J-A28043-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
DR. SOFIA LAM D/B/A SUBURBAN PAIN IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
CONTROL CENTER PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant
v.
HOME ELITE, LTD. AND 1256 GORDON
LTD. AND JOSEPH HENG, D.C. D/B/A
ACTIVECARE REHABILITATION
Appellee No. 967 EDA 2014
Appeal from the Order Entered March 6, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County
Civil Division at No(s): 09-16754
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., WECHT, J., and JENKINS, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY JENKINS, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 22, 2014
Appellant, Dr. Sofia Lam d/b/a Suburban Pain Control Center, appeals
from the June 25, 2013 and March 11, 2014 orders granting summary
judgment in favor of Appellees, Joseph Heng, D.C. d/b/a ActiveCare
Rehabilitation, and Home Elite, Ltd. and 1256 Gordon, Ltd.
An appellant must timely comply whenever the trial court orders a
concise statement of matters complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b). Commonwealth v Lord, 553 Pa. 415, 719 A.2d 306 (1998).
h the minimal requirements of Rule 1925(b) will
result in automatic waiver Greater Erie Indus.
Development Corp. v. Presque Isle Downs, Inc., 88 A.3d 222, 224 (Pa.
Super. 2014) (en banc Court does
J-A28043-14
not countenance anything less than stringent application of waiver pursuant
to Rule 1925(b). Id. In civil cases, the Rule requires: (1) the trial court
must issue a Rule 1925(b) order directing an appellant to file a response
within twenty-one days of that order; (2) the trial court must file
the order with the prothonotary; (3) the prothonotary must enter the order
on the docket; (4) the prothonotary must give written notice of the entry of
the order to each party, pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 236; and (5) the prothonotary
must record the Rule 236 notice on the docket. See Estate of Boyle, 77
A.3d 674, 678-79 (Pa. Super. 2013); see also Forest Highlands
Community Ass n v. Hammer, 879 A.2d 223, 227 (Pa.Super. 2005).
Instantly, Appellant filed her notice of appeal on March 26, 2014. On
April 4, 2014, the court entered an order, with Rule 236 notice, directing
Appellant to file of record and serve upon the court a Rule 1925(b) concise
statement of errors complained of on appeal within twenty-one days of entry
of the order. App
Although Appellant timely filed a Rule 1925(b) statement, Appellant did not
serve a copy of the Rule 1925(b) statement on the trial court. The court
issued its opinion on May 20, 2014, concluding Appellant had waived her
issues for failure to serve the court with a Rule 1925(b) statement.
Given that the trial court directed Appellant to file a Rule 1925(b)
statement and strictly followed the proper filing and notice procedures, and
given that Appell
Appellant waived her issues. Accordingly, we affirm. See generally In re
-2-
J-A28043-14
K.L.S., 594 Pa. 194, 197 n.3, 934 A.2d 1244, 1246 n.3 (2007) (stating
where issues are waived on appeal, we should affirm rather than quash
appeal).
Order affirmed. Case is stricken from the argument list.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 9/22/2014
-3-
Lam, S. v. Home Elite, Ltd.
Combined Opinion