Case Citation
Legal Case Name

MCCLELLAN v. HEALTH MAINTENANCE ORGANIZATION Case Brief

Superior Court of Pennsylvania1992
413 Pa.Super. 128 604 A.2d 1053

Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs

Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.

Adaptive Case Views

Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.

Exam-Ready IRAC Format

We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.

Complex Cases, Clarified

We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.

Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis

General Brief
3 min read

tl;dr: The court reversed a demurrer, allowing a medical malpractice suit against an HMO to proceed. Claims included ostensible agency for a physician’s negligence and direct negligence by the HMO in selecting and retaining the physician.

Legal Significance: This case established that an HMO can be held liable for physician malpractice under ostensible agency and for its own negligence in selecting and retaining physicians, applying Restatement (Second) of Torts § 323.

MCCLELLAN v. HEALTH MAINTENANCE ORGANIZATION Law School Study Guide

Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.

Case Facts & Court Holding

Key Facts & Case Background

Marilyn McClellan, a subscriber to Health Maintenance Organization of Pennsylvania (HMO PA), selected Dr. Joseph Hempsey as her primary care physician from a list provided by the HMO. Appellants alleged Dr. Hempsey negligently failed to biopsy a mole he removed from Mrs. McClellan, leading to an untimely diagnosis of malignant melanoma and her subsequent death. Appellants sued the HMO, alleging negligence under theories of ostensible agency (vicarious liability for Dr. Hempsey’s actions) and direct corporate negligence (negligent selection and retention of Dr. Hempsey). They also claimed breach of contract and misrepresentation based on the HMO’s assurances about physician competency and specialist referrals. The HMO represented its physicians as carefully screened and qualified. Mrs. McClellan allegedly relied on these representations. The trial court sustained the HMO’s demurrer, dismissing the complaint. Appellants appealed, arguing their complaint stated valid causes of action.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Did the appellants’ complaint allege sufficient facts to state causes of action against the Health Maintenance Organization for negligence based on theories of ostensible agency and direct liability for negligent selection and retention of a primary care physician?

Yes, the complaint sufficiently alleged facts to support causes of action for Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Dui

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades

IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.

Legal Issue

Did the appellants’ complaint allege sufficient facts to state causes of action against the Health Maintenance Organization for negligence based on theories of ostensible agency and direct liability for negligent selection and retention of a primary care physician?

Conclusion

This case significantly affirmed that HMOs can face tort liability for medical Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip

Legal Rule

An HMO may be liable for a physician's negligence under the theory Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est la

Legal Analysis

The court, applying the standard for a demurrer, found the appellants' allegations Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • An HMO can be held vicariously liable for a physician’s malpractice
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat c

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

The difference between ordinary and extraordinary is practice.

✨ Enjoy an ad-free experience with LSD+