*1 Knight, Samuel E. Administrator of Estate of Knight, Sharon M. Petitioner Deceased, v. Walter Stephen T. Foldes I. Annon, Frankford Hos

pital, Respondents. *2 to President May 16, 1978, briefs, on Submitted Judges Jr., Judge Wilkin- Crumlish, Bowman and DiSalle. Jr., Blatt Mencer, Rogers, son, M. Hickey, John petitioner. McWilliams, T. Daniel

David J. Griffith respondents. September Judge

Opinion Bowman, President 22, 1978: Adminis E. Knight (Knight),

Petitioner, Samuel deceased, M. Knight, the Estate of Sharon trator of the Ad an order issued leave to is seeking r Health Care Panels ministrato for Arbitration (Administrator) part respondents’ sustaining in mo dismissing judgment pleadings tion for on the Knight’s wrongful pro under death action filed cedures set the Health Mal forth in Care Services practice (Act).1 Act Philadelphia

Knight with the filed suit County February 15, 1977, Court Common Pleas on alleging respondents’ negligence been the had Upon spouse’s preliminary ob- cause his demise. jections premised upon Section which vests exclusive for Health a cause Panel of action (Arbitration Panel), was dis- cause action Care Philadelphia County May missed 1977. complaint

Knight refiled his the meantime Respondents Administrator on March year answered that was the one the action barred period 2 of the limitation set forth April §1603. *3 12 26, 1855, 309, P.L. P.S. Knight replied the effect that fraud conceal- to part respondents run- ment toll the par- Respondents ning of the then moved for statute. judgment pleadings. tial on the February Administrator sustained 1978,

On 21, wrongful Knight’s death ac- limitations defense to testimony damage be limited tion and directed damages the Penn- to those items of recoverable under sylvania seq. §3371 20 et Pa. C.S. Survival 1 1975, 390, §1301.101 P.S. October seq., wbicb, purpose et tbe as set forth Section liability professional §1301.102, at available insurance is “to make system per cost, through a a a reasonable to establish injury or death as a of tort or breach son who has sustained result provider prompt by a deter care can obtain contract health adjudication determination of mination of his claim and the compensation.” et §171.1 fair and See also 37 Code reasonable seq. proceeded Knight It is from to this order that way petition permission ap- by this to Court of a peal see Pa. R.A.P. order, jurisdiction invoking as a basis for our Section Appellate of the Jurisdiction (ACJA).2 sponte,

By sua Order dated March 16, 1978, we, jurisdiction entertain the raised the issue to pending petition disposition resolution and deferred jurisdictional issue. appeals from At issue is whether lies with the Common- orders of appropriate wealth with the court of com- Court or pleas. pursuant Pa. R.A.P. mon If the former, an interlocu- properly tory enter- order of the Administrator by tained this Court. provision or-

No exists review of ders made the Administrator. P.S. Section “ provides [ajppeals determina- §1301.509, from panel a trial tions made shall be arbitration ques- de novo the court ...” judicial includes becomes whether such review implicitly who, orders of the Administrator empowered rule on n preliminary prior appointment an ar- motions panel bitration chairman.

Respondents argue that the could have Panel be intended that orders of appealable to one forum while of the Adminis- orders appealable positing in- trator another, tent of the from the to remove of the Commonwealth Court

rulings pro- Administrator is manifested *4 appeal visions for Panel’s deci- Arbitration July 31, 1970, P.S. §211.403. P.L. pleas. believe, We common the courts sions to pertains. opposite construction however, promulgated Health Care Ser- legislature The oppor- provide an Malpractice claimants Act to vices tunity prompt claims. To of their determination symbiotic though en- promote two distinct effort, this of the Administra- the office established, tities were specifically each with Panel, the Arbitration tor and powers quasi-judicial the former duties; defined regard the latter to the motions, with adjudication pertinent a final facts and issues legislature Upon adjudication, such the claim. appellate jurisdiction, place in the form fit has seen pleas. in the court common novo, a trial de defined the distinct has, therefore, The powers of Administrator and and duties quasi-judicial functions, each vested Panel, pleas provided to common from de believe that had made the latter. We terminations from final intended to direct the Administrator to common orders of particular specifically provided for, would have been ly have been that avenues for such con appellate procedure fashioning rules of structed Agency the Administrative review, Statutory by the ACJA. See Construction Law,3 §§1928(b)(7), 1972, 1 C.S. province question It is wisdom or appeal procedure efficacy dichotomizing of so in a particular proceedings. original Prior to the damage resulting claims for loss or leg- was in medical services common rely prior experience seen fit on this islature has appellate vested and has et seq. Act of June 71 P.S. §1710.1 *5 Appellate jurisdiction court. over determina- agency

tions made an officer or Common- wealth has been in the Commonwealth Court.4 Noth- ing in the Act leads us to believe that the jurisdiction did not intend that continue would over determinations made the Administra- to vest Statutory See Construction Act 1 Pa. tor. of 1972, (b), 1921(e)(5). C.S. §§1921 recently have had occasion to examine the re-

