Newlin, B. v. Vita Healthcare Group

J-A18034-25 2026 PA Super 175 BEVIN NEWLIN AND STACEY : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOEHRS, AS CO-ADMINISTRATORS : PENNSYLVANIA OF THE ESTATE OF PATRICIA : O'DONNELL, DECEASED : : Appellants : : : v. : No. 259 EDA 2024 : : VITA HEALTHCARE GROUP, BRINTON : MANOR CENTER SNF, LLC F/D/B/A : BRINTON MANOR NURSING AND : REHABILITATION CENTER, : LIGHTNING HEALTH HOLDCO, LLC, : IMPERIAL HEALTHCARE GROUP, LLC, : BM REHAB AND NURSING CENTER, : LLC D/B/A BRINTON MANOR : NURSING AND REHABILITATION : CENTER, BH OPCO HOLDCO, LLC, : IMPERIAL HEALTHCARE SERVICES, : LLC, AND CHAIM STEG : Appeal from the Judgment Entered June 7, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Civil Division at No(s): CV-2020-008216 BEVIN NEWLIN AND STACEY : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOEHRS, AS CO-ADMINISTRATORS : PENNSYLVANIA OF THE ESTATE OF PATRICIA : O'DONNELL, DECEASED : : : v. : : : No. 260 EDA 2024 VITA HEALTHCARE GROUP, BRINTON : MANOR CENTER SNF, LLC F/D/B/A : BRINTON MANOR NURSING AND : REHABILITATION CENTER, : LIGHTNING HEALTH HOLDCO, LLC, : IMPERIAL HEALTHCARE GROUP, LLC, : BM REHAB AND NURSING CENTER, : J-A18034-25 LLC D/B/A BRINTON MANOR : NURSING AND REHABILITATION : CENTER, BH OPCO HOLDCO, LLC, : IMPERIAL HEALTHCARE SERVICES, : LLC, AND CHAIM STEG : : : APPEAL OF: BM REHAB AND : NURSING CENTER, LLC D/B/A : BRINTON MANOR NURSING AND : REHAB CENTER : Appeal from the Judgment Entered June 7, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Civil Division at No(s): CV-2020-008216 BEVIN NEWLIN AND STACEY : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOEHRS, AS CO-ADMINISTRATORS : PENNSYLVANIA OF THE ESTATE OF PATRICIA : O'DONNELL, DECEASED : : : v. : : : No. 284 EDA 2024 VITA HEALTHCARE GROUP, BRINTON : MANOR CENTER SNF, LLC F/D/B/A : BRINTON MANOR NURSING AND : REHABILITATION CENTER, IMPERIAL : HEALTHCARE GROUP, LLC, IMPERIAL : HEALTHCARE SERVICES, LLC, BM : REHAB AND NURSING CENTER, LLC : D/B/A BRINTON MANOR NURSING : AND REHABILITATION CENTER, : LIGHTNING HEALTH HOLDCO, LLC, : BH OPCO HOLDCO AND CHAIM STEG : : : APPEAL OF: BRINTON MANOR : CENTER SNF, LLC F/D/B/A BRINTON : MANOR NURSING AND : REHABILITATION CENTER : Appeal from the Judgment Entered June 7, 2024 -2- J-A18034-25 In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Civil Division at No(s): CV-2020-008216 BEVIN NEWLIN AND STACEY : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOEHRS, AS CO-ADMINISTRATORS : PENNSYLVANIA OF THE ESTATE OF PATRICIA : O'DONNELL, DECEASED : : : v. : : : No. 654 EDA 2024 VITA HEALTHCARE GROUP, BRINTON : MANOR CENTER SNF, LLC F/D/B/A : BRINTON MANOR NURSING AND : REHABILITATION CENTER, IMPERIAL : HEALTHCARE GROUP, LLC, IMPERIAL : HEALTCARE SERVICES, LLC, BM : REHAB AND NURSING CENTER, LLC : D/B/A BRINTON MANOR NURSING : AND REHABILITATION CENTER, : LIGHTNING HEALTH HOLDCO, LLC, : BH OPCO HOLDCO AND CHAIM STEG : : : APPEAL OF: BRINTON MANOR : CENTER SNF, LLC F/D/B/A BRINTON : MANOR NURSING AND : REHABILITATION CENTER : Appeal from the Judgment Entered June 7, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Civil Division at No(s): CV-2020-008216 BEVIN NEWLIN AND STACEY : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOEHRS, AS CO-ADMINISTRATORS : PENNSYLVANIA OF THE ESTATE OF PATRICIA : O'DONNELL, DECEASED : : : v. : : : No. 660 EDA 2024 : -3- J-A18034-25 VITA HEALTHCARE GROUP, BRINTON : MANOR CENTER SNF, LLC F/D/B/A : BRINTON MANOR NURSING AND : REHABILITATION CENTER, IMPERIAL : HEALTHCARE GROUP, LLC, IMPERIAL : HEALTHCARE SERVICES, LLC, BM : REHAB AND NURSING CENTER, LLC : D/B/A BRINTON MANOR NURSING : AND REHABILITATION CENTER, : LIGHTNING HEALTH HOLDCO, LLC, : BH OPCO HOLDCO AND CHAIM STEG : : : APPEAL OF: BRINTON MANOR : CENTER SNF, LLC F/D/B/A BRINTON : MANOR NURSING AND : REHABILITATION CENTER Appeal from the Judgment Entered June 7, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Civil Division at No(s): CV-2020-008216 BEFORE: OLSON, J., DUBOW, J., and McLAUGHLIN, J. OPINION BY DUBOW, J.: FILED AUGUST 4, 2026 In these cross-appeals, Appellants, Bevin Newlin and Stacey Loehrs, co- administrators of the Estate of Patricia O’Donnell (“Decedent”) (collectively, “Estate”); Cross-Appellants, Vita Healthcare Group (“Vita”) and Brinton Manor SNF, LLC f/d/b/a Brinton Manor