Henry, M. v. Colangelo, N.

Henry v. Colangelo, 2025 Pa. Super. 265 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · November 26, 2025 · No. 79 MDA 2025

Summary

The Pennsylvania Superior Court quashed Maryjane Henry’s appeal from an order granting summary judgment to four defendants in a negligence and wrongful-death action. The court held that the order was not properly final under Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 341 because claims against two other defendants remained and the relevant finality factors did not support immediate appellate review.

Court
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Writing for the Court
Kunselman, J.; McLaughlin, J.; Lane, J.
Jurisdiction
Pennsylvania Superior Court
Decision date
November 26, 2025
Docket number
79 MDA 2025
Procedural posture
Maryjane Henry appealed an order granting summary judgment to four of six defendants in a negligence and wrongful-death action. The trial court certified the partial summary-judgment order as final under Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 341(c).
Standard of review
Whether appellate jurisdiction exists is a question of law reviewed de novo, with a plenary scope of review. The Superior Court may raise appellate jurisdiction sua sponte.
Precedential value
Published and precedential
Parties
Maryjane Henry, executrix of the Estate of Scott E. Henry v. Nicholas F. Colangelo, Ph.D., Clear Brook Foundation, Inc., Albert D. Janerich, M.D., Albert D. Janerich and Associates, Matthew A. Berger, M.D., Matthew A. Berger, M.D., P.C.
Disposition
quashed

Topics

appellate jurisdictionfinal judgment ruleinterlocutory appealappellate procedurecivil procedure

Practice areas

appellate procedurecivil procedurenegligencewrongful death

Questions Presented

  1. Whether a partial summary-judgment order disposing of claims against four of six defendants could be certified as a final order under Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 341(c).
  2. Whether the appeal should be quashed as premature because the trial court's certification was unsupported and an immediate appeal would not facilitate resolution of the entire case.

Holdings

  1. An order granting summary judgment to only some defendants and leaving unrelated claims against other defendants pending is not a final order under Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 341(b)(1).
  2. A trial court may certify an order disposing of fewer than all claims or parties as final only when an immediate appeal would facilitate resolution of the entire case, and the certification must be supported by consideration of the four Rule 341 factors.
  3. Because the Rule 341(c) certification was erroneous and the order was not otherwise final, the Superior Court lacked appellate jurisdiction and was required to quash the appeal as premature.

Key quotations

The summary-judgment order here only disposed of some claims and some parties. Thus, it is not a “final order” under Pa.R.A.P. 341(b)(1). (at 3)
On balance, the four Pa.R.A.P. 341(c) factors disfavor a determination of finality. (at 7)
Appeal quashed. Case stricken from the argument list. (at 7)

Factual background

Scott E. Henry received outpatient treatment from several defendants and later died by suicide. The claims against four defendants concerned treatment preceding treatment by Dr. Matthew Berger, while the remaining claims alleged that Dr. Berger and his practice negligently diagnosed Henry, prescribed medication, and failed to timely return a call reporting that the medication was ineffective. The trial court granted summary judgment to the four earlier-treatment defendants, leaving the claims against Berger and his practice unresolved.

Procedural history

Henry filed suit against six defendants arising from her husband's suicide while receiving outpatient care. After discovery, all defendants moved for summary judgment; the trial court granted judgment to four defendants while claims against Dr. Berger and his practice remained pending. The trial court later certified the partial judgment as final, but the Superior Court held that the certification was erroneous and quashed the appeal as premature.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…