Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, STATE-LAW CLAIMS—W.D. Pa.: Discharged doctor’s claims against employer hospitals move forward in part, (Nov 3, 2025)

By Thomas K. Lauletta, J.D.

However, summary judgment granted against the doctor’s claims for misappropriation of name and likeness and misrepresentations of employment rights.

A doctor practicing OB/GYN services at a hospital in Erie, Pennsylvania, obtained mixed results contesting the hospital’s motion for summary judgment against her employment related claims. Because of existing issues of material fact, the motion was denied with respect to the doctor’s claims for breach of her employment contract and tortious interference with her relationship with clients. However, because the doctor was unable to establish that she met the statutory time limitations for her misappropriation of name and likeness and misrepresentation of her employment agreement rights, summary judgment was entered against these claims (Stull v. UPMC Hamot, No. 22-92 Erie (W.D. Pa. Oct. 30, 2025)).

The doctor contracted to perform obstetrics and gynecological services at UPMC Magee Women’s Hospital in Erie, Pennsylvania. After she signed the hospital’s employment agreement, the doctor began work at UPMC on May 1, 2017.

Surgery. In November 2017, the doctor had wrist surgery to correct the increasing pain in her right wrist. She returned to work immediately, but several weeks later, she reinjured her wrist in a motor vehicle incident requiring further surgery. She thereafter notified UPMC that she would need to take leave to recover from the surgery. Consistent with this notice, the doctor was placed on FMLA leave as of the date of her surgery, January 29, 2018.

On July 13, 2018, the doctor submitted a claim for long-term disability. On April 6, her personal physician had cleared the doctor to return to “office work only,” stating that she had “limited ability to perform repetitive fine manipulation and grasping with her right wrist, which are integral skills for an OB/GYN physician.” Thereafter, through late 2018, the personal physician and hospital supervisors went back and forth to determine the specifics of what the doctor could and could not do with respect to her job duties.

Termination. On May 10, 2019, UPMC terminated the doctor’s employment, citing her violation of the employment agreement requiring her ability to perform the essential functions of her employment as an OB/GYN physician.

The doctor sued UPMC and related hospitals, asserting four counts. Count I claimed that the defendants breached her employment contract by actions including her firing; Count II claimed that the defendants misappropriated her name and likeness by misinforming her patients of her employment status after her employment was terminated; Count III claimed that the defendants tortiously interfered with contractual relationships between the doctor and her patients; and Count IV claimed that the defendants made misrepresentations to the doctor during negotiations of the terms of her employment agreement. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment against all claims.

Breach of employment contract claim. Count I of the doctor’s complaint alleged that UPMC committed multiple breaches of the employment agreement, culminating with the termination of the doctor’s employment. Despite UPMC’s statement that various facts were undisputed, the court noted that the doctor disputed several of these “undisputed facts.” Accordingly, because there remained genuine issues of material facts, summary judgment was denied.

Misappropriation of name and likeness claim. Count II of the complaint alleged that UPMC misappropriated the doctor’s name and likeness by keeping her name and pictures on the UPMC website after she was terminated and incorrectly informing or misleading patients that the UPMC continued to employ the doctor and that she would be returning to the UPMC, when it knew otherwise.

The court noted that Pennsylvania law recognized a cause of action for “invasion of privacy” by an “appropriation of name of likeness.” Such a claim is subject to a one-year statute of limitations. However, the limitations period does not begin to run until the time the plaintiff discovered her injury, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have discovered the injury. To make a case for misappropriation of name and likeness, the court stated that the doctor would have to prove that she could not have been aware of the facts underlying her claim until sometime after February 8, 2021. Under the facts on record, the court stated that the doctor did not meet this statutory requirement and summary judgment was granted against this claim.

Tortious interference claim. In Count III, the doctor alleged that UPMC tortiously interfered with her existing and prospective relationships with clients. To prove this claim, the court stated that as an intentional tort, the doctor would have to prove that the UPMC’s action was aimed at intentionally causing harm to her. The UPMC argued that the doctor could not show this because under the employment agreement all contractual relationships with patients were with UPMC, not with the doctor. However, the court concluded that this provision did not prevent the doctor from establishing prospective relationships with her patients.

Further, although the employment agreement may have authorized the UPMC action to terminate the doctor, her claim not only addressed her firing, but also related to UPMC’s actions after her firing that alienated her from her patients.

Based on the conclusion that genuine issues of facts remained on the tortious interference claim, the court refused to grant the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

Misrepresentation claim. Count IV of the complaint alleged that UPMC induced the doctor to enter the employment contract by making verbal misrepresentations regarding the support that her practice would receive from UPMC over the term of the contract.

The court noted that under Pennsylvania law, the applicable statute of limitations for the tort of misrepresentation is two years. Thus, based on the date that the doctor’s action was filed (February 8, 2022), she would have to prove that she could not have been aware of the facts underlying her misrepresentation claim until sometime after February 8, 2020. Based on the record of the case, the court concluded that the doctor did not present facts establishing her claim within the two-year statutory requirement. Accordingly, the court granted the defendants’ claim for summary judgment against this claim.

The case is No. 22-92 Erie.

Judge: Baxter, S.

Attorneys: Peter A. Pentz (Pentz Law) for Jennifer Stull. Neal R. Devlin (Knox Law Firm) for UPMC Hamot, UPMC Health Systems, Magee Women’s Hospital, and University Of Pittsburgh Physicians Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Women's Health.

Companies: UPMC Hamot; UPMC Health Systems; Magee Women’s Hospital; University Of Pittsburgh Physicians Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Women's Health

Cases: ContractClaims StateLawClaims TortClaims Procedure Privacy Discharge PennsylvaniaNews