Nursing & Rehabilitation Center (“BM-SNF”) (collectively, “Vita Entities”); and Cross-Appellants, Imperial Healthcare Group, LLC, Imperial Healthcare Services, LLC (“Imperial”), and BM Rehab and Nursing Center, LLC d/b/a Brinton Manor Nursing and Rehabilitation Center (“BM Rehab”) (collectively “Imperial Entities”), appeal from the June 7, 2024 judgment entered in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas in -4- J-A18034-25 this nursing home negligence action. During the relevant time, BM-SNF and BM Rehab were the operators of the nursing home (collectively referred to as “Operating Company Defendants”) and Imperial and Vita provided management services (collectively referred to as “Management Company Defendants”). After careful review, we: 1. Affirm the trial court’s grant of a motion for JNOV in favor of the Management Company Defendants;1 2. Affirm the trial court’s denial of the Operating Company Defendants Motion for JNOV on sufficiency of the evidence grounds; 3. Affirm the trial court’s denial of the Operating Company Defendants’ Motion for a New Trial based on evidentiary challenges; 4. Reverse the trial court’s denial of the Operating Company Defendant’s Motion for a New Trial and remand for a new trial on compensatory damages; and 5. Reverse the trial court’s denial of the Operating Company Defendants’ Motion to Vacate the Punitive Damages Award. 2 ____________________________________________ 1 We note that we are troubled by the poor care that the various entities provided to Decedent; we, however, are constrained, to affirm the trial court’s grant of a JNOV in favor of the Management Company Defendants because the Estate failed to establish corporate liability against them as a matter of law. This is not an indication, however, that we sanction the Management Company Defendants’ conduct. 2 Richard Scampone and The Pennsylvania Association of Justice have filed amicus briefs regarding these cross-appeals. -5- J-A18034-25 The relevant facts and procedural history, as gleaned from our review of the record, are as follows. In early 2018, Decedent, who suffered from health problems, began to experience increased difficulty in managing her diabetes, resulting in decreased mobility and exposing her to an increased risk of falling. Because of these safety concerns, on March 18, 2018, Decedent became a resident of Brinton Manor Nursing and Rehabilitation Center (“Brinton Manor”),3 which, at the time, was owned by an entity called Genesis.4 On June 1, 2018, BM-SNF purchased Brinton Manor from Genesis and contracted with Vita to manage the facility. On July 1, 2019, 21 days prior to Decedent’s final day of residency at Brinton Manor, BM Rehab purchased Brinton Manor from BM-SNF and Imperial assumed management responsibilities.5 A licensed nursing home administrator was in place at Brinton Manor at all relevant times. ____________________________________________ 3 Decedent remained a resident of Brinton Manor until July 21, 2019. 4 Genesis is not a party to this action. 5 By way of background, the management agreements required, inter alia, the Management Company Defendants to prepare a budget for operating the facility for the Operating Company Defendants’ approval and to provide various services for the operation of the facility including pharmacy, consults, resident relations, maintaining visibility of a management presence, helping with personnel, and service contracts. See N.T., 1/18/23, at 123-25, 127- 28. In exchange for providing these services, BN-SNF paid Vita more than $432,000 in management fees and for the fiscal year 2019, BM Rehab paid Imperial $484,000. Id. at 125-26, 128. -6- J-A18034-25 In December 2018, Decedent fell, fractured her hip, and required surgery. Brinton Manor staff documented the fall and created an event report that Brinton Manor’s director of nursing, Bridget Alvanos, filed with the Pennsylvania Department of Health that represented that the care plan in place for Decedent was appropriate at the time of her fall. When Decedent returned to Brinton Manor after her surgery, its staff evaluated Decedent and updated her care plan. Following her fall, Decedent’s general condition began to worsen, including Decedent suffering from anxiety, depression, malnutrition, and skin deterioration, which caused her to develop