Background
J-A10032-26 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37 JOANNE JORDAN AND STEPHEN : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JORDAN : PENNSYLVANIA : Appellants : : : v. : : : No. 1296 EDA 2025 MICHAEL LYNDE, YOUVAL KATZ, PENN : HEMATOLOGY AND ONCOLOGY, AND : JOHN YOUSSEF : Appeal from the Order Entered April 17, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Civil Division at No(s): 2021-02616 BEFORE: STABILE, J., LANE, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.* MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED JULY 22, 2026 In this medical malpractice action, Plaintiffs/Appellants Joanne Jordan and Stephen Jordan appeal from the Order entered by the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County on April 17, 2025, granting summary judgment as to the remaining defendant, Defendant/Appellee, Michael Lynde, D.P.M. They claim the trial court erred by granting Dr. Lynde’s summary judgment motion that asserted a limitations period defense, pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5524, infra, when factual questions regarding their diligence to discover the cause of her post-surgical complications existed. After careful consideration, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this decision. ____________________________________________ * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. Lynde, et al, (non-precedential decision) 330 A.3d 817 (Pa.
rsuant to the Final Date Certain Case Management Order, discovery was to be completed by August 31, 2023. See Order, March 15, 2023, entered by the Honorable Robert O. Fn1 [Reference to misspelling of the Jordans’ first names in the lower court’s caption and in the pleadings. The present caption on appeal has corrected the misspellings.] Fn2 [Identifying other defendants named in the original Complaint but not in the Amended Complaint.] On October 26, 2023, Defendants Dr. Katz, and Penn Hematology & Oncology filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, asserting (1) [the Jordans] failed to establish a prima facie case of negligence by failing to produce an expert report as to those defendants; and (2) the statute of limitations had run by the time [the Jordans] initiated their case. On November 28, 2023, Defendants praeciped their Motion for Summary Judgment at which time [the trial court] had the ability to enter an Order ruling upon Defendants’ Motion. On December 5, 2023, Defendant Lynde filed an untimely Motion, intending to join the other Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, for one of the reasons which the other Defendants assert[, namely, that the] Jordans’ claims are barred by the statute of limitations. There was a continuance requested by the Jordans; however, the record is devoid of the consent to that continuance request.fn3 [The trial court] entered the Order at issue in this appeal on December 13, 2023. Fn3 The parties had a mandatory phone conference on December 8, 2023, with the Honorable Robert O.
The Court’s Holding
he Final Date Certain Case Management Order, discovery was to be completed by August 31, 2023. See Order, March 15, 2023, entered by the Honorable Robert O. Fn1 [Reference to misspelling of the Jordans’ first names in the lower court’s caption and in the pleadings. The present caption on appeal has corrected the misspellings.] Fn2 [Identifying other defendants named in the original Complaint but not in the Amended Complaint.] On October 26, 2023, Defendants Dr. Katz, and Penn Hematology & Oncology filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, asserting (1) [the Jordans] failed to establish a prima facie case of negligence by failing to produce an expert report as to those defendants; and (2) the statute of limitations had run by the time [the Jordans] initiated their case. On November 28, 2023, Defendants praeciped their Motion for Summary Judgment at which time [the trial court] had the ability to enter an Order ruling upon Defendants’ Motion. On December 5, 2023, Defendant Lynde filed an untimely Motion, intending to join the other Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, for one of the reasons which the other Defendants assert[, namely, that the] Jordans’ claims are barred by the statute of limitations. There was a continuance requested by the Jordans; however, the record is devoid of the consent to that continuance request.fn3 [The trial court] entered the Order at issue in this appeal on December 13, 2023. Fn3 The parties had a mandatory phone conference on December 8, 2023, with the Honorable Robert O. Baldi, whereby [the Jordans] asserted they received consent to extend the time to respond to the pending Motion for Summary Judgment.
The decision applies Pennsylvania law to the issues preserved in this appeal and explains the governing standard in the court’s own terms. The disposition controls the parties’ next steps and supplies guidance for litigants confronting the same procedural or substantive question.
Key Takeaways
- he Final Date Certain Case Management Order, discovery was to be completed by August 31, 2023.
- See Order, March 15, 2023, entered by the Honorable Robert O.
- Fn1 [Reference to misspelling of the Jordans’ first names in the lower court’s caption and in the pleadings.
Why It Matters
Superior Court sends a medical-malpractice limitations dispute to a jury Pennsylvania practitioners should read the ruling with particular attention to the court’s treatment of preservation, the applicable standard, and the remedy. Those points will shape how comparable claims are framed in trial courts and reviewed on appeal.