2012 PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY UPDATE - Eckert Seamans

trial court’s order, finding that “[t]he gist of the allegations involves actions [defendant] took asopposing counsel, not [plaintiff’s] counsel.” Id.The Superior Court noted that “[a]lthough [plaintiff’s] complaint might raise questions ofprofessional judgment beyond the realm of common knowledge and experience, his cause ofaction did not arise from within the course of a professional relationship with [defendant].” Id.(citation omitted). The Superior Court held that despite the fact that issues may arise regardingdefendant’s professional judgment, plaintiff’s complaint was not a cause of action forprofessional liability and thus did not require a certificate of merit.” Id.In Chizmar v. Borough of Trafford, 2009 WL 1743687 (W.D. Pa. June 18, 2009), theWestern District Court addressed whether a certificate of merit was required in the context of aclaim under the Dragonetti Act (wrongful use of civil proceedings). The court noted that theywere unable to find any authority on the issue whether a Dragonetti claim sounding inprofessional liability requires a certificate of merit. The court stated that expert testimony isoften needed with Dragonetti claims, but that the Act itself does not explicitly require experttestimony. The court explained that the rules governing certificates of merit are sufficientlybroad to warrant a reading that Dragonetti claims are included. The court held that a certificateof merit is required in the context of a Dragonetti claim when it is alleged that a lawyer deviatedfrom the acceptable professional standard.On January 27, 2003, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania issued two Orders, effectivethat date, promulgating new Rules of Civil Procedure and amending some existing Rules, all ofwhich relate specifically to professional liability cases. As mentioned above, on June 16, 2008,the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania made significant amendments to the rules governing theCertificate of Merit requirement.C. Amendments to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure GoverningProfessional Liability1. Certificate of MeritIn 2005 and again in 2008 the Pennsylvania Supreme Court amended the Certificate ofMerit rules. A full discussion of the Rules and the amendments is contained in the Certificate ofMerit section.2. Venue – Pa. R. Civ. P. 1006The Court also amended Pa. R. Civ. P. 1006 regarding venue, and established that amedical professional liability claim may only be brought in the county in which the cause ofaction arose. In a case involving multiple health care providers, the case may be brought in anycounty where venue may be laid against at least one of the providers. If it is a multiparty actionthat includes non-health care provider defendants, the action cannot be brought in a countywhere venue may not be laid against a health care provider defendant. See section regarding“Venue” specifically herein for more information regarding this recent amendment of the Rules.129