Trial Court Urges Superior Court to Dismiss Plaintiff's Appeal for Failing to File a Concise Statement of Matters Complained of On Appeal

In the case of Becker v. Empire Holdings, LLP, LLC, No. 2024-CV-05339 (C.P. Bucks Co. June 12, 2025 Corr, J.), the trial court issued a Rule 1925 Opinion requesting the Superior Court to dismiss the Plaintiff’s appeal relative to the trial court’s sustaining of the Defendant’s Preliminary Objections to the Plaintiff’s Complaint.

This case arose out of issues that the Plaintiff had relative to repairs made to the Plaintiff’s Range Rover vehicle.

One of the Preliminary Objections sustained by the court resulted in the dismissal of the Plaintiff’s Complaint for lack of jurisdiction.

In its short Opinion, the trial court noted that the appeal by the Plaintiff should be dismissed because the Plaintiff failed to file his Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal. The trial court ruled that the Plaintiff had therefore waived all issues for appeal as a result.

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


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert, www.Law.com (Sept. 5, 2025).

Appellate Court Overrules Trial Court's Application of Archaic Local Rule

The Superior Court has ruled against another archaic local rule in its recent decision in the case of Biros v. U Lock, Inc., No. 113 WDA 2024 (Pa. Super. Aug. 1, 2025 Lazarus, P.J., Bowes, J., and King, J.) (Op. by Lazarus, P.J.).

In this matter, the court vacated the trial court Order out of the Common Pleas of Westmoreland County in which the trial court had denied, with prejudice, an appellant’s Motion to file her Pa. R.A.P. 1925(b) Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal, nunc pro tunc.  

The appellate court noted that the appellant had timely filed her Notice of Appeal but her otherwise compliant electronic filing was rejected by a County Prothonotary pursuant to a local rule of court requiring that notices of appeal be filed in person or by mail.  

The appellate court further held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to deny the appellant’s Motion to Leave to File a Rule 1925(b) Statement while the appellant’s Petition for Allowance of Appeal to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania remain pending.  

The Superior Court noted that, Pa. R.C.P. 205.4(e)(2) bars any refusal of an otherwise compliant pleading for filing based upon a requirement of a local rule pertaining to the electronic filing of legal papers.  The court found that Westmoreland County’s requirement that notices of appeal could be filed only in person or by mail was such a local rule. 

Accordingly, the appellate court ruled that the appellant’s initial filing was properly and timely filed and was sufficient to initiate the appeal.  

As such, the appellate court vacated the trial court’s Order and remanded the case for further proceedings.  

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

Source:  The Legal Intelligencer State Appellate Case Alert, www.Law.com (Aug. 19, 2025).

Source of image: Photo by Priyank V on www.unsplash.com.

Zero Verdict For Pain and Suffering Damages Upheld

In the case of Wilson v. Hannigan, Aug. Term, 2022, No. 00196 (C.P. Phila. Co. Nov. 22, 2022 Alan, J.), the trial court issued a Rule 1925 Opinion following a slip and fall case in which a jury found the parties to be equally liable and in which the jury granted the Plaintiff an economic damages award but no pain and suffering award.

The Court noted that, the Plaintiff was not able to advise the jury was to what caused her to fall on a sidewalk.  

Also, the medical evidence appeared to confirm that the Plaintiff may have sustained an ankle sprain for which she had minimal and conservative treatment.  The trial court judge also noted in his Opinion that, although the Plaintiff testified to the jury that she had walked with a limp at times, the jury was able to watch the Plaintiff walk to and from the witness stand.    

In requesting the Pennsylvania Superior Court to affirm its decision denying the Plaintiff’s Motion for a New Trial, the trial court found that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to decline to award the Plaintiff non-economic damages where the Plaintiff’s subjective complaints were inconsistent with the objective medical evidence presented.

The court also found that the Plaintiff’s treatment was excessive in relationship to the alleged severity of the injury.  The Plaintiff was also noted to have been non-compliant with her doctor's treatment recommendations.

The trial court also faulted the Plaintiff with respect to the number of issues raised on appeal in the Plaintiff’s Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal.  Given that the Plaintiff's Concise Statement was not concise, the trial court requested that the Superior Court find that the Plaintiff's alleged errors be deemed waived under Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii).

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


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (March 14, 2023).

For review Tort Talk posts on Zero Verdict cases, as well as an article entitled "Litigating the Zero Verdict" by Daniel E. Cummins and Stephen T. Kopko, please click this LINK.