a painful stage-four sacral wound. Decedent required extensive assistance from at least two staff members for services such as bed mobility, turning and repositioning in bed, transferring into and out of bed to a chair, toilet use, and personal hygiene. As a result of Decedent’s increased level of anxiety and depression—conditions which Brinton Manor’s nurses and physical therapists documented in Decedent’s records—Decedent was transferred to an inpatient psychiatric facility for a short period of time. She returned to Brinton Manor on March 12, 2019. Brinton Manor’s records reflect that, after her return to Brinton Manor, Decedent remained anxious, particularly about falling, and was incontinent of bowel and bladder, but had no skin breakdown. In April 2019, Decedent again suffered a fall. Around the same time, a dietician noted in Brinton Manor’s records that Decedent was losing weight and she had lost her dentures. Records also reflect that around June and July -7- J-A18034-25 2019, Decedent required at least one skilled intervention because she did not have dentures and, thus, was unable to chew certain foods. Brinton Manor’s dietitian recommended that Decedent receive nutritional supplements, and a staff member referred Decedent to speech and occupational therapy. Meanwhile, in May 2019, Decedent developed pressure ulcers and Brinton Manor’s records reflect, and Decedent’s family reported to staff, that Decedent was in pain. A wound physician, who was an independent contractor, saw Decedent weekly, and her pressure wounds had healed by July 2, 2019.6 Decedent developed additional pressure wounds, however, and, on July 21, 2019, an ambulance transported her to Riddle Hospital for treatment for an infected, stage-four sacral wound. Eventually, the pain caused by the sacral wound became difficult to manage due to the wound’s location and extent, resulting in Decedent’s placement on hospice on August 1, 2019, and death on August 5, 2019. The Delaware County medical examiner concluded that Decedent’s immediate cause of death was hydromorphone intoxication due to the palliative care that she received while receiving hospice care, and ____________________________________________ 6The wound care physician who treated Decedent testified that he did not have any concerns that Brinton Manor had not taken proper steps to prevent Decedent from developing facility-acquired pressure wounds or that Decedent had not received proper care from the nursing staff. N.T., 11/18/23, at 321. -8- J-A18034-25 the proximate cause of her death was complications from the sacral decubitus ulcer.7 During the time Decedent resided at Brinton Manor, the facility received citations for various deficiencies, including deficiencies for care planning, nutrition, hydration, and pain management; none of the deficiencies, however, were based on the care provided to Decedent. On December 14, 2020, the Estate initiated this nursing home negligence case, alleging that, while she was a resident Brinton Manor, Decedent sustained a series of injuries that ultimately resulted in her death. The Estate alleged that, inter alia, changes in ownership and management of Brinton Manor, high turnover in administration and nursing staff, and lack of implementation of nursing policies and procedures affected the continuity of Decedent’s care. The Estate alleged claims of negligence (through vicarious liability) and corporate negligence against all the Defendants. The Estate sought compensatory and punitive damages under Pennsylvania’s wrongful death and survival statutes. Following discovery, the parties filed numerous motions in limine, including, on December 1, 2022, the Defendants’ joint motions to preclude the Estate from admitting into evidence certain Pennsylvania Department of Health Survey Reports (“Survey Reports”) and the “Nursing Home Compare” ____________________________________________ 7 A Riddle Hospital doctor’s records reported Decedent’s cause of death as sepsis, osteomyelitis, and severe protein malnutrition. -9- J-A18034-25 Five-Star Ratings Profile (“Profile Evidence”) derived from the Medicare.gov website. On January 3, 2023, the trial court entered orders denying both motions in limine, explaining that the contested evidence was relevant to the Estate’s corporate negligence claims. Trial