Green, J. v. Farole, A.
2025 Pa. Super. 84
Pa. Super. Ct.2025Background
- Joseph Green sued Anthony Farole, D.M.D. and Anthony Farole D.M.D., Inc. for professional negligence related to a dental implant procedure performed on August 14, 2020.
- Green alleged he first became aware of the malpractice on April 27, 2021, and filed his complaint exactly two years later, on April 27, 2023—the last possible day within the statute of limitations under the discovery rule.
- Green attempted to serve the complaint via the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office, but failed due to submission errors (one form required per defendant, not provided).
- Green took no further action until June 9, 2023, when he filed to reinstate the complaint, and ultimately served defendants via private process server—not the sheriff, as required by Pa.R.Civ.P. 400(a).
- Defendants filed preliminary objections asserting improper service; the trial court dismissed the complaint with prejudice after granting time for limited discovery on diligence/good faith attempts at service.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statute of limitations issues can be decided at pleading stage | Should be reserved for answer/new matter | Diligent service effort is cognizable via preliminary objection | Permitted at preliminary objection stage |
| Whether plaintiff made a diligent effort at proper service | Good faith effort based on actual notice | Private service does not suffice; no diligent attempt via sheriff | No diligent effort; complaint dismissed |
| Whether actual notice by private server satisfies service rules | Actual notice should suffice | Actual notice must follow procedural rules; sheriff service required | Actual notice by private server insufficient |
| Whether trial court erred in dismissing with prejudice | Diligence demonstrated; complaint timely | Lack of diligence; waited too long; improper service | No error; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Gussom v. Teagle, 247 A.3d 1046 (Pa. 2021) (failure to make diligent effort to effect service can justify dismissal at preliminary objections stage)
- Ferraro v. Patterson-Erie Corp., 313 A.3d 987 (Pa. 2024) (good faith efforts at service require timely and rule-compliant actions; actual notice by private process server is insufficient)
- McCreesh v. City of Philadelphia, 888 A.2d 664 (Pa. 2005) (reviewed diligence in effecting service at preliminary objections stage)