A recent appellate decision out of Pennsylvania could have significant implications for healthcare providers hoping to avoid litigation in historically plaintiff-oriented venues. In Somerlot v. Jung, 2025 PA Super 166 (July 30, 2025), the Superior Court of Pennsylvania upheld a forum selection clause in a patient intake agreement that required lawsuits to be filed in a county other than Philadelphia. The court enforced the clause, even though Philadelphia is where the care occurred and where the plaintiff preferred to file suit.
This decision is notable because it affirms the enforceability of pre-dispute forum selection clauses in medical provider-patient agreements. These clauses may steer litigation away from jurisdictions that are perceived as less favorable to healthcare defendants. For providers operating in Maryland, where venues like Baltimore City and Prince George’s County often present challenges to defendants in medical malpractice cases, this case raises an intriguing possibility: could a carefully drafted forum selection clause allow healthcare entities to “contract out” of being sued in these venues?
While Pennsylvania law is not controlling in Maryland, the ruling is part of a growing recognition of the freedom to contract, including where disputes will be resolved. Maryland courts have enforced forum selection clauses in commercial and employment contracts, and there may be room to argue for similar treatment in the healthcare context, particularly when the patient signs a clear agreement prior to care.
At a minimum, this case should prompt healthcare institutions and their legal teams to re-examine patient intake forms and service agreements. Could a strategic revision shift future litigation to a more balanced jurisdiction? It’s a question worth asking, and one we’ll be watching closely as Maryland courts confront similar issues.
If you need assistance with a legal matter or redrafting your patient agreements, our experienced attorneys at Waranch & Brown can help.