Shannon v. McNulty

718 A.2d 828 (1998)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Shannon v. McNulty

Pennsylvania Superior Court
718 A.2d 828 (1998)

Play video


Sheena Shannon (plaintiff) was a subscriber of the HealthAmerica’s Health Maintenance Organization (HMO). She telephoned HealthAmerica because she learned she was pregnant and sought an ob/gyn physician. HealthAmerica (defendant) provided Shannon with a list of six physicians she could choose from and Shannon chose Dr. McNulty (defendant). Shannon called McNulty complaining of abdominal pain and requested an appointment. Three days later, McNulty briefly examined Shannon and informed her that she just needed rest and to take a week off work. McNulty did not perform any tests to confirm a diagnosis or rule out other possibilities. A couple of days later, Shannon again telephoned McNulty complaining of worsening abdominal and back pain and other symptoms and asked him whether she could be experiencing pre-term labor. McNulty dismissed Shannon’s concern and insisted she was not in labor. Shannon called the emergency telephone number listed on the back of her card and spoke with a triage nurse from HealthAmerica. Shannon explained to the nurse her symptoms and McNulty’s recommendation. The triage nurse simply advised her to call McNulty again. Thereafter, Shannon made numerous calls to both McNulty, who was noticeably frustrated and angry with Shannon’s calls, and to HealthAmerica who merely advised that she continue to call McNulty. During the last call to HealthAmerica, Shannon was told by an in-house orthopedic physician to go to a distant hospital to be examined. While at the hospital, Shannon prematurely gave birth to a one and one-half pound baby who died two days later. Shannon brought suit against McNulty for negligence in failing to timely diagnose and treat her pre-term labor. Shannon sued HealthAmerica for negligence under both a vicarious liability theory and corporate negligence theory. Shannon alleged HealthAmerica was vicariously liable for its nursing staff’s failure to refer her to a physician or hospital for diagnosis and proper treatment. Shannon alleged HealthAmerica was corporately liable for its negligent supervision of McNulty’s care and lack of appropriate procedures when dispensing medical advice over the telephone. The trial court granted McNulty’s motion for a compulsory nonsuit. Shannon appealed.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Melvin, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 735,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 735,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 735,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership