pleading standard in Pennsylvania

2025We note that “[l]egal conclusions and general allegations of wrongdoing, without the requisite factual averments or support, fail to meet the pleading standard.” McCulligan v. Pennsylvania State Police, 123 A.3d 1136, 1141 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015), aff’d, 135 A.3d 580 (Pa. 2016).

2023“Legal conclusions and general allegations of wrongdoing, without the requisite specific factual averments or support, fail to meet the pleading standard.” McCulligan, 123 A.3d at 1141 (citation omitted).

2021See Portalatin v. Department of Corrections, 979 A.2d 944, 949 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (“Because any right 6 “Legal conclusions and general allegations of wrongdoing, without the requisite specific factual averments or support, fail to meet the pleading standard.” McCulligan v. Pennsylvania State Police, 123 A.3d 1136, 1141 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015), aff’d, 135 A.3d 580 (Pa. 2016) (citing Lerner v. Lerner, 954 A.2d 1229, 1235-36 (Pa. Super. 2008)). 10 [the inmate] may have to be free of co-payments is not of constitutional dimension, and because any right [the inmate] has is limited by [Department] regula

2021“Legal conclusions and general allegations of wrongdoing, without the requisite specific factual averments or support, fail to meet the pleading standard.” Id. (citing Lerner, 954 A.2d at 1235-36 ).

2018No. 1019(b) (“[a]verments of fraud . . . shall be averred with particularity”), and In re Estate of Schofield, 477 A.2d 473, 477 (Pa. 1984) (setting forth two conditions that must be met to satisfy the requirement that fraud be pled with particularity), Appellee asserted that the mere claim that Appellee “lied on the petition” is insufficient to meet this heightened pleading requirement.

2016In re Estate of Schofield, 477 A.2d 473, 477 (Pa 1984).

2025We note that “[l]egal conclusions and general allegations of wrongdoing, without the requisite factual averments or support, fail to meet the pleading standard.” McCulligan v. Pennsylvania State Police, 123 A.3d 1136, 1141 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015), aff’d, 135 A.3d 580 (Pa. 2016).

2021See Portalatin v. Department of Corrections, 979 A.2d 944, 949 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (“Because any right 6 “Legal conclusions and general allegations of wrongdoing, without the requisite specific factual averments or support, fail to meet the pleading standard.” McCulligan v. Pennsylvania State Police, 123 A.3d 1136, 1141 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015), aff’d, 135 A.3d 580 (Pa. 2016) (citing Lerner v. Lerner, 954 A.2d 1229, 1235-36 (Pa. Super. 2008)). 10 [the inmate] may have to be free of co-payments is not of constitutional dimension, and because any right [the inmate] has is limited by [Department] regula

2025See Mazur v. Cuthbert, 186 A.3d 490, 498 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018); Orange Stones Co. v. City of Reading, 87 A.3d 1014, 1022 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014).

2025See Mazur v. Cuthbert, 186 A.3d 490, 498 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018); Orange Stones Co. v. City of Reading, 87 A.3d 1014, 1022 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014).

2024Dist. of Pittsburgh, 729 A.2d 124, 128 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999). 18 Pennsylvania law requires a heightened pleading standard for fraud, specifically, “a pleading of fraud must be done with particularity and requires specific allegations.” Skonieczny v. Dep’t of Cmty. & Econ.

2024Dev., 853 A.2d 1172, 1181 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004). 19 2021.”).

2021Moreover, in considering a demurrer, “this Court is not required to accept as true legal conclusions, unwarranted factual inferences, allegations that constitute argument, or mere opinion.” Commonwealth v. Percudani, 825 A.2d 743, 745 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003).

2021See Portalatin v. Department of Corrections, 979 A.2d 944, 949 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (“Because any right 6 “Legal conclusions and general allegations of wrongdoing, without the requisite specific factual averments or support, fail to meet the pleading standard.” McCulligan v. Pennsylvania State Police, 123 A.3d 1136, 1141 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015), aff’d, 135 A.3d 580 (Pa. 2016) (citing Lerner v. Lerner, 954 A.2d 1229, 1235-36 (Pa. Super. 2008)). 10 [the inmate] may have to be free of co-payments is not of constitutional dimension, and because any right [the inmate] has is limited by [Department] regula

2019The Petition merely indicates, they argue, that, “at some unspecified date[s] and time[s]” Thomas suffered a seizure and “a severe electrical burn for which he received substandard emergency . . . [and] follow-up treatment.” (PO ¶¶ 39, 50.) Such vague allegations, which do not connect the alleged substandard 7 medical treatment to any of the named Employee Respondents, none of whom are medical staff, they argue, do not meet the applicable pleading standard for an Eighth Amendment claim under Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 103-04 (1976).

2019See Ali, 86 A.3d at 178 .

2016Moreover, because the “60-day requirement” of section 9545(b)(2) is a statutory mandate, the pleading rule is “strictly enforced.” Commonwealth v. Monaco, 996 A.2d 1076, 1080 (Pa. Super. 2010); Commonwealth v. Vega, 754 A.2d 714, 718 (Pa. Super. 2000).

2016Moreover, because the “60-day requirement” of section 9545(b)(2) is a statutory mandate, the pleading rule is “strictly enforced.” Commonwealth v. Monaco, 996 A.2d 1076, 1080 (Pa. Super. 2010); Commonwealth v. Vega, 754 A.2d 714, 718 (Pa. Super. 2000).

2014The second element requires a plaintiff to allege that the defendant acted “for the specific purpose of causing harm to the plaintiff.” Id. at 429 (internal citation omitted); see also, Glenn v. Point Park College, 272 A.2d 895, 899 (Pa. 1971) (The tort of interference with contract “is an intentional one: the actor is acting as he does [f]or the purpose of causing harm to the plaintiff’).

2014Hosp., 961 A.2d 192, 200 (Pa. Super.

2014The second element requires a plaintiff to allege that the defendant acted “for the specific purpose of causing harm to the plaintiff.” Id. at 429 (internal citation omitted); see also, Glenn v. Point Park College, 272 A.2d 895, 899 (Pa. 1971) (The tort of interference with contract “is an intentional one: the actor is acting as he does [f]or the purpose of causing harm to the plaintiff’).

2012See Birchwood Lakes Community Association, Inc. v. Comis, 442 A.2d 304, 309 (Pa.Super. 1982) (“If a plaintiff fails to succeed in his claim based on an express contract he may not then attempt to demonstrate a contract implied in fact unless such has been averred in the complaint.”); see also Allegheny Ludlum Industries, Inc. v. CPM Engineers, Inc., 420 A.2d 500, 501-502 (Pa.Super. 1980) (“The wrong which may be proved must be the wrong which has been alleged, not merely another wrong in the same legal category.”).

2012See Birchwood Lakes Community Association, Inc. v. Comis, 442 A.2d 304, 309 (Pa.Super. 1982) (“If a plaintiff fails to succeed in his claim based on an express contract he may not then attempt to demonstrate a contract implied in fact unless such has been averred in the complaint.”); see also Allegheny Ludlum Industries, Inc. v. CPM Engineers, Inc., 420 A.2d 500, 501-502 (Pa.Super. 1980) (“The wrong which may be proved must be the wrong which has been alleged, not merely another wrong in the same legal category.”).

2012In analyzing a pleading under rule 1028(a)(3), the court must determine ‘’’whether the complaint is sufficiently clear to enable the defendant to prepare his defense.’” or ‘’’whether the plaintiff’s complaint informs the defendant with accuracy and completeness of the specific basis on which recovery is sought so that he may know without question upon what grounds to make his defense.’” Rambo v. Greene, 906 A.2d 1232, 1236 (Pa.Super.2006), quoting Ammulung v. City of Chester, 302 A.2d 491 , 498 n.36 (Pa. Super. 1973) (internal citations omitted).

2011Pa.R.C.P. 1019(b) (“Averments of fraud... shall be averred with particularity.”); see also Martin v. Lancaster Battery Co., 530 Pa. 11, 13 , 606 A.2d 444, 448 (Pa. 1992) (an allegation of fraud must “explain the nature of the claim to the opposing party so as to permit the preparation of a defense” and be “sufficient to convince the court that the averments are not merely subterfuge”).

2011Pa.R.C.P. 1019(b) (“Averments of fraud... shall be averred with particularity.”); see also Martin v. Lancaster Battery Co., 530 Pa. 11, 13 , 606 A.2d 444, 448 (Pa. 1992) (an allegation of fraud must “explain the nature of the claim to the opposing party so as to permit the preparation of a defense” and be “sufficient to convince the court that the averments are not merely subterfuge”).

2008Therefore, under this theory of recovery, a plaintiff must establish the elements of a negligence claim, “i.e., that the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, the defendant breached that duty, the breach resulted in injury to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff suffered an actual loss or damage.” Brown v. Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine, 760 A.2d 863, 868 (Pa.Super.2000), appeal denied, 566 Pa. 632 , 781 A.2d 137 (2001), quoting Martin v. Evans, 551 Pa. 496, 502 , 711 A.2d 458, 461 (1998). ¶ 16 In this case, Toney satisfied the pleading requirement for a “duty of care” acti

2008Therefore, under this theory of recovery, a plaintiff must establish the elements of a negligence claim, "i.e., that the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, the defendant breached that duty, the breach resulted in injury to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff suffered an actual loss or damage." Brown v. Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine, 760 A.2d 863, 868 (Pa.Super.2000), appeal denied, 566 Pa. 632 , 781 A.2d 137 (2001), quoting Martin v. Evans, 551 Pa. 496, 502 , 711 A.2d 458, 461 (1998). ¶ 16 In this case, Toney satisfied the pleading requirement for a "duty of care" acti

2008Therefore, under this theory of recovery, a plaintiff must establish the elements of a negligence claim, “i.e., that the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, the defendant breached that duty, the breach resulted in injury to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff suffered an actual loss or damage.” Brown v. Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine, 760 A.2d 863, 868 (Pa.Super.2000), appeal denied, 566 Pa. 632 , 781 A.2d 137 (2001), quoting Martin v. Evans, 551 Pa. 496, 502 , 711 A.2d 458, 461 (1998). ¶ 16 In this case, Toney satisfied the pleading requirement for a “duty of care” acti

2008Therefore, under this theory of recovery, a plaintiff must establish the elements of a negligence claim, “i.e., that the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, the defendant breached that duty, the breach resulted in injury to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff suffered an actual loss or damage.” Brown v. Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine, 760 A.2d 863, 868 (Pa.Super.2000), appeal denied, 566 Pa. 632 , 781 A.2d 137 (2001), quoting Martin v. Evans, 551 Pa. 496, 502 , 711 A.2d 458, 461 (1998). ¶ 16 In this case, Toney satisfied the pleading requirement for a “duty of care” acti