Ct. Order, 1/3/23, at 2. The court further agreed with the Estate that “any ‘unfair prejudice’ to [the Defendants] . . . can be cured with a limiting instruction to the jury.” Id. at 3. Furthermore, the court left open the opportunity for the Defendants to object on a different basis at trial. Id. Trial commenced with jury selection on January 17, 2023. Relevant to the instant appeal, the Estate presented the testimony of numerous witnesses, including expert testimony from nurse Suzanne Frederick, who testified regarding standard-of-care and breaches thereof; Ernest Tosh, J.D., by videotaped deposition, regarding staffing analysis and cost-reporting analysis for nursing homes, and Dr. David Seignious, an expert in internal medicine and geriatrics, regarding, inter alia, the cause of Decedent’s death. On February 2, 2023, the jury returned a verdict of $4,000,000 in compensatory damages in favor of the Estate. In particular, the jury awarded the Estate:  $600,000 from BM-SNF  $2,400,000 from Vita  $800,000 from BM Rehab  $200,000 from Imperial. - 10 - J-A18034-25 The jury also assessed $15,000,000 in punitive damages. In particular, the jury imposed the following punitive damages:  $5,000,000 against BM-SNF  $6,500,000 against Vita  $2,000,000 against BM Rehab  $1,500,000 against Imperial. On February 6, 2023, the Defendants filed post-trial motions raising numerous grounds for relief. On June 6, 2023, the trial court held a hearing on the post-trial motions. Notably, and crucial to our analysis, counsel for the Estate clarified which theory of liability the Estate asserted against the Management Company Defendants and which theory it asserted against the Operating Company Defendants. In particular, counsel informed the court that the Estate was only pursuing a theory of corporate negligence against the Management Company Defendants and not pursuing a claim of negligence based on vicarious liability. Against the Operating Company Defendants, the Estate informed the trial court that it was only pursuing a claim of vicarious liability. See N.T., 6/6/23, at 182-83.) (where the Estate’s counsel explains that “to be clear, the [M]anagement [Company Defendants] were always just corporate negligence or direct negligence and then the [Operating Company Defendants] had vicarious [liability]. For punitives we had conceded we were only seeking for the direct [(corporate)] negligence for all four [Defendants].”) In other words, counsel for the Estate clarified that it was only pursuing a theory of vicarious - 11 - J-A18034-25 liability against the Operating Company Defendants and a theory of corporate negligence against the Management Company Defendants. Following its consideration of the arguments presented in the parties’ motions and briefs, and the above clarification by the Estate’s counsel, the trial court granted post-trial motions in part. In particular, the trial court granted the motion for JNOV in favor of the Management Company Defendants on the grounds that the Scampone cases8 precluded the Estate as a matter of law from establishing corporate liability against the Management Company Defendants. It found that, since counsel for the Estate informed the trial court that it was not pursuing a theory of vicarious liability against the Management Company Defendants, and the Estate could not as a matter of law pursue a theory of corporate negligence against the Management Company Defendants, the Estate failed to establish any legal liability against the Management Company Defendants and, thus, the Management Company Defendants were entitled to JNOV as a matter of law. The court, however, denied the motions for JNOV that the Operating Company Defendants filed, concluding that the Estate had established that the Operating Company Defendants were vicariously liable for the negligence of their employees. ____________________________________________ 8 Scampone v. Highland Park Care Center, LLC, 57 A.3d 582 (Pa. 2012) and Scampone v. Grane Healthcare, Co., 169 A.3d 600 (Pa. Super. 