The Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed the trial court’s order, which granted a nonsuit. Munoz filed a medical negligence suit against The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (“CHOP”) after his son died in the ER at Einstein Hospital. After Munoz’s case-in-chief, CHOP moved for a nonsuit. The trial court granted the motion, concluding CHOP did not undertake to render services to the child and, therefore, did not owe any duty of care. On appeal, Munoz argued the trial court erred in granting— and refusing to remove—a nonsuit because there was ample evidence to demonstrate that CHOP undertook and provided healthcare services to the child. The Superior Court agreed and, therefore, reversed and remanded for removal of the nonsuit and a new trial. The Court reviewed the evidence and found that “giving Munoz the benefit of every reasonable inference, and resolving all evidentiary conflicts in his favor, we cannot say that the factfinder could not reasonably conclude that the essential elements of the cause of action were established or that the lack of evidence to sustain the action was so clear that it admitted no room for fair and reasonable disagreement.”
