David D. Richardson v. United States

I. WHETHER THE THIRD CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN AFFIRMING THE DISTRICT COURT S JUDGMENT WHERE THE DISTRICT COURT FAILED TO APPLY SUBSTANTIVE PENNSYLVANIA LAW REGARDING DUTY WHERE THE DISTRICT COURT RELIED UPON BILT-RITE CONTRACTORS, INC. V. THE ARCHITECTUAL STUDIO, 866 A.2d 270 (PA. 2005) IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER TO IMPOSE A DUTY. WHICH THE PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE BILT-RITE FACTORS CAN ONLY BE USED TO DETERMINE WHETHER TO IMPOSE A NEW DUTY, NOT WHERE A DUTY ALREADY EXISTS. DITTMAN V, UPMC, 196 A.3d (PA. 2018). AND BECAUSE OF THE DOCTOR-PATIENT RELATIONSHIP EXISTING BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT, A DUTY EXISTED BECAUSE OF THE RELATIONSHIP ITSELF PURSUANT TO TONEY V. CHESTER COUNTY HOSPITAL, 36 A. 3d 83 (PA. 2011).