2017), discussed infra. - 12 - J-A18034-25 The trial court also remitted the jury’s assessment of punitive damages against BM Rehab from $2,000,000 to $385,000, based on its finding that “the $2,000,000 punitive damages award . . . is grossly excessive and shocks the [c]ourt’s sense of justice.” Trial Ct. Op., 1/3/24, at 41. The trial court reasoned that since BM Rehab only provided services to the Decedent for 21 days, a reasonable punitive damage award should reflect the pro rata time that BM Rehab provided services to the Decedent.9 Id. On January 3, 2024, the trial court entered an order molding the verdict. Following the entry of judgment, the parties filed appeals and cross-appeals. The Estate raises the following three issues on appeal: 1. Did the trial court err in granting [JNOV] on [the Estate’s] negligence claims against Vita []? 2. Did the trial court err in granting [JNOV] on [the Estate’s] negligence claims against Imperial []? 3. Did the trial court err in remitting the punitive damages award against BM Rehab? Estate’s Br. at 5. The Vita Entities raise the following two issues as cross-appellants: 1. Did the trial court correctly grant JNOV in Vita’s favor on [the Estate’s] negligence claims after [the Estate] renounced any claim for vicarious liability, failed to prove that Vita owed, let alone breached, a duty under Thompson v. Nason that caused Decedent’s harm and, accordingly, failed to establish a basis for corporate negligence against Vita? ____________________________________________ 9 The court also awarded the Estate $201,205.48 in delay damages. - 13 - J-A18034-25 2. Did the trial court correctly grant JNOV in Vita’s favor on [the Estate’s] negligence claims after [the Estate] failed to adduce expert testimony to support a corporate negligence claim against Vita? Brief of Vita and BM-SNF (“Vita Entities’ Br.”) at 1-2. Imperial raises the following two issues as cross-appellant: 1. Whether the trial court correctly granted JNOV and vacated the judgment against Imperial after [the Estate]: (i) failed to prove that Imperial was liable under a corporate negligence theory and (ii) expressly renounced any vicarious liability claims against this consulting company? 2. Whether the trial court correctly remitted the punitive damages award against BM Rehab [] where the evidence did not support the original excessive and shocking $2 million punitive damages award, particularly where BM Rehab [] was only involved with the facility for 21 days during Decedent’s stay? Brief of Imperial and BM Rehab (“Imperial Entities’ Br.”) at 5. BM-SNF raises the following issues as cross-appellant: 1. Did the trial court err in denying BM-SNF[’s] request for JNOV in circumstances where [the Estate] waived and/or abandoned any corporate negligence claim against this operator and also failed to prove a basis for vicarious liability against it? 2. Did the trial court err in denying [BM-SNF’s] request to vacate or dramatically reduce the punitive damages award in circumstances where [the Estate] failed to establish the level of wanton and willful conduct to justify an award of punitive damages against this entity and where, in any event, the amount of the punitive damages award was excessive? 3. Did the trial court err in denying [BM-SNF’s] request for a new trial, either because two of four defendants were dismissed from the case and the liability previously apportioned to those dismissed defendants was reapportioned inconsistent with the jury’s verdict, usurping its role, in a manner fundamentally unfair to the two remaining [d]efendants, or else because the trial court erroneously admitted evidence of the “Nursing Home Compare” Five-Star Rating Profile and Department of Health Survey Reports? - 14 - J-A18034-25 Vita Entities’ Br. at 29-30 (emphasis omitted). BM Rehab raises the following issues as cross-appellant: 1. Whether the trial court erred in denying BM Rehab[’s] request for JNOV in circumstances where [the Estate] admitted that they did not pursue a corporate negligence claim against BM Rehab[] and failed to prove a basis for vicarious liability against this entity? 2. Whether the trial court erred in denying BM Rehab[’s] request to vacate the punitive damages award where [the Estate] failed to establish the necessary wanton and willful conduct by BM Rehab[] to warrant such extraordinary damages, and an amount of punitive damages in any measure was not justified? 3. Whether the trial court erred in denying BM Rehab[’s] request for a new trial where the judgment against two of four [d]efendants was vacated, and the trial court entered judgment in the full compensatory amount against the remaining two [d]efendants, thereby imposing on them a higher judgment (dollar-wise) than that which the jury intended? 