriously injured.
On December 30, 2024, the DaSilvas filed a complaint in which they alleged that Alexandro was suffering from a psychiatric episode when he came to the defendant hospital for medical care. They further claimed that the defendant hospital was negligent, directly and vicariously, in caring for Alexandro and allowing him to leave hospital while still in that state, and, as a result he was hit by a car and injured.
The trial court concluded that the DaSilvas had failed to plead any material factual allegations in support of their claims of negligence; that they set forth vague allegations of negligence and unidentified agency; and that they asserted claims under the EMTALA, in violation of the consent order and stipulation removing those claims. The DaSilvas appealed.
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania held in its June 2, 2026 Memorandum: “Reading the allegations in the context of the entire complaint, we conclude that the DaSilvas complied with our pleading requirements. In their second amended complaint, the DaSilvas set forth material facts as required under Rule 1019. In this medical malpractice action the DaSilvas alleged the following: on January 5, 2024, Alexandro came to Hospital for medical care and help; he was having a psychiatric episode, the details of which are highlighted in his medical chart from the Hospital; the Hospital improperly and negligently cared for Alexandro in various ways, which, notably, included leaving him unattended given his mental and physical state and allowing him to walk out of the Hospital in that condition; and as a result, he was hit by a car, injured, and disfigured. These material facts put the Hospital on notice of the claims it will have to defend against … Additionally, the DaSilvas pled these facts with sufficient specificity and were not mere subterfuge.”
“Furthermore, the DaSilvas’ allegations of agency were sufficiently specific. Here, the DaSilvas generally alleged that the Hospital acted negligently “through its employees/agents” and that “[t]he nurses and medical providers, including the Emergency Room nurse and Doctors who cared for [Alexandro] were the agents, apparent agents, ostensible agents, servants, workmen, or employees, or were otherwise associated with,
[Hospital], . . .””
“[W]e conclude that the trial court erred when it sustained Hospital’s preliminary objections for failure to plead material facts and insufficient specificity.”
“Here, the trial court struck as “scandalous or impertinent” the allegations of the second amended complaint which it found related to the DaSilvas’ EMTALA claims because they agreed to withdraw those claims. However, as the DaSilvas argue, the allegations pertaining to triaging, screening, stabilizing, and monitoring, etc., which may serve as a basis for an EMTALA discrimination claim, may also serve as the basis for a general negligence claim under state law. The EMTALA “is not a malpractice statute” and “cannot be used to challenge the quality of medical care.””
“Thus, the allegations pertaining to how Hospital triaged, screened, stabilized, and monitored Alexandro relate to the DaSilvas’ malpractice claim and therefore were not encompassed by the parties’ stipulation to withdraw the EMTALA claims. The DaSilvas only agreed to withdraw their EMTALA discrimination claim. We therefore conclude these allegations were not “immaterial and inappropriate” and the trial court erred in sustaining Hospital’s preliminary objection on this basis. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order sustaining Hospital’s preliminary objections.”
Source DaSilva v. Abington Memorial Hospital d/b/a/ Jefferson Abington Hospital, No. 1707 EDA 2025.
If you or a loved one may have been injured as a result of medical malpractice 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 medical malpractice claim for you and represent you or your loved one in a 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 state who may assist you.
Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.
