Following a nearly $20 million jury verdict against four defendants, the intermediate appellate court wiped out a $4 million compensatory damages award and the remnants of a $15 million punitive damages award that were returned against the management and operating defendants involved in the case.

Lamb McErlane partner Maureen McBride represents BM Rehab and Imperial.

August 05, 2026, Legal Intelligencer article / Law.com article by Riley Brennan.
The Pennsylvania Superior Court has scrapped what remained of a nearly $20 million jury verdict stemming from a nursing home death case, ruling that a new trial on damages is required after management-company defendants were removed from the case.
On Tuesday, a split panel of the appellate court vacated over $9 million in damages after concluding the lower court erred in its handling of both the $4 million compensatory award and the $5 million punitive damages award.

The issues regarding compensatory damages arose after the Delaware County judge presiding over the case agreed to dismiss two defendants from the case after the jury awarded nearly $20 million to the decedent’s family. The jury had not apportioned liability to each defendant, but after the judge’s post-trial ruling, the judge knocked several million from the award.

The appellate court majority determined that was an error since the lower court had no basis to determine how much the jury had intended to apportion for the dismissed defendant.

“[I]t is reasonable to assume that had the Management Company Defendants’ conduct not been an issue at trial, the jury’s award against the Operating Company Defendants may have been different. Thus … we conclude that the trial court erred in declining to order a new trial on damages,” said Judge Alice Beck Dubow said, with Judge Judith Ference Olson joining. Judge Maria McLaughlin dissented from the majority’s conclusion that the lower court properly granted JNOV in favor of the management company defendants.
Regarding the punitive damages, the appellate panel determined the plaintiffs failed to make a direct case supporting the award.

In Newlin v. Vital Healthcare Group, the estate of Patricia O’Donnell sued various entities after O’Donnell, a resident of Brinton Manor Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, allegedly suffered multiple falls, malnutrition, and other injuries that contributed to her death in 2019.
During the time of the alleged conduct, defendants Brinton Manor SNF, and BM Rehab and Nursing Center, were the operators of the nursing home, while Imperial Healthcare Group and Vita Healthcare Group provided management services.

In 2023, a Delaware County jury awarded the estate $4 million in compensatory damages and $15 million in punitive damages, allocating liability among the four defendants.  After trial, the estate said that it was pursuing corporate negligence claims only against the management companies and vicarious liability claims only against the operating companies. As a result, the trial court entered judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) in favor of the management companies, finding they could not be held liable for corporate negligence as a matter of law. In removing the two defendants, the total punitive damages award was reduced by $8 million, including $1.5 million against Imperial and $6.5 million against Vita.
The court, however, denied JNOV for the operators but remitted the punitive damages award against BM Rehab from $2 million to $385,000.

On appeal, the parties challenged various aspects of the trial court’s post-trial rulings, including the operating defendants arguing that a new trial was required because the dismissal of the management-company defendants left them responsible for damages the jury had originally apportioned among all four defendants.
The operating companies argued it was impossible to fairly reapportion fault, and the Superior Court agreed.

Regarding the punitive damages award, the panel found it had to be vacated because the estate sought punitive damages only for the defendants’ direct corporate negligence, not for conduct attributable through vicarious liability.

According to the majority, the estate informed the court that they were only seeking punitive damages for the direct negligence of all four defendants, and that the record also reflects “that the estate only pursued a vicarious liability theory of recovery—not a direct corporate liability theory of recovery—against the operating company defendants, and the jury only considered whether punitive damages were appropriate as a result of the operating company defendants’ corporate conduct.”

The court therefore determined that the estate is precluded from obtaining punitive damages based on its theory of vicarious liability.

“The plaintiffs are disappointed with the majority’s decision—which misapprehends both the record and Pennsylvania law—and they appreciate Judge McLaughlin’s probing dissent. Further appellate review will be sought,” said Chip Becker of Kline & Specter, who is representing the plaintiffs.

Maureen McBride of Lamb McErlane, in West Chester, is representing BM Rehab and Imperial and did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

John Hare of Marshall Dennehey, in Philadelphia, is representing Vita and Brinton Manor and declined to comment.

Read the article on Law.com here.