Wisniewski v. Frommer
| Decision Date | 16 February 2023 |
| Docket Number | 912 C.D. 2021 |
| Parties | Thomas Wisniewski, Appellant v. James F. Frommer, Jr., D.O.; Andrew J. Dancha, D.O.; Correct Care Solutions, LLC; Deborah Cutshall; William Dreibelbis, R.N.; Paul A. Noel, M.D.; Eugene H. Ginchereau, M.D.; Kathy Montag; Jodie White; Andrea Norris, R.N.; Joseph J. Silva, R.N.; Christopher Oppman; Pennsylvania Department of Corrections |
| Court | Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court |
This case returns to us after this Court remanded the matter to the Court of Common Pleas of Huntingdon County (trial court), Wisniewski v. Frommer (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 266 C.D. 2020, filed February 11, 2021), with specific instructions on how to proceed with the case after the appellant, Thomas Wisniewski, died while his appeal was pending. Following her unsuccessful attempts on remand to open an estate on behalf of Wisniewski, Wisniewski's former counsel, Marianne Sawicki (Ms. Sawicki), now returns to this Court, having filed a notice of appeal from the trial court's July 14, 2021 order denying her application for leave to amend Wisniewski's underlying complaint and dismissing the action with prejudice. As of this date, a personal representative has not been appointed for Wisniewski and an estate has not been opened. For the reasons that follow, we dismiss the appeal.
The case has a long history. For our limited purposes, the relevant history is as follows. In 2015, Wisniewski initiated an action in the trial court against numerous defendants, including the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOC) and DOC employees, alleging, inter alia, claims for breach of contract for inmate health care and medical malpractice in connection with treatment he received while incarcerated at the State Correctional Institutional (SCI) at Smithfield ("the 2015 action"). The trial court sustained preliminary objections to most, but not all, of the claims. Wisniewski filed an appeal to the Superior Court. On January 28, 2020, the Superior Court transferred the appeal to this Court because the appeal involved a Commonwealth party. The appeal was docketed in this Court at No. 266 C.D. 2020.
On December 17, 2021, during the pendency of that appeal, Wisniewski died. As a result, on February 11, 2021, this Court entered the following order (Remand Order):
AND NOW, this 11th day of February, 2021, counsel for [Wisniewski] having advised the Court that [Wisniewski] is now deceased, it appears that this appeal in its current posture is no longer justiciable. Therefore, this case is remanded to the [trial court] so that it may entertain an application to amend the [c]omplaint [in the 2015 action] to assert a survival claim, if any, by the estate of Thomas Wisniewski, should such an estate be opened, and to adjudicate such claim; or, if no such application is filed within ninety days of the return of the original record from this Court, to dismiss the [c]omplaint [in the 2015 action]. Jurisdiction relinquished.
(Remand Order at 1) (emphasis added).[1]
After our Remand Order was entered, Ms. Sawicki unsuccessfully attempted to open an estate for Wisniewski. Wisniewski's surviving heirs, his adult children, declined to serve as personal representatives or to petition to open the estate themselves. However, SCI-Smithfield inmate Franklin Castle (Castle) agreed to serve as administrator pendente lite, and, on June 9, 2021, he signed, before a notary, a petition for letters of administration pendente lite. The Register of Wills in Huntingdon County rejected this petition as she had not witnessed Castle's signature, which is required under 20 Pa.C.S. §3154(a). The Register of Wills then proposed that Castle sign the petition via video call; however, on June 21, 2021, the Huntingdon County Court Administrator indicated she was unable to set up the video call. (Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 7a, 10a, 16a, 18a-20a.)
On June 25, 2021, Ms. Sawicki filed two applications with the trial court in the 2015 action: (1) an application for leave to amend the complaint to allow Castle to continue the action in the place of the now-deceased Wisniewski so that the litigation could continue; and (2) an application for a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum, seeking to have Castle transported to the Huntingdon County Register of Wills so he could appear in person to sign the petition for letters of administration pendente lite. (R.R. at 11a-12a, 14a-20a.)
