Fischer v. UPMC Northwest
34 A.3d 115
Pa. Super. Ct.2011Background
- Appellants filed a medical malpractice action on January 29, 2007.
- A jury trial occurred October 19, 2009; after Appellants’ case, a non-suit favored Appellees Emmolo and UPMC Community Medicine, and the jury later verdicted for UPMC Northwest, Northwest Emergency Physicians, and Hartwell.
- Appellants’ post-trial relief motion was denied February 2, 2010; they allege they did not receive the order until March 10, 2010.
- Appellants filed a direct appeal on March 15, 2010, which this Court quashed as untimely on April 8, 2010.
- Appellants then sought leave to appeal nunc pro tunc; a hearing was held October 6, 2010 with testimony from a court reporter and prothonotary staff; it was determined the prothonotary failed to properly notice the order under Pa.R.C.P. 236.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused discretion in presuming mailing from generic testimony | Fischer | Hartwell | No abuse; discretion affirmed / see reasoning on mailing duties under Rule 236 |
| Whether the 30-day appeal period began on docket entry despite lack of written notice | Fischer | Hartwell | Yes, appeal timely; timing based on proper entry and notice per Rule 236 |
| Whether denial of leave to appeal nunc pro tunc was proper given breakdown in court operations | Fischer | Hartwell | No; breakdown warranted nunc pro tunc relief and remand for leave to appeal nunc pro tunc |
Key Cases Cited
- Nixon v. Nixon, 198 A. 154 (Pa. 1938) (administrative breakdown entitles nunc pro tunc relief)
- Pierce v. Penman, 515 A.2d 948 (Pa. Super. 1986) (mailing and docket-notice requirements discussed)
- Brodsky v. Philadelphia Athletic Club, 419 A.2d 1285 (Pa. Super. 1980) (duty to notice and docket entries relevant to appeal period)
- Weiman by Trahey v. City of Philadelphia, 564 A.2d 557 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989) (administrative defects can warrant nunc pro tunc relief)