We lationship of Administrator to Arbitration Panel Kim v. Estate 37 Pa. Heinzenroether, Common- 3, (1978). n. A.2d wealth 876 n. 328, 3, 874, Ct. therein that: We noted Judiciary Repealer

The new April (‘JARA’), No. 53 ef- , generally fective June contains a Sec- 933(a) (viii) (1) addresses Panel: the Arbitration an

‘Determinations of arbitration panel established under the act of Octo (P.L. 111) ber No. known Malprac as the “Health Care Services Except pre Act.” tice otherwise by general venue rules, scribed shall be county where the cause of action arose.’ that

The fact the Administrator’s determina- scope within the are not included of this tions part an section indicates to us intention on the independence maintain the opin- and further office, buttresses our prelimi- that exercise of the Administrator’s ion nary powers dependent upon subject- is not matter of the Arbitration Panel. ACJA, supra 2; 403 of the See Section note R.A.P. scope addressing the Though in Kim we were jurisdiction, here whereas we are the Administrator’s jurisdiction, appellate defining we be- concerned holding pertinent deter- to our lieve the above appealable made minations corollary thereof, As a Court. petition. the instant entertain have we precedent, to this al- however, A condition lowing authority: by the lower

statement controlling ques- involves order [T]hat [its] *6 there is substantial as to which law tion of opinion ground and that an for difference may appeal the order materi- from immediate ally the ultimate termination of the advance . . . matter. (b). 501(b), §211.501 ACJA, 17 such a statement terminates the in-

The absence petition. compels the quiry dismissal of See But- Butler Area v. School Dis- Association ler Education 382 A.2d Ct. trict, permission petition (1978). As the not contain such a order does statement, accordingly. petition dealt must be the Order September 1978, the Samuel Now, Knight, Administrator of the Estate of M. E. Sharon Knight, to file an deceased, interlocu- tory denied. Dissenting by Judge Opinion DiSalle : agree

I I cannot dissent. appeals from orders of lies with appropriate rather than with the court our holding today The effect of our require pass upon preliminary rulings we e.g., rulings preliminary objec- of the Arbitrator, discovery, joinder tions, of additional defendants, summary judgment, assuming, motions for of course, requirements 501(b) Appel- that the of Section late Court Jurisdiction Act of have been met. specifically When enumerated those appellate jurisdic- cases wherein we have exclusive I fail to see how can its tion,2 we construe silence appeals preliminary rulings concerning from interlocutory, Administrator, definition place as an intention to a whole class cases within discretionary appellate jurisdiction. It seems to appropriate, me much essential, more indeed, eventually try (here, tribunal which must a case pleas) court of common be one which passes especially on all matters, those affecting perceive conduct of the trial. I abso- lutely injecting early no reason ourselves into the stages malpractice litigation, of medical absent a clear legislature. mandate a review

Moreover, of the Health Care Services Malpractice (Act)3 convinces me that go this nature lower to the court. Section 508 specifies powers of the Act4 and duties of the ar- *7 panel. “ap- power bitration Included therein is the to ply pleas of court to enforce the at- testimony produc- tendance and of witnesses and the papers books, examination of and records.” preliminary these matters While to the final de- panel, opposed the arbitration termination of as 1 July 31, 1970, §211.501(1)). P.D. 17 P.S. 2 Appellate and 403 Sections 402 Court Jurisdiction Act of and 211.403. §§211.402 3 October P.D. P.S. §1301.10 seq. et 4 40 §1301.508. P.S. preliminary upon matters Arbitrator

would this is a rule, distinction without difference.5 very legislature’s theAt it indicative of the least, pleas intent that the court of common involve itself aspects prior receiving these some them cases, recog- on de novo. Since the expertise nized the role and of the common court preliminary why in some I see all matters, no reason pre-hearing passed matters such be produces upon court. To determine otherwise duplication judicial anomalous resources. At a ways searching expedite we are time when dis- today’s appeals, position I do not see how decision purpose. will serve joins

Judge in this dissent. Rogers authorizes Ad majori rule motions. Under ministrator on ty’s produce holding, if a motion to were filed advance of the upon by Administrator, hearing, ruled Court, ruling panel come to our while the action of the would his pleas, be the court of common motion would reviewed Tri- Services, Inc., Traveller Interstate a/k/a Township Boggs County Company, Inc., Oil Authority, v. Township Petitioners Boggs Department Pennsylvania, County Mid-Centre Resources and Environmental Authority, Respondents.