Court Finds That Discovery Rule Did Not Extend Statute of Limitations in Veterinary Malpractice Suit

In the case of Vonnieda-Lagrassa v. Pet Emergency Treatment and Specialty, Inc., No. CI-25-09074 (C.P. Lanc. Co. May 1, 2026 Brown, J.), the court addressed a Defendant veterinary office’s Preliminary Objections against a Plaintiffs’ Complaint based upon a statute of limitations defense.

According to the Opinion, this case arose out of allegedly negligent treatment provided to the Plaintiffs’ dogs by a veterinary office.

The court noted that the dogs were brought to the facility on September 17, 2023 for the treatment at issue.  Unfortunately, one of the dogs died shortly after this treatment.

Thereafter, a necropsy was performed on the deceased dogs and a final report in that regard was issued on November 13, 2023. The Plaintiffs alleged that they received that report on December 8, 2023.

The court otherwise noted that the Plaintiffs later filed a Writ of Summons on December 2, 2025.

The Defendants raised their statute of limitations defense by way of Preliminary Objections.

The court noted that, while the statute of limitations defenses is more properly raised in a New Matter and not by Preliminary Objections, such a defense may be raised by way of a Preliminary Objection where the defense is established on the face of the Complaint.

Reviewing the record before it, the court rejected the Plaintiffs’ efforts to argue that Pennsylvania's discovery rule tolled the statute of limitations.

The court found that the discovery rule did not toll the statute of limitations in this case because the Plaintiffs had actual or constructive inquiry notice on the day that their dog was discharged from the care of the veterinary office. More specifically, the court found that the record confirmed that, at the time of discharge, the Plaintiffs were on notice of both the alleged significant harm and factual causal link to the Defendant’s conduct. The court rejected the argument that the later necropsy report should be deemed to have delayed the accrual date for the statute of limitations.

As such, the court granted the Defendant’s Preliminary Objections based upon the statute of limitations and dismissed the matter.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert, www.Law.com (July 9, 2026).

Source of image:  Photo by Mikhail Nilov on www.pexels.com.