Buchanan Secures Precedential Opinion in PA Superior Court for Allegheny Health Network and AHN Medical Group

PITTSBURGH (December 2025) – Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney secured a precedential opinion in the Pennsylvania Superior Court on behalf of Allegheny Health Network and AHN Medical Group. The opinion confirms that Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Act (MCARE Act) retaliation claims are subject to a 180-day statute of limitations, as incorporated from the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law, and the MCARE Act preempts common law wrongful discharge claims based solely on its provisions.

The case stemmed from allegations of retaliation by Dr. Eric Brader, an emergency physician at Allegheny General Hospital who was employed by AHN Medical Group and held administrative roles. In June 2014, Brader treated a patient who later suffered permanent disability due to alleged lapses in hospital admission procedures. In November 2014, after learning of the patient’s outcome, Brader reported concerns about hospital policies. Following his report, Brader alleged that he was reassigned to a less desirable hospital and later had his administrative roles and stipend eliminated. He ultimately resigned in December 2015.

Brader filed suit in 2017 against AHN and AHN Medical Group, alleging retaliation in violation of the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Act (MCARE Act). He also alleged common law wrongful discharge, arguing his firing violated public policy as set forth in the MCARE Act.

The trial court denied the defendants’ preliminary objections and their motion for summary judgment, finding Brader’s claims to be timely and not preempted by the MCARE Act. Defendants appealed, raising two main issues:

• Whether the 180-day statute of limitations from the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law applies to MCARE Act retaliation claims, making Brader’s claim untimely.
• Whether the MCARE Act preempts common law wrongful discharge claims based solely on the MCARE Act.

The Superior Court held in a precedential opinion that the MCARE Act incorporates both the protections and remedies of the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law, including its 180-day statute of limitations for retaliation claims.  Because Brader’s claim was filed more than 180 days after the alleged retaliatory action, it was held to be untimely. The Superior Court further held that the trial court’s contrary ruling was clearly erroneous.

The Superior Court also held that the existence of a statutory remedy under the MCARE Act preempts a common law wrongful discharge claim based solely on the same statute.  Finally, the panel addressed the coordinate jurisdiction rule and clarified that a later judge is generally bound by a prior judge’s legal rulings in the same case unless there is a change in law, facts, or the prior ruling was clearly erroneous and would result in manifest injustice. Here, the clearly erroneous exception applied.

“Our clients are very happy with this precedential result. The Superior Court’s opinion covers very important legal issues, and it will positively impact the healthcare industry throughout Pennsylvania,” said Jaime Tuite, shareholder in the firm’s Labor & Employment section. 

Led by Tuite, the team also included Labor & Employment counsels Nicholas Bell and Ryan Wilk.