professional liability claim in Pennsylvania

2025This Court has explained that [we] refused to excuse a plaintiff from filing a certificate of merit merely because the plaintiff “fails to expressly indicate in its complaint that it is asserting a professional liability claim, . . . when, in substance, the plaintiff is actually asserting a professional liability claim.” Varner v. Classic Communities Corp., 890 A.2d 1068, 1074 (Pa. Super. 2006) (emphasis in original). “[I]t is the substance of the complaint rather than its form which controls whether the claim against a professionally licensed defendant sounds in . . . professional malpractice

2025This Court has explained that [we] refused to excuse a plaintiff from filing a certificate of merit merely because the plaintiff “fails to expressly indicate in its complaint that it is asserting a professional liability claim, . . . when, in substance, the plaintiff is actually asserting a professional liability claim.” Varner v. Classic Communities Corp., 890 A.2d 1068, 1074 (Pa. Super. 2006) (emphasis in original). “[I]t is the substance of the complaint rather than its form which controls whether the claim against a professionally licensed defendant sounds in . . . professional malpractice

2022Appellee stated that, pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1042.7, it intended to enter a judgment of non pros against Appellant “after thirty (30) days of this notice if a certificate of merit is not filed as required by Pa.R.Civ.P. 1042.3.”3 Notice of Intent, 3/5/21. ____________________________________________ 2 Indeed, the amended complaint was a change in namely only from the original complaint titled “Professional Liability Complaint.” 3 As our Supreme Court has described, Rule 1042.3 “is one in a series of rules that govern procedure in a civil action in which a professional liability claim is asser

2017Id. 2 As our Supreme Court has described, Rule 1042.3 “is one in a series of rules that govern procedure in a civil action in which a professional liability claim is asserted against a licensed professional.” Womer v. Hiliker, 908 A.2d 269, 275 (Pa. 2006) (citation omitted).

2025Sabella v. Estate of Milides, 992 A.2d 180, 187 (Pa. Super. 2010) (some citations omitted and some formatting altered); see also Ditch, 917 A.2d 321 -22 (explaining that “[i]n order to determine what theory of liability [the plaintiff] is asserting, this Court must examine the averments [the plaintiff] makes in [the amended] complaint[,]” and concluding that, after viewing - 14 - allegations of the amended complaint as a whole, the plaintiff raised a professional liability claim (citations omitted)).

2025Sabella v. Estate of Milides, 992 A.2d 180, 187 (Pa. Super. 2010) (some citations omitted and some formatting altered); see also Ditch, 917 A.2d 321 -22 (explaining that “[i]n order to determine what theory of liability [the plaintiff] is asserting, this Court must examine the averments [the plaintiff] makes in [the amended] complaint[,]” and concluding that, after viewing - 14 - allegations of the amended complaint as a whole, the plaintiff raised a professional liability claim (citations omitted)).

2026“In most cases, such a determination requires expert testimony because the negligence of a [licensed] professional encompasses matters not within the ordinary knowledge and experience of laypersons.” Merlini, 934 A.2d at 104; see also Yee, 878 A.2d at 912 (stating, “because - 13 - the negligence of a [health care provider] encompasses matters not within the ordinary knowledge and experience of laypersons, a medical malpractice plaintiff must present expert testimony to establish the applicable standard of care, the deviation from that standard, causation[,] and the extent of the injury” (citat

2026To establish a breach of duty within the context of a professional liability claim, a plaintiff must show that the licensed professional’s “conduct fell below the relevant standard of care appliable to the rendition of the professional services at issue.” Id.; see also Yee v. Roberts, 878 A.2d 906, 912 (Pa. Super. 2005) (defining medical malpractice or professional negligence within the context of medical services as “the unwarranted departure from generally accepted standards of medical practice resulting in injury to a patient, including all liability-producing conduct arising from the rendi

2026“In most cases, such a determination requires expert testimony because the negligence of a [licensed] professional encompasses matters not within the ordinary knowledge and experience of laypersons.” Merlini, 934 A.2d at 104; see also Yee, 878 A.2d at 912 (stating, “because - 13 - the negligence of a [health care provider] encompasses matters not within the ordinary knowledge and experience of laypersons, a medical malpractice plaintiff must present expert testimony to establish the applicable standard of care, the deviation from that standard, causation[,] and the extent of the injury” (citat

2026“In most cases, such a determination requires expert testimony because the negligence of a [licensed] professional encompasses matters not within the ordinary knowledge and experience of laypersons.” Merlini, 934 A.2d at 104; see also Yee, 878 A.2d at 912 (stating, “because - 13 - the negligence of a [health care provider] encompasses matters not within the ordinary knowledge and experience of laypersons, a medical malpractice plaintiff must present expert testimony to establish the applicable standard of care, the deviation from that standard, causation[,] and the extent of the injury” (citat

2022Appellees dispute Appellant’s assertion that the Superior Court misconstrued her complaint to conclude that she did not allege negligence by her attorneys, and, indeed, they contend that it is clear from the record that Appellant’s “true objective in bringing this professional liability claim was to revisit the amount of the 11Appellant compares the unpublished decision in Abeln v. Eidelman, 2015 WL 7573233 , *2 (Pa. Super. 2015) (“McMahon did not serve to limit Muhammad to its facts, and Muhammad remains as controlling precedent until a true majority of the supreme court rules otherwise”), wi

2014In Strine , the Court held that failure to monitor a bath given to an incapacitated person in a health care institution involved sufficient skill and specialized training to be covered as a professional liability claim under the Malpractice Act, despite the fact that no high level of training or medical skill was required, because it involved “the exercise of professional judgment as to considerations such as when and how frequently to check the water temperature, whether a person in [that] condition would be able to remove herself from the tub if the water became too hot, and whether there wa

2014In Strine , the Court held that failure to monitor a bath given to an incapacitated person in a health care institution involved sufficient skill and specialized training to be covered as a professional liability claim under the Malpractice Act, despite the fact that no high level of training or medical skill was required, because it involved “the exercise of professional judgment as to considerations such as when and how frequently to check the water temperature, whether a person in [that] condition would be able to remove herself from the tub if the water became too hot, and whether there wa

2010Kituskie v. Corbman, 552 Pa. 275, 281 , 714 A.2d 1027, 1029 (1998).

2010Kituskie v. Corbman, 552 Pa. 275, 281 , 714 A.2d 1027, 1029 (1998).

2009See Pollock v. Feinstein, 917 A.2d 875, 878 (Pa.Super.2007) (finding that “at the core of’ appellant’s informed consent/battery claim were allegations that a licensed medical practitioner deviated from the acceptable standard of care and thus, appellant’s informed consent/batter claim required the filing of a COM); Ditch, 917 A.2d at 323 (“Here, the original complaint and the amended complaint do not specify that a professional liability claim is being raised.

2009See Pollock v. Feinstein, 917 A.2d 875, 878 (Pa.Super.2007) (finding that “at the core of’ appellant’s informed consent/battery claim were allegations that a licensed medical practitioner deviated from the acceptable standard of care and thus, appellant’s informed consent/batter claim required the filing of a COM); Ditch, 917 A.2d at 323 (“Here, the original complaint and the amended complaint do not specify that a professional liability claim is being raised.

2007Co., 829 A.2d 1173, 1177-78 (Pa.Super.2003), rev’d on other grounds, 578 Pa. 154 , 849 A.2d 1202 (2004). ¶ 12 Here, the original complaint and the amended complaint do not specify that a professional liability claim is being raised.