4. Whether the trial court erred in denying BM Rehab[’s] request for a new trial to ameliorate the prejudice caused when the trial court impermissibly admitted irrelevant, prejudicial, and hearsay evidence of a “Nursing Home Compare” Five-Star Rating Profile and Department of Health Survey Report that was issued prior to BM Rehab’s operation of the facility? Imperial Entities’ Br. at 39-40. *** Standard of Review for Trial Court’s Grant and Denial of Motion for JNOV Each of the parties raise issues challenging the trial court’s disposition of the various motions for entry of JNOV. “We review the [grant or] denial of a request for JNOV for an error of law that controlled the outcome of the case or an abuse of discretion.” Caranci v. Monsanto Co., 338 A.3d 151, 160 - 15 - J-A18034-25 (Pa. Super. 2025). “In this context, an abuse of discretion occurs if the trial court renders a judgment that is manifestly unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious; that fails to apply the law; or that is motivated by partiality, prejudice, bias or ill-will.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). There are two bases upon which a movant is entitled to JNOV: “one, the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and/or two, the evidence was such that no two reasonable minds could disagree that the outcome should have been rendered in favor of the movant.” Rohm and Haas Co. v. Continental Cas. Co., 781 A.2d 1172, 1176 (Pa. 2001) (citation omitted). Here, the trial court determined that the Management Company Defendants were entitled to JNOV as a matter of law. *** Entry of JNOV in favor of the Management Company Defendants In this case, the Estate pursued only a theory of corporate negligence, and not one of vicarious liability, against the Management Company Defendants. The trial court granted JNOV in favor of the Management Company Defendants, reasoning that as a matter of law, the theory of corporate negligence only applies to the Operating Company Defendants and not the Management Company Defendants. Since the Estate only pursued a corporate negligence theory against the Management Company Defendants, the trial court concluded that it properly granted the motion for JNOV in their favor. We agree. - 16 - J-A18034-25 The Pennsylvania Supreme Court first adopted a theory of corporate liability against a healthcare provider in Thompson v. Nason Hosp., 591 A.2d 703 (Pa. 1991). The Supreme Court explained the concept as a “doctrine under which the hospital is liable if it fails to uphold the proper standard of care owed the patient, which is to ensure the patient’s safety and well-being while at the hospital.” Id. at 707. The Supreme Court categorized the scope of that duty into four categories: 1. A duty to use reasonable care in the maintenance of safe and adequate facilities and equipment; 2. A duty to select and retain only competent physicians; 3. A duty to oversee all persons who practice medicine within its walls as to patient care; and 4. A duty to formulate, adopt and enforce adequate rules and policies to ensure quality care for the patients. Id. (formatting altered and internal citations omitted) (the “Thompson duties”). The Supreme Court highlighted that this “theory of liability creates a nondelegable duty which the hospital owes directly to a patient.” Id. In 2012, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court addressed the applicability of corporate liability and the Thompson duties to a nursing home in Scampone v. Highland Park Care Center, LLC, 57 A.3d 582 (Pa. 2012) (“Scampone II”). In Scampone II, the plaintiff attempted to extend corporate liability to the operator of a skilled nursing facility and an affiliated management company. The Supreme Court agreed that a nursing home could be subject - 17 - J-A18034-25 to corporate liability, holding that “a nursing home and affiliated entities are subject to potential direct liability for negligence, where the requisite resident- entity relationship exists to establish that the entity owes the resident a duty of care.” Id. at 584. The Supreme Court found that if the “requisite resident- entity