Wolloch v. Aiken, 572 Pa. 335

Summary

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that summary judgment was properly entered in a medical malpractice action after the plaintiff failed to submit required expert reports by the case-management deadline. The court distinguished discovery sanctions from summary judgment under Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1035.2 and 1035.3, reversed the Superior Court, and reinstated the trial court's orders.

Holdings

1. A summary-judgment motion is permissible when the record shows that discovery relevant to the motion has been completed and the opposing party has failed to produce expert evidence essential to establish a prima facie medical-malpractice case, even if the party later submits untimely expert reports.
2. A trial court's entry of summary judgment based on failure to produce evidence essential to the claim is not subject to the factors governing discovery sanctions under Rule 4019 when no party moved for sanctions.
3. The court did not accept Wolloch's argument that her post-judgment expert reports required consideration as a timely supplementation of the summary-judgment record under Rule 1035.3(b).

Questions Presented

1. Whether a summary-judgment motion under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1035.2 is premature when filed after the court-ordered discovery deadline but before the plaintiff submits late expert reports.
2. Whether the trial court should have treated the plaintiff's post-judgment expert reports as supplementation under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1035.3(b).
3. Whether the summary-judgment motions should instead have been analyzed as discovery sanctions under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4019.

Disposition

reversed