Whether the Third Circuit Court of Appeals committed reversible error in affirming the District Court's judgment by misapplying Pennsylvania substantive law regarding duty of care

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).