J-A30041-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
DOLORES LLOYD, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant
v.
GENTLE DENTIST AND DR. VLADIMIR
DERESCUIC, DDS,
Appellees No. 957 EDA 2014
Appeal from the Order Entered February 18, 2014
in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Civil Division at No.: August Term, 2013 No. 3580
BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., MUNDY, J., and PLATT, J.*
JUDGMENT ORDER BY PLATT, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 18, 2015
Appellant, Dolores Lloyd, appeals pro se from the February 18, 2014
Order, which denied her petition to open a judgment of non pros. We
quash.
Appellant’s brief in this matter consists of a less than two-page letter,
to which she appended documents from the underlying action. (See
Appellant’s Brief, at 1-2). In it, she states that she did not realize that she
needed to file a certificate of merit, and because of a combination of
ignorance and ill health, she was unable to file a certificate of merit in a
timely fashion. (See id.). She also appears to request that we direct the
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A30041-14
trial court to accept medical records and a letter from her doctor in lieu of a
certificate of merit. (See id. at 2).
“When issues are not properly raised and developed in briefs, and
when the briefs are wholly inadequate to present specific issues for review, a
court will not consider the merits thereof.” Commonwealth v. Sanford,
445 A.2d 149, 150 (Pa. Super. 1982) (citations omitted).
Although this Court is willing to liberally construe materials
filed by a pro se litigant, pro se status confers no special benefit
upon the appellant. To the contrary, any person choosing to
represent [herself] in a legal proceeding, must, to a reasonable
extent, assume that [her] lack of expertise and legal training will
be [her] undoing.
Wilkins v. Marsico, 903 A.2d 1281, 1284-1285 (Pa. Super. 2006), appeal
denied, 918 A.2d 747 (Pa. 2007) (citations omitted).
Here, Appellant’s brief does not contain any argument, statement of
the questions involved, detailed factual averments, or any citation to
relevant legal authority. Thus, the defects in Appellant’s brief are significant
and substantially encumber our appellate review. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101 (“if
the defects are in the brief or reproduced record of the appellant and are
substantial, the appeal or other matter may be quashed or dismissed.”).
Accordingly, because Appellant’s brief is defective to the point that it
constitutes a violation of Pa.R.A.P. 2101, we may impose the sanction of
quashing the appeal. See Sanford, supra at 150; see also Pa.R.A.P.
2101.
Appeal quashed.
-2-
J-A30041-14
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 2/18/2015
-3-