By order dated July 14, 2021, the trial court denied Ms. Sawicki's application for leave to amend the complaint and dismissed the 2015 action with prejudice because an estate had not been opened within the 90-day period provided by this Court in its Remand Order. The trial court explained that while Ms. Sawicki had filed an application for leave to amend the complaint, (Trial ct. op. 7/14/21 at 2.)[2]
Ms. Sawicki filed a motion for reconsideration on July 21, 2021, asserting she was a creditor to Wisniewski's estate and reimbursement was owed.[3] On August 13, 2021, Ms. Sawicki filed a notice of appeal in this Court "pro se," citing Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure (Pa.R.A.P.) 501 and stating that she "is a party aggrieved by the Order." See also Appellant's Brief at 12 ("Undersigned counsel appeals as a party aggrieved by the July 14, 2021 Order, pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 501.").
On appeal, Ms. Sawicki essentially challenges the efficacy of the trial court's July 14, 2021 order denying her application for leave to amend the complaint and dismissing the 2015 action with prejudice. Apparently, acknowledging that a deceased person cannot be a party to an action, Ms. Sawicki also claims she should be permitted to appeal in her own right because she is an aggrieved party under Pa.R.A.P. 501.
Initially we note that this Court first exercised subject matter jurisdiction over this matter when it was transferred by the Superior Court to the Commonwealth Court upon the request of DOC. In our subsequent order remanding the case to the trial court, we made clear that the trial court should "dismiss the [c]omplaint" if no estate was opened and an application to amend the complaint to assert a survival claim was not filed. On remand, the trial court denied the application for leave to amend the complaint and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The trial court acted in direct response to, and entirely within the bounds of, this Court's remand order.
"[T]he test for determining whether a court has jurisdiction of the subject matter is the competency of the court to determine controversies of the general class to which the case presented for its consideration belongs." Heath v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole), 860 A.2d 25, 29 (Pa. 2004). "In other words, we determine whether 'the court [has] power to enter upon the inquiry, not whether it might ultimately decide that it [is] unable to grant the relief sought in the particular case.'" Id. (emphasis added).
Applying this case law, it is beyond cavil that the trial court was competent to address Ms. Sawicki's application for leave to amend the complaint in the 2015 action, and to pass upon whether to substitute Castle as plaintiff in place of the now-deceased Wisniewski. Rosenberg v. Silver, 97 A.2d 92, 94 (Pa. 1953) ().[4] Thus, we conclude that the trial court unquestionably had subject matter jurisdiction to first determine whether to grant the application for leave to amend the complaint and to dismiss the action if it saw fit.[5] Having determined that the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over the matters below, we turn next to whether this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal.
The denial of motion to amend to a substitute personal representative and to dismiss a case on the grounds that a personal representative has not been appointed is a final appealable order. See Nelson v. Estate of Massey, 686 A.2d 1350 (Pa. Super. 1996) ().
Section 762 of the Judicial Code vests this Court with jurisdiction over "final orders of the courts of common pleas" involving, inter alia, local government civil matters. 42 Pa.C.S. §762(a)(4). Pa.R.A.P. 341(a) provides generally that an appeal may only be taken as of right from a final order of a government unit or trial court. Pa.R.A.P. 341(a); Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Association Insurance Company v. Johnson Matthey, Inc., 188 A.3d 396, 399 (Pa. 2018). Under Pa.R.A.P. 341(b), a final order is an order that either disposes of an action or is otherwise expressly entered as a final order. Pa. R.A.P. 341(b). A final order is one that disposes of all claims or parties and ends the litigation. Piltzer v. Independent Federal Savings & Loan Association of Philadelphia, 319 A.2d 677, 678 (Pa. 1974). A final appealable order subject to our review has now been appealed.
We now address Ms. Sawicki's standing to file the appeal pro se, as she claims she is an aggrieved "party" pursuant to Appellate Rule 501(a). Pa.R.A.P. 501(...
To continue reading
Request your trial