Frick, S. v. Li, F
225 A.3d 573, 2019 Pa. Super. 367 (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A complaint will not be dismissed for delayed service of process after the statute of limitations has expired if the plaintiff made a good-faith effort to provide notice and did not intend to stall the judicial process, especially where the defendant had actual notice of the suit and cannot demonstrate prejudice from the delay.
Facts:
- Todd Frick was a patient of Dr. Fuhai Li for treatment of chronic pain and neurological issues related to bulging or herniated discs.
- Dr. Li prescribed Mr. Frick several controlled substances, including Vicodin, Morphine, Flexeril, Hydrocodone, Contin, and Oxycodone.
- Sharon Frick alleges that Dr. Li's acts and omissions in prescribing these medications caused her husband, Todd Frick, to become addicted to them.
- Todd Frick died on May 1, 2015.
- Sharon Frick alleges that Dr. Li's professional negligence and breach of the standards of care caused her husband's death.
Procedural Posture:
- Sharon Frick (Appellee) filed a Writ of Summons against Dr. Fuhai Li (Appellant) in the Court of Common Pleas of Pike County on April 27, 2017.
- Dr. Li's counsel filed an entry of appearance and a rule to file a complaint on May 23, 2017.
- Frick filed her initial Complaint on June 14, 2017, and subsequently filed a Fourth Amended Complaint on December 4, 2017.
- Dr. Li filed a Motion to Dismiss on December 7, 2017, and Preliminary Objections to the Fourth Amended Complaint on December 21, 2017, both arguing lack of proper service.
- The Court of Common Pleas (trial court) denied Dr. Li's Motion to Dismiss on June 6, 2018, finding Frick had made a good-faith effort at service.
- On March 8, 2019, the trial court granted Dr. Li's motion to amend its prior order to certify that a substantial issue of jurisdiction was presented, permitting an immediate appeal.
- Dr. Li (Appellant) appealed the trial court's order denying his motion to dismiss to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a plaintiff's persistent but unsuccessful service attempts at a single known address, made through official channels like the sheriff's office, fail to meet the 'good-faith effort' standard for service under Pennsylvania law, thus requiring dismissal of the complaint, when the defendant had actual notice of the lawsuit and was not prejudiced by the delay?
Opinions:
Majority - Stevens, P.J.E.
No. A plaintiff's persistent but unsuccessful service attempts do not require dismissal where the efforts were made in good faith and the defendant had actual notice and suffered no prejudice. Under the standard clarified in McCreesh v. City of Philadelphia, dismissal for improper service is only appropriate where a plaintiff demonstrates an intent to stall the judicial machinery or where the failure to comply with procedural rules has prejudiced the defendant. Here, Frick did not intend to stall; she initiated service immediately through the Sheriff's Office, made multiple attempts, reinstated the writ, and followed up with the postmaster. Furthermore, Dr. Li was not prejudiced, as his counsel entered an appearance shortly after the suit was filed and actively litigated the case, demonstrating that Dr. Li had actual notice of the action against him. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to dismiss the complaint.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the flexible, non-mechanical approach to Pennsylvania's 'good-faith effort' rule for service of process established in Lamp v. Heyman and clarified by McCreesh v. City of Philadelphia. It solidifies the principle that the rule's primary purpose is to prevent plaintiffs from intentionally delaying litigation after tolling the statute of limitations, not to punish technical missteps or simple negligence in service. The court places a heavy burden on defendants seeking dismissal to prove either the plaintiff's intent to stall or actual prejudice from the delay. This case serves as strong precedent that where a defendant has actual notice of a suit, a motion to dismiss for defective service is unlikely to succeed without a clear showing of prejudice or intentional delay.
