Background
Brian E. Griffin, a pro se inmate at the State Correctional Institution at Somerset (SCI-Somerset), filed a medical malpractice complaint in the Somerset County Court of Common Pleas against Murray Thompson, a licensed prison psychologist, and the Prison Medical Department. Griffin alleged that after arriving at SCI-Somerset in 2020 he requested placement in the residential treatment unit (RTU) for deteriorating mental health, was repeatedly denied, and suffered debilitating mental health episodes over two years as a result. He claimed that Thompson and the prison’s mental health staff failed to properly diagnose and treat his mental illness.
Pennsylvania requires plaintiffs in professional liability actions to file a certificate of merit (COM) attesting that an appropriate licensed professional has provided a written statement indicating a reasonable probability that the defendant’s care fell below the acceptable standard and caused the alleged harm. Pa.R.Civ.P. 1042.3. A pro se plaintiff must attach the written statement to the certificate. Pa.R.Civ.P. 1042.3(e). Griffin filed two certificates of merit but neither contained an adequate supporting statement: the first attached a note from Thompson himself saying he had “no idea” what was being asked, and the second attached a letter Griffin wrote to the prothonotary explaining that the defendant refused to provide a statement.
The case also produced a procedural tangle over service. Griffin failed to serve the Office of Attorney General (OAG) — required in all suits against Commonwealth parties under 42 Pa.C.S. § 8523 — yet the prothonotary entered a default judgment. After proper service, the defendants moved to strike the default judgment. The trial court struck it (correctly, the Commonwealth Court held) and gave Griffin 60 days to file an adequate written statement. Griffin timely submitted a letter from Dr. Elicia Stein, a Regional Licensed Psychologist Manager with the Department of Corrections. Dr. Stein reviewed Griffin’s records, concluded he did not meet the criteria for RTU placement, and suggested strategies to improve his therapy engagement, but did not criticize the care he received or opine that it caused him harm. The trial court dismissed Griffin’s complaint with prejudice. Griffin appealed (initially to the Superior Court, which transferred the matter to the Commonwealth Court).
The Court’s Holding
Judge Dumas, writing for a panel of Covey, J., Dumas, J., and Tsai, J., affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated, and remanded. On the default judgment, the court affirmed that the trial court properly struck it: because Griffin had not served the OAG, the court never acquired personal jurisdiction over the defendants and the prothonotary had no authority to enter judgment. On the merits of the certificate of merit, the court agreed that none of Griffin’s three written statements satisfied Rule 1042.3. Thompson’s note expressed confusion about what was being asked and offered no standard-of-care opinion. The second statement was not from a licensed professional at all. Dr. Stein’s letter acknowledged Griffin’s concerns but neither criticized the care provided nor stated a reasonable probability that it caused harm. The court also noted, without finding a case directly on point, that the Rules clearly contemplate “independent expert review rather than self-incrimination”: a pro se plaintiff who seeks statements from the named defendants or those aligned with them is “destined to fail.”
The court reversed, however, on the remedy. Pennsylvania’s Rules of Civil Procedure do not give a trial court authority to dismiss a professional liability complaint with prejudice sua sponte when the plaintiff fails to supply an adequate written statement. Instead, Rules 1042.11 and 1042.12 prescribe a specific sequence: the defendant must first file written notice of intent to enter judgment of non pros, and only then may the defendant file a praecipe with the prothonotary (subject to additional requirements, including attaching a certificate of service). The prothonotary—not the court—enters the judgment of non pros. Critically, a judgment of non pros is not a final adjudication on the merits and does not bar a subsequent action, unlike a dismissal with prejudice. The trial court’s order bypassed this statutory sequence, and the court found no precedent permitting such a shortcut.
Key Takeaways
- A trial court has no authority to sua sponte dismiss a medical malpractice complaint with prejudice for failure to file an adequate written statement in support of a certificate of merit; the defendant must follow the judgment-of-non-pros procedure in Pa.R.Civ.P. 1042.11 and 1042.12, including filing notice of intent and a praecipe supported by a certificate of service.
- Pro se plaintiffs who seek written statements from the named defendants or closely aligned parties will not satisfy Rule 1042.3; the rule contemplates an independent expert who can opine that the defendant’s care fell below the standard and caused harm without essentially admitting liability.
- An adequate written statement must assert a reasonable probability that the defendant breached the standard of care and that the breach caused the plaintiff’s harm; a letter reviewing treatment records, declining to recommend RTU placement, and suggesting self-help therapy strategies does not meet that standard.
- In actions against Commonwealth parties (including prison officials), service on both the agency’s principal office and the Office of Attorney General is required; a default judgment entered without that service is void and subject to a petition to strike as a fatal defect appearing on the face of the record.
Why It Matters
For defense practitioners handling professional liability claims against state correctional and other Commonwealth-party defendants, Griffin is a reminder that taking the judgment-of-non-pros route when a plaintiff’s certificate of merit is deficient is not optional procedure—it is the exclusive procedure. A trial court cannot short-circuit the Rules by dismissing with prejudice, even when the plaintiff’s multiple attempts to secure a proper statement have all failed. That means defendants must file the Rule 1042.11 notice of intent, wait for the deadline to lapse, and then praecipe the prothonotary—a more cumbersome path, but one that ensures the resulting judgment is procedurally sound.
For prisoners and other pro se litigants, the decision offers some practical instruction. The certificate-of-merit requirement is not satisfied by a letter from a defendant or a DOC employee who manages the plaintiff’s facility; the expert must be independent and must expressly opine that the care deviated from the standard and caused the harm. Pro se litigants should also be aware that failing to serve the OAG in any suit against a Commonwealth party will void any default judgment entered in their favor, regardless of whether the defendants later waive OAG service for certain purposes. This is an unreported (non-precedential) opinion, but it applies well-settled Pennsylvania law and is citable for persuasive value under Pa.R.A.P. 126(b).