What a Defendant Should Do When on the Receiving End of Lawsuits From the Same Pro Se Plaintiff

The plaintiff filed a pro se complaint in 2017 in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas against, among others, Irina Stepansky, DMD, claiming he was “mutilated” during dental procedures performed by Dr. Stepansky in November of 2015. The action was dismissed when the court denied, with prejudice, the plaintiff’s second request to file an amended complaint after the plaintiff refused to file certificates of merit.

The Superior Court affirmed, and the Supreme Court then denied his petition for allowance of appeal. In November 2019, the plaintiff initiated another pro se action against Dr. Stepansky in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging harm from the same dental work.

The U.S. District Court dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice, and the Third Circuit affirmed in part.

Undeterred, the plaintiff filed a third pro se action in November 2019 against Dr. Stepansky and others in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County regarding the same dental treatment. Dr. Stepansky filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 233.1, arguing that these claims were duplicative of the previous two lawsuits. The doctor’s motion was granted with prejudice, and the plaintiff appealed.

On appeal, the Superior Court turned to Pa.R.C.P. 233.1. First, the court found that all three cases were “related” since they stemmed from the same dental treatment provided on the same dates by the same provider. The court did not believe the earnestness of the plaintiff’s attempts to bring forth slightly new claims and new defendants, as Rule 233.1 requires only that the parties and claims be related to those in the prior action, not identical. As for the second prong, the court found that the plaintiff’s claims were “resolved” in the 2017 state action. That is, the plaintiff’s claims were “resolved” when he refused to file the requisite certificates of merit for the 2017 state action and the court subsequently denied his request to file an amended complaint with prejudice. Therefore, the court affirmed the trial court’s order granting Dr. Stepansky’s motion to dismiss. 

_{Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter, October 2023 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2023 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}