Estate of Paul S. Terry v. Cathedral Village, Estate of Paul S. Terry v. Cathedral Village No. 1826 EDA 2016

Decedent Paul S. Terry, Jr. resided at Cathedral Village from Feb. 2, 2009 until his death on Mar. 7, 2012; the Estate sued Cathedral Village for negligence alleging death from sepsis.
Case Management Order set discovery deadline Oct. 5, 2015 and expert report production deadline Nov. 2, 2015.
Cathedral Village moved to compel discovery (granted Oct. 15, 2015) and moved for summary judgment on Dec. 1, 2015.
The Estate responded Jan. 5, 2016 requesting additional time to produce an expert report; the court granted summary judgment and dismissed the complaint with prejudice on Jan. 11, 2016.
The Estate served an expert report on Feb. 12, 2016 and did not receive docketed Rule 236 notice of the Jan. 11 order; the Superior Court treated the appeal as timely because Rule 236 notice was not docketed.
On the merits, the Superior Court affirmed summary judgment because the Estate failed to produce the required expert report by the court-ordered deadline and therefore could not establish a prima facie medical negligence claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether lack of docketed Rule 236 notice deprived Estate of timely appeal	Estate: trial court failed to provide required notice, denying due process and timely appeal	Cathedral Village: docketing rules control; parties' actual notice irrelevant	Court: appeal period not triggered because Rule 236 notice was not docketed; appeal deemed timely
Whether summary judgment was improper because Estate had or would tender an expert report	Estate: had notified court and defendant that an expert opinion would be supplied and sought extra time; disputed issues of fact remain	Cathedral Village: Estate missed expert-report deadline and did not timely move for extension; without expert, Estate cannot prove medical negligence	Court: affirmed summary judgment — Estate failed to timely produce expert report, so no prima facie medical-malpractice case and expert testimony would be precluded

Jara v. Rexworks Inc., 718 A.2d 788 (Pa. Super. 1998) (appeal time begins only after order entry plus docketed Rule 236 notice)
Vertical Resources, Inc. v. Bramlett, 837 A.2d 1193 (Pa. Super. 2003) (failure to docket Rule 236 notice prevents triggering appeal period; court may treat appeal as timely to avoid remand solely for notice)
Frazier v. City of Philadelphia, 735 A.2d 113 (Pa. 1999) (Rule 108(b) and Rule 236 require docket notation of notice for order entry date)
Summers v. Certainteed Corp., 997 A.2d 1152 (Pa. 2010) (standard of review and burdens on summary judgment)
Grossman v. Barke, 868 A.2d 561 (Pa. Super. 2005) (medical malpractice requires expert proof on duty, breach, causation, damages)
Quinby v. Plumsteadville Family Practice, Inc., 907 A.2d 1061 (Pa. 2006) (narrow exception to expert requirement where injury is of a sort that would not normally occur absent negligence)
Bailets v. Pennsylvania Tpk. Comm’n, 123 A.3d 300 (Pa. 2015) (what the summary-judgment record includes)
Truax v. Roulhac, 126 A.3d 991 (Pa. Super. 2015) (non-moving party cannot rely on pleadings alone to survive summary judgment)
Stalsitz v. Allentown Hosp., 814 A.2d 766 (Pa. Super. 2002) (expert testimony at trial must conform to scope of expert report)