relationship” exists to create a duty, the scope of the duty includes duties “such as duties to maintain safe facilities[] and to hire and oversee competent staff.” Id. at 598.10 The Supreme Court remanded the case back to the trial court to determine “whether the requisite relationship exists between the respective parties” and “any specific duties owed by [the nursing home operator] or [the nursing home management company] to residents like Ms. Scampone.” Id. at 607. Upon remand, the trial court, inter alia, re-entered a compulsory non- suit in favor of Grane Healthcare Company, the management company, on the grounds that the management company had only agreed to provide services to the operating company and had not agreed to provide care and treatment to the plaintiff; rather it was the nursing home operator that agreed to provide services to the plaintiff and thus, the entity with the non-delegable duty to the ____________________________________________ 10 The Supreme Court acknowledged that a plaintiff can also assert the theory of vicarious liability against a nursing home entity in addition to a theory of corporate liability. Id. at 597-98. For a comprehensive and well-defined explanation of the differences between corporate liability and vicarious liability for a medical facility, see the concurring opinion issued by Judge Olson in Corey v. Wilks Barre Hospital Company, LLC, 307 A.3d 701, 716-28 (Pa. Super. 2023)(en banc) - 18 - J-A18034-25 plaintiff. Scampone v. Grane Healthcare, Co., 169 A.3d 600, 609-10 (Pa. Super. 2017) (“Scampone III”). The plaintiff appealed. The Superior Court first interpreted the Supreme Court’s holding in Scampone II as “indicating that both Grane [the management company] and Highland [the operating company] could not be held liable under a direct corporate negligence theory . . . .” Id. at 609 (emphasis added). The Superior Court, in reaching this conclusion, relied on the Supreme Court’s finding that the “inquiry [about the corporate entity’s relationship to the plaintiff] is individual to each appellant, although the duties of appellants may be similar. This type of individualized inquiry into appellants’ duties of care ensures that multiple entities are not exposed to liability for breach of the same non-delegable duties.” 11 Id. at 608 (citation omitted). Applying these principles to the facts of Scampone III, the Superior Court found that the operating company was the licensed owner and occupier of “the nursing home facility and, by virtue of its direct contractual relationship with [the plaintiff] to render her care, [the nursing home operator] could be subject to any applicable non-delegable duty for a cause of action in direct corporate negligence as outlined in Thompson.” Id. at 621 ____________________________________________ 11 We agree with the Court in Scampone III that the term “non-delegable duties is a misnomer” because the nursing home operator may delegate the “performance” of its Thompson duties to another entity and, thus, the performance of the duty is delegable. Id. at 621. The term actually means that even if an entity delegates the performance of its duty, it is still liable if the other entity breaches that duty. Id. - 19 - J-A18034-25 (emphasis added). This Court subsequently held, in Hopkins v. Compass Point Healthcare System, LLC, a case where, as in the instant case, the nursing home resident had a contractual agreement with only one entity, that “Scampone II and Scampone III make clear that only one entity can be liable in corporate negligence for a non-delegable duty to a nursing home patient.” 2021 WL 3465831 at *6 (Pa. Super. filed Aug. 6, 2021) (non- precedential decision) (citing Scampone II, 57 A.3d at 606-07; Scampone III, 169 A.3d at 621). In other words, as a matter of law, when it is only the operator of a nursing home that has the contractual relationship with the plaintiff, only the operator of the nursing home can be held liable under a theory of corporate liability, even if the operator delegates the performance of its Thompson duties to a management company.12 In the instant case, it was the Operating Company Defendants who contracted directly with Decedent. The Operating Company Defendants also entered into management agreements with the Management Company Defendants that