Varner-Mort v. Kapfhammer, 261 WDA 2014, 2015 PA Super 14, 2015 Pa. Super. LEXIS 21 (Pa. Super. January 21, 2015)

The discovery rule applies to the seriousness of injuries, not merely the injuries themselves.

Mrs. Varner-Mort was in a car accident in early May of 2009 and sought treatment within days. She was diagnosed with back sprain with paresthesia of a lower extremity, but she did not file suit until more than two years later, in late June of 2011. She claimed non-economic damages for serious personal injury and was met with a motion for summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds. In response, Mrs. Varner-Mort argued that she initially treated only with a chiropractor and pain management clinic but did not have an MRI done or meet with an orthopedic surgeon until October of 2009. It was only at that time that she was informed of the seriousness and permanency of her injuries, and so, only at that time did the cause of action arise. The Superior Court, in agreeing with Mrs. Varner-Mort and holding that the suit was timely, cited and followed prior precedent for this same holding, Walls v. Scheckler, 700 A.2d 532 (Pa. Super. 1997). However, in the Varner-Mort case, the court said in a published opinion, “While we recognize that we are bound by Walls, we highlight that, in our view, the holding therein is just plain wrong,” and went on to explain why. Allocatur will likely be sought.

Case Law Alerts, 2nd Quarter, April 2015

Case Law Alerts is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent legal 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 © 2015 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.