Pennsylvania Court Upholds Venue-Selection Clauses: Key Win for Healthcare Providers

The Pennsylvania Superior Court recently issued a significant decision in Somerlot v. Jung, which strengthens the ability of healthcare providers in Pennsylvania to control the venue where medical malpractice lawsuits are filed. Prior to this recent ruling, under Rule 1006 that went into effect January 1, 2023, plaintiffs could file medical malpractice suits in any county where any named defendant regularly conducted business, even if the malpractice occurred elsewhere. This practice of forum shopping led to medical malpractice cases being filed in Philadelphia and Allegheny Counties as they were viewed as venues more favorable to plaintiffs.

In Somerlott v. Jung, a patient attempted to sue a Bucks County provider in Philadelphia County. However, before the provider rendered treatment, the patient signed a consent-to-treatment agreement containing a venue-selection clause, which is a common contract provision that allows parties to agree in advance to a specific venue where any future disputes must be filed and resolved. The agreement at issue required that all legal claims, including medical malpractice claims, be filed in Bucks County. On July 30, 2025, the Superior Court enforced the venue-selection clause and rejected the plaintiff’s arguments that Pennsylvania’s procedural rules or claims of unfairness should override it. The Superior Court upheld the transfer of Somerlott v. Jung to Bucks County.

Why This Matters for Healthcare Providers

• Reduces venue shopping: Providers can contractually require litigation to take place in the county where the alleged malpractice occurred, rather than in venues known for large plaintiff verdicts. This ruling follows recent developments that have expanded plaintiffs’ venue options in Pennsylvania, fueling concerns about an increase in medical liability suits in plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions. This decision helps restore balance by reaffirming the ability to contract for a fair venue.
• Enforceable protection: The Court held that such provisions are not automatically unconscionable, even when signed just before treatment, if patients have a meaningful choice. In this case, the Court noted that the patient could have “crossed out” the venue-selection clause and presented the modified agreement as a counteroffer to the provider.

Practical Takeaways:

• Sample Language to Consider: Pennsylvania healthcare providers should review their patient agreements and contracts and consider including clear, enforceable venue-selection provisions where a patient signs and dates in agreement, such as in a consent to treat form. Doing so can provide a valuable safeguard against venue shopping and help manage future litigation risk.

Sample Venue-Selection Language:

NOTICE: Any legal claims or civil actions, including, but not limited to, a claim for medical malpractice in any way related to this admission/procedure, and medical services provided by ____________________or its employees, shall be brought solely in the Courts of ____________ County, in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

• Future Developments: While it is likely that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court will be asked to review this decision, the Jung opinion is now controlling law. This matter may have further developments, and ProAssurance commits to keeping Pennsylvania insureds up to date on changes.

Please note this information does not constitute a legal opinion, nor is it a substitute for legal advice. Legal inquiries about this topic should be directed to an attorney.