A new debate is unfolding in Harrisburg that strikes at the heart of Pennsylvania’s civil-justice system. Senate Bill 125, introduced by Sen. Cris Dush, proposes a constitutional amendment that would let state legislators, rather than the judiciary, decide where medical-malpractice lawsuits may be filed. Supporters frame it as an effort to end “venue shopping.” But beneath that headline lies a more serious issue: the erosion of judicial independence and the restriction of injured patients’ rights to seek justice where they can actually obtain it.

At Medina | Morgan, we believe the plaintiff’s choice of venue deserves great weight. It ensures fairness, access, and accountability — values that have defined Pennsylvania’s courts for generations.

The Background: Courts Already Fixed the “Venue” Question

For two decades, Pennsylvania limited malpractice cases to the county where the alleged negligence occurred. In practice, that rule treated malpractice victims differently from all other tort plaintiffs, creating barriers for those injured in rural or corporate-controlled hospital systems.

In 2022, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s Civil Procedural Rules Committee re-examined the rule and found it caused “disparate treatment” for victims and suppressed compensation. The Court agreed — and in 2023 lifted the restriction, restoring equal venue rights to malpractice plaintiffs.

That decision did not create chaos; it restored parity. Medical negligence cases, like other civil cases, could again be filed in any county with a legitimate connection to the defendant’s conduct — exactly as the rules of civil procedure have long permitted.

What the Proposed Amendment Would Do

Senate Bill 125 would give the General Assembly power to set venue rules by statute. Because the courts have already ruled such legislation unconstitutional, the bill seeks to change the Constitution itself to override the judiciary’s authority.

In essence, the amendment would let lawmakers — many of whom are lobbied by corporate healthcare and insurance interests — dictate where Pennsylvanians may file lawsuits against hospitals, doctors, and other powerful institutions. It’s not just about geography; it’s about who controls the playing field.

Why This Matters for Patients

Supporters claim that restoring venue limits will lower malpractice costs and protect access to care. But history and data tell a different story:

  • Victims will be forced into hostile or inconvenient forums. Many malpractice cases arise in smaller counties where hospitals dominate the local economy and jury pools may be influenced by institutional power. Plaintiffs deserve the right to bring their case in a neutral, accessible venue with resources to handle complex litigation.
  • Accountability will suffer. Restrictive venue laws make it easier for negligent hospitals to avoid meaningful scrutiny. Large healthcare systems with facilities statewide could escape being held to account in urban venues where courts have greater experience handling major medical cases.
  • Judicial independence will erode. The Pennsylvania Constitution — especially after the 1968 ratification — deliberately vested rule-making authority in the Supreme Court to preserve checks and balances. Transferring that authority to legislators would politicize civil-procedure rules and weaken the judiciary’s independence.

The Myth of “Runaway Verdicts”

Opponents of the Court’s 2023 rule change cite a rise in filings and verdicts in Philadelphia County. But a closer look shows a balanced picture: although filings doubled from 275 to 541 cases, roughly half the verdicts still favored defendants. The increase simply reflects victims finally having access to courts with the resources and expertise to handle complex malpractice litigation.

Moreover, larger verdicts are not evidence of abuse — they reflect catastrophic injuries, lifelong disabilities, and systemic negligence. When juries in Philadelphia award compensation, they are doing what the law demands: making victims whole.

The Real Problem: Healthcare Economics, Not Litigation

During the Senate hearing, medical executives testified that liability costs divert funds from patient care. But trial lawyers representing victims rightly countered that the crisis in healthcare financing stems from corporate consolidation, private-equity ownership, and inadequate reimbursement — not from courtroom accountability.

As one attorney witness explained, blaming victims for systemic underfunding is misguided. If hospitals wish to reduce claims, the solution is simple: improve safety, staffing, and transparency — not restrict citizens’ constitutional rights.

Preserving Judicial Balance and Patient Rights

The independence of Pennsylvania’s judiciary is not a procedural technicality. It is a safeguard ensuring that courts — not politicians — decide how justice is administered.
As Senator Steven Santarsiero noted during the hearing, this amendment is less about medical malpractice and more about “another attack on the foundations of our democracy.”

If passed, the bill would set a dangerous precedent, allowing the legislature to rewrite court rules whenever special interests demand it. Today it’s venue; tomorrow it could be discovery limits, damage caps, or jury rights.

Our Position

At Medina | Morgan, we represent patients and families whose lives were shattered by preventable medical errors. We see, every day, the power imbalance between ordinary citizens and billion-dollar hospital systems. Limiting where those citizens can seek justice tips the scales even further against them.

We urge lawmakers — and ultimately, Pennsylvania voters — to reject this amendment. The plaintiff’s choice of venue must remain presumptively valid, and the judiciary must remain independent. Justice depends on it.