Dudek, B. v. The Chester County Hospital ( 2016 )

J. A21027/16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
BRENDA M. DUDEK AND MICHAEL H. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
DUDEK : PENNSYLVANIA
Appellants :
:
:
v. :
THE CHESTER COUNTY HOSPITAL AND :
HEALTH SYSTEM, GAWTHROP, :
GREENWOOD : No. 3063 EDA 2015
Appeal from the Order Entered September 3, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County
Civil Division at No(s): 2013-12455
BEFORE: Bender, P.J.E., DUBOW, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY DUBOW, J.: FILED JULY 19, 2016
Appellants, Brenda M. Dudek and Michael H. Dudek, plaintiffs below,
appeal, pro se, from the final order entered in the Chester County Court of
Common Pleas on September 3, 2015, granting summary judgment in favor
of Appellees, The Chester County Hospital and Health System, Richard O.
Donze, D.O., MPH, Stephanie Ciccarelli, M.D., Therese M. Winkler, Martye L.
Marshall, M.D., and “Other John &/or Mary Doe Doctors (the “Hospital
Appellees”), Neighborhood Health Agencies, Inc., Neighborhood Visiting
Nurse Association, and Debbie Travers. Appellants also appeal from the
April 23, 2014 Order sustaining the Preliminary Objections filed by Appellee
Gawthrop Greenwood, P.C.; the April 25, 2014 Order granting in part and
denying in part the Preliminary Objections filed by the Hospital Appellees;
J. A21027/16
and the September 17, 2014 Order granting the Motion to Dismiss filed by
Richard Donze, D.O. We conclude Appellants have waived their issues on
appeal. Accordingly, we affirm.
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4) requires that, when the trial court orders an
appellant to file a Rule 1925(b) Statement, the Statement “shall set forth
only those rulings or errors that the appellant intends to challenge,” that the
“Statement concisely identify each ruling or error that the appellant intends
to challenge,” and that the Statement “should not be redundant or provide
lengthy explanations as to any error desires clarification of the errors
complained of on appeal.” See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(i), (ii), and (iv).
In the instant case, Appellants filed a Rule 1925(b) Statement
consisting of 39 pages of unnumbered alleged errors. Our review of
Appellants’ Statement confirms that “[t]he allegations of error are presented
in a narrative format which contradicts the events of which [Appellants]
complain.” Trial Ct. Op., 10/29/15, at 2. Many of the issues raised therein
contain multiple sub-parts and excessive explanations regarding the alleged
errors. Consequently, the trial court found it “difficult to discern a legal
basis for the alleged errors[,]” and believed that Appellants’ 1925(b)
Statement, “put[] them in danger of having all issues waived.” Id. at 3. As
a result, the trial court declined to address the alleged errors, and instead
directed this Court to its Orders of April 23, 2014, April 25, 2014, September
17, 2014, and September 3, 2015.
-2-
J. A21027/16
“[T]he issue of waiver based on a violation of Rule 1925(b) is
expressly reserved to the appellate courts, and not to the trial courts.”
Commonwealth v. Donahue, 630 A.2d 1238, 1242-43 (Pa. Super. 1993).
Here, we ascertain that Appellants’ disregard of both the spirit and explicit
text of Rule 1925(b)(4) is too egregious to be overlooked. Accordingly, we
conclude that all of the claims raised in Appellants’ Rule 1925(b) statement
have been waived for their failure to comply with Rule 1925(b)(4), and we
affirm the orders of the trial court on that basis. See Tucker v. R.M.
Tours, 939 A.2d 343, 346-47 (Pa. Super. 2007) (finding the appellant’s
issues waived where his Rule 1925(b) Statement consisted of 16 pages with
76 paragraphs, and was so voluminous that it created confusion for the trial
court); Kanter v. Epstein, 866 A.2d 394, 401 (Pa. Super. 2004) (finding
the appellants’ issues waived where they raised an “outrageous number of
issues”).
Orders affirmed. Case is stricken from the argument list. Jurisdiction
relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 7/19/2016
-3-
J. A21027/16
-4-