Skip to main content

PROCEDURE-SUMMARY JUDGEMENT-RESPONSE TIME

Jordan v. Lynde, 2024 Pa. Super. LEXIS 565 (Pa Superior Ct., December 31, 2024)(Kunselman, J.)

OPINION BY KUNSELMAN, J.: In this medical-malpractice action, Joanne and Stephen Jordan appeal from the order granting summary judgment to the Defendants, Michael Lynde, D.P.M.; Penn Hematology and Oncology; John Youssef, M.D.; and Youval Katz, M.D. Because the Jordans were not afforded the allowed 30 days under the Rules of Civil Procedure to respond to Dr. Lynde’s motion for summary judgment, we vacate the order as to Dr. Lynde. In all other respects, we affirm. In 2019, Mrs. Jordan was under the care of Penn Hematology and Oncology, Dr. Youseff, and Dr. Katz (collectively, “Penn Hematology”). Penn Hematology prescribed her blood thinners, including Coumadin. She also had a bunion on her foot, which Dr. Lynde removed. He then prescribed Mrs. Jordan the antibiotic Bactrim. Because Bactrim and Coumadin are contraindicated, Mrs. Jordan’s foot did not heal and became infected. According to Mrs. Jordan, on May 22, 2019, she “was advised, for the first time, there may have been an issue with her treatment, given her problematic recovery, and in particular . . . the improper administration of Coumadin, a blood thinner, while on Bactrim.

Dr. Lynde filed his motion for summary judgment, and the trial court hastily granted it eight days later. The trial court did not give the Jordans 30 days to respond to Dr. Lynde’s motion or to supplement the record to counter his motion.

The Jordans’ first issue entitles them to appellate relief as to Dr. Lynde.