HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-282
CHARLES PATTERSON, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:
: CIVIL ACTION – LAW
v. :
:
AMAZON, et al., :
Defendants : NO. 2016-00282 CIVIL TERM
OPINION PURSUANT TO PA. R.A.P. 1925(a)
Peck, J., June 7, 2017 –
This Opinion is written in response to the May 10, 2017 Order of the Superior
Court directing this Court to file a supplemental 1925(a) Statement to address the issues
raised in Appellant’s 1925(b) concise Statement of Errors complained of on appeal.
Appellant alleged he suffered a work-related injury on December 26, 2012 at the
1
Amazon facility where he was employed. Appellant failed to commence any action for
said negligence until January 13, 2016. Plaintiff’s claim is therefore time-barred by the
2
two-year statute of limitations for torts regarding personal injury. Appellant asserted that
his alleged physical injury was a continuing violation by Defendants, and thus his injury
had not been completed for purposes of the statute of limitations at the time he
3
commenced his action. The continuing violation doctrine as set out in Montanez v. Sec'y
Pa. Dep't of Corr., 773 F.3d 472 (3d Cir. Pa. 2014)does not apply where the claimant
knew of the injury at the time it occurred, and the injurious act was not repeated. As the
Court in Montanez clarifies, the continuing ill effects of an initial wrongful act do not
4
constitute a continuing violation. Therefore, on August 16, 2016, this Court granted
Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and entered an Order dismissing
Appellant’s complaint with prejudice because it was filed outside the two year statute of
5
limitations and was not subject to tolling under the continuing violations doctrine.
1
Answer of Def. Amazon, et al, to Pl.’s Compl. with New Matter, 2, February 16, 2016.
2
42 Pa.C.S. § 5524(2).
3
Pl.’s Compl., 2-4, January 13, 2016.
4
Montanez, 773 F.3d 472, at 481.
5
Order of Court, In Re: Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, August 17, 2016 (Peck, J.).
Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal for nunc pro tunc relief with the Superior Court
on October 10, 2016. On October 17, 2016 this Court granted Appellant the right to
appeal nunc pro tunc its August 17, 2016 Order and directed Appellant to file a 1925(b)
concise Statement of Errors within twenty-one (21) days; Appellant did not file any
6
statement. Appellant filed a petition seeking nunc pro tunc relief for extraordinary
7
circumstances on January 3, 2017, and the Superior Court directed this Court to address
Appellant’s petition on the merits by Order of February 15, 2017. This Court again
granted Appellant the right to appeal nunc pro tunc on February 23, 2017 and gave
Appellant leave to file his 1925(b) concise Statement of Errors within thirty (30) days of
the Order. In accordance with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4), the Order stated that “any issues not
properly included in the statement timely filed and served pursuant to this Order shall be
8
deemed waived.”Appellant filed his 1925(b) Statement on March 28, 2017. Appellant
also filed an “Amend \[sic\] Petition for Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal”
on May 18, 2017.
Although Appellant did not comply with the 30-day limitations period, we will
nevertheless briefly address the arguments raised in his 1925(b) statement. Appellant lists
9
several errors in his initial statement of errors. This Court previously addressed the
statute of limitations issue in our Order dated August 16, 2016. Because the errors
complained of relate directly to the underlying personal injury action, the statute of
limitations still bars such claims. Appellant’s amended statement of errors filed on May
6
This Court thereafter issued a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion requesting that nunc pro tunc relief be denied
as Appellant had failed to file his 1925(b) Statement of Errors within 21 days. Opinion Pursuant to
PA.R.A.P. 1925(a), December 14, 2016 (Peck, J.).
7
Appellant was housed in the prison Restricted Housing Unit and was not able to receive legal mail until
the deadline for filing his 1925(b) statement had passed. Good cause for granting an extension to file for
nunc pro tunc relief was therefore satisfied. Petition Seeking nunc-pro-tunc Relief in order to File 1925(b)
under Extraordinary Circumstances, 1, January 3, 2017.
8
Order of Court, February 23, 2017 (Peck, J.).
9
The errors complained of include claims for breach of contract, failure of Defendants to aid or to make a
report of the December 26, 2012 incident, and failure of this Court to consider ongoing unemployment
compensation litigation and Appellant’s incarceration to be “extraordinary circumstances” excusing
Appellant’s failure to initiate litigation for his work-related injury. Pl.’s Statement of Matters Complained
of on Appeal, March 28, 2017.
18, 2017 was filed after the expiration of the 30-day limitations period and thus any
arguments raised therein are waived.
Appellant’s appeal is without merit and Appellant did not comply with the Court’s
explicit direction to file his 1925(b) Statement of Errors within 30 days. Even if
Appellant has not waived his claims by filing his initial 1925(b) statement in an untimely
manner to this Court, the underlying claims complained of on appeal are barred by the
statute of limitations. Therefore, this Court respectfully requests that Appellant’s appeal
be denied.
BY THE COURT,
___________________________
Christylee L. Peck, J.
Charlie Patterson, LE-2166
SCI Houtzdale
P.O. Box 1000
Houtzdale, PA 16698-1000
Appellant, pro se
Donald M. Davis, Esquire
Margolis Edelstein
The Curtis Center- Suite #400E
170 South Independence Mall West
Philadelphia, PA 19106-3380
Attorney for Appellee