and that they punished Gatter by prosecuting him for perjury because he would not cooperate with their investigation. However, even if Danbach and Williamson viewed Gatter as uncooperative, they did not make or even participate in the decision to indict him, and could not, therefore, have used the prosecution to punish him. 2.Abuse of Process and Conspiracy Gatter has conceded that the abuse of process and conspiracy claims cannot withstand summary judgment and, therefore, they are dismissed. 3.Loss of Consortium Marie Parrott Gatter’s loss of consortium claim likewise cannot proceed since it is dependent on Gatter’s substantive claims, none of which survive summary judgment. See Schroeder v. Ear, Nose & Throat Assoc. of Lehigh Valley, Inc., 383 Pa.Super. 440, 557 A.2d 21, 22 (1989) (<HOLDING>). III. Conclusion In sum, Gatter has simply not
recognizing cause of action for loss of consortium recognizing loss of consortium claims holding that wifes recovery for loss of consortium should not be reduced by the proportion of negligence attributable to husband because claim for loss of consortium is independent of the damages claim of the injured spouse holding loss of consortium claim is derivative of spouses substantive claim holding that plaintiffs claim for loss of consortium is separate and distinct from spouses malpractice claim for purposes of applying insurance policy limitations