Melendez, F. v. The Good Samaritan Hospital
Melendez, F. v. The Good Samaritan Hospital No. 1496 MDA 2015
Pa. Super. Ct.May 8, 2017Background
- Damaris Reyes died on July 25, 2012; plaintiff (Fernando Melendez, administrator) alleges emergency-room negligence leading to death.
- Plaintiff filed a medical‑malpractice/wrongful‑death complaint on July 3, 2014 (within the 2‑year statute of limitations).
- The complaint was not properly served within 30 days; due to counsel’s staff error, service was effected later.
- Plaintiff reinstated the complaint on August 6, 2014 and the sheriff served defendants on August 11, 2014 (39 days after filing; 17 days after limitations expired).
- Trial court granted defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, ruling service defects and missed deadlines barred the suit.
- Superior Court reversed, holding the circumstances did not show intent to stall nor prejudice to defendants and McCreesh/Leidich precedent supports a flexible, good‑faith inquiry.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defective/tardy service bars suit despite timely filing | Filing tolled limitations; reinstatement and service soon after show good‑faith effort and no prejudice | Failure to effect timely service and counsel’s clerical error means Lamp requires dismissal | Reversed: courts should apply McCreesh/Leidich flexible good‑faith/prejudice test; here no intent to stall and no prejudice, so dismissal improper |
| Proper standard: strict compliance vs. flexible good‑faith inquiry | Apply flexible test: actual notice or no prejudice excuses technical defects | Advocate strict compliance with service rules to satisfy Lamp line of cases | Adopted McCreesh/Leidich approach — focus on intent to stall or actual prejudice, not strict mechanical compliance |
| Whether counsel’s clerical mistake can be excused under Lamp | Clerical error that is promptly corrected and followed by quick reinstatement/service can be excused | Clerical error by plaintiff’s staff is insufficient to show good faith; excuse should not apply | Court: clerical error alone is not dispositive; here prompt corrective steps and lack of prejudice warranted reversal |
| Whether Englert (no good‑faith effort) controls here | Distinguish Englert because counsel promptly checked service and quickly reinstated/served | Claim Englert similar because initial service effort failed and counsel is responsible | Court distinguished Englert — there counsel did nothing after issuance; here prompt action showed no intent to stall |
Key Cases Cited
- Lamp v. Heyman, 366 A.2d 882 (Pa. 1976) (service of original process completes commencement; prevents abusing rules to evade limitations)
- Farinacci v. Beaver County Indus. Dev. Auth., 511 A.2d 757 (Pa. 1986) (courts must assess good‑faith effort to effectuate service case‑by‑case)
- McCreesh v. City of Philadelphia, 888 A.2d 664 (Pa. 2005) (adopts Leidich approach; permit relief where no intent to stall and no prejudice)
- Leidich v. Franklin, 575 A.2d 914 (Pa. Super. 1990) (technical noncompliance excused where defendant had notice and no prejudice)
- Englert v. Fazio Mech. Servs., Inc., 932 A.2d 122 (Pa. Super. 2007) (no good‑faith effort where plaintiff failed to monitor service and took no action until limitations neared)