relation-back doctrine in Pennsylvania

2025D’Orazio, 406 A.2d at 552 .

2025The crucial factors are that letters had been requested and the action commenced within the statutory period, and [the plaintiff’s] appointment as administratrix, under the circumstances of this case, “was substantially assured at the time the complaint was filed, . . . within the statutory period of limitations.” D’Orazio, 406 A.2d at 552 , quoting McGuire, 385 A.2d at 468. -9- J-E01003-24 Not long after D’Orazio, our Supreme Court addressed a similar scenario in Estate of Gasbarini v. Medical Ctr. of Beaver Cnty., 409 A.2d 343 (Pa. 1979).

2025Hospital v. Lesho, 435 A.2d 1340, 1342 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981).2 The relation back doctrine is clearly inapplicable under the facts of this matter.

2025Hospital v. Lesho, 435 A.2d 1340, 1342 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981).2 The relation back doctrine is clearly inapplicable under the facts of this matter.

2023Concerning the parties’ relationship, these facts evidence “the sort of instability that statutes of limitation seek to preclude.” McGuire, supra. [Plaintiff] has cited no case, and we are aware of none, in which the relation back doctrine was applied to ratify, post-appointment, the attempted commencement of an action by a personal representative whose existence was in no way suggested by the pleading that he filed.

1997Accordingly, the Superior Court applied the doctrine of relation back “so that the action of appellee in instituting this suit within the limitation period but prior to his appointment may be validated by his appointment after the period.” Id., 253 Pa.Super. at 533-34 , 385 A.2d at 467 .

2025Finally, this Court revisited the relation back doctrine in the context of a survival action in Prevish, supra. There, the plaintiff’s wife allegedly - 12 - J-E01003-24 suffered a stroke and paralysis because of defendants’ medical malpractice.

2025Id. at 204 (emphasis in original). - 13 - J-E01003-24 With this in mind, the Prevish court went on to find that the relation back doctrine did not apply to the plaintiff’s actions because [t]he writ of summons was the only document filed before the limitations period expired, and its caption identifies the estate of the decedent as the plaintiff.

2025I also respectfully disagree with President Judge Lazarus’s application of the relation back doctrine in her concurring opinion (“concurring opinion”), because it is inconsistent with our Supreme Court’s decision in Estate of Gasbarini v. Medical Ctr. of Beaver Cnty., 409 A.2d 343 (Pa. 1979).

2025I also respectfully disagree with President Judge Lazarus’s application of the relation back doctrine in her concurring opinion (“concurring opinion”), because it is inconsistent with our Supreme Court’s decision in Estate of Gasbarini v. Medical Ctr. of Beaver Cnty., 409 A.2d 343 (Pa. 1979).

2025In Lovejoy v. Georgeff, -7- J-E01003-24 303 A.2d 501 (Pa. Super. 1973), a minor child was injured in an automobile accident in which the driver was killed.

2005Neither will the objectives of the statute of limitations have been disturbed.” Lesho, 62 Pa. Commw. at 227-28 , 303 A.2d at 1343 . (emphasis in original) Plaintiff further cites Prevish v. Northwest Medical Center, 692 A.2d 193 ,204-205 (Pa. Super. 1997), which discussed the doctrine of relation back but held that the filing of the complaint in a survival action where the plaintiff was named as the executor after the limitations period had expired did not relate back to the filing of the writ of summons, which named decedent’s estate as the plaintiff.

2025See Loftus v. Decker, -6- J-A10018-25 289 A.3d 1093 , 1097 (Pa. Super. 2023) (en banc) (“An issue is important if the interests that would potentially go unprotected without immediate appellate review of that issue are significant relative to the efficiency interests sought to be advanced by the final judgment rule.”) (citation omitted).

2023Generally, “all actions that survive a decedent must be brought by or against the personal representative” and “a decedent's estate cannot be a party to litigation unless a personal representative exists.” Salvadia v. Askbrook, 923 A.2d 436, 440 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citation omitted).

2006See Brief for Appellee at 13-14 (citing Commonwealth v. Flanagan, 578 Pa. 587 , 854 A.2d 489 (2004)).

2006See Brief for Appellee at 13-14 (citing Commonwealth v. Flanagan, 578 Pa. 587 , 854 A.2d 489 (2004)).