required, inter alia, the Management Company Defendants to prepare a budget for operating the facility for the Operating Company Defendants’ approval and to provide various services for the operation of the facility including pharmacy, consults, resident relations, maintaining visibility ____________________________________________ 12 We note that this principle does not preclude a management company from being held liable under a theory of vicarious liability. Scampone II, 57 A.3d 597-98. - 20 - J-A18034-25 of a management presence, helping with personnel, and service contracts. See N.T., 1/18/23, at 123-25, 127-28. In light of the Scampone holdings and the fact that it was only the Operating Company Defendants that had a direct contractual relationship with Decedent, we find that it was the Operating Company Defendants that undertook the duties set forth in Thompson. Although the Operating Company Defendants delegated the performance of those duties to the Management Company Defendants through the management contracts, the duties were “non-delegable,” and the Operating Company Defendants are still liable for a breach of those duties. Scampone III, 169 A.3d at 621. Thus, the trial court properly found that the Estate as a matter of law could not establish a theory of corporate liability against the Management Company Defendants because they did not have a direct contractual relationship with Decedent. The Estate argues that the trial court erred because its interpretation of Scampone permits the imposition of corporate liability on both an operator and management company of a nursing home. Appellants’ Brief at 14-61. In support of this claim, the Estate asserts, inter alia, that the Scampone decisions do not preclude the Management Company Defendants as a matter of law from having potential liability to the Estate independent from the Operating Company Defendants’ liability because the Estate proceeded against the Management Company Defendants as joint tortfeasors and the - 21 - J-A18034-25 Estate “produced ample evidence regarding the direct negligence of both Management Entities.” Id. at 33, 50-52, 55-56, 58-60. The Estate’s argument, however, ignores the Scampone holdings that make clear that the corporate duties set forth in Thompson are imposed only on the corporate entity with whom the plaintiff has a contractual relationship, i.e., a direct relationship. Scampone II, 57 A.3d at 584, 606-07; Scampone III, 169 A.3d at 620-21. Once that entity assumes those duties, that entity is still liable even if it delegates the performance of those duties to a different entity. Scampone III, 169 A.3d at 621. The Supreme Court clearly and unequivocably held that it is necessary to determine which entity or entities has the “requisite” relationship with the plaintiff and it is that entity or entities, that can be held liable for a breach of the Thompson duties. Scampone II, 57 A.3d at 584, 607. Similarly, the Superior Court in Scampone III explicitly imposed the Thompson duties on the operator of the nursing home because it was the operator that had the contractual relationship with the plaintiff. We further note that the Estate bases its argument on the premise that “[w]hen entering jnov in favor of [Management Company Defendants], the trial court acknowledged that the record contained evidence to sustain a duty of care.” Estate’s Br. at 27. While this may be true, the Estate overlooks that it admitted it only pursued a claim of corporate liability against the Management Company Defendants and, as discussed above, as a matter of law the Management Company Defendants cannot owe a duty to the Decedent under a corporate liability theory absent a contractual relationship with - 22 - J-A18034-25 Decedent. While the Management Company Defendants might have owed a duty of care to the Decedent through a theory of vicarious liability, the Estate ultimately chose not to pursue that theory and, thus, its joint tortfeasor argument fails In sum, we find that the trial court properly concluded that there is no legal basis to impose corporate negligence against the Management Company Defendants. Therefore, the court properly entered JNOV in favor of the Management Company Defendants. *** Denial of JNOV in favor of the Operating Company Defendants We next address the contention of