J-A14013-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN RE: D.L.

APPEAL OF: D.L.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1673 MDA 2021

Appeal from the Order Entered November 19, 2021

In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Civil Division at No(s): 

142-21-MH

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., STABILE, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED: AUGUST 1, 2022

This is an appeal from a determination that arose following the filing of 

a petition requesting the extension of the involuntary commitment of 

Appellant, D.L., for a period of 90 days. After review, we affirm. 

In the trial court’s abbreviated Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion, filed on 

January 19, 2022, the court stated in its entirety: 

 This case arises from a hearing under the Mental Health 

Procedures Act, 50 P.S. § 7103 et seq. (“MHPA”)[,] before the 

Berks County mental health review officer [(“MHRO”)] on a 

petition to extend, for a period of up to 90 days, the involuntary 

commitment of [D.L.] at Haven Behavioral Hospital [(“Hospital”)] 

in Reading, Berks County, Pennsylvania. On October 20, 2021, a 

hearing was held by this [c]ourt in the above captioned matter on 

D.L.’s Petition for Review of the Certification for Extended 

Involuntary Commitment. Following that hearing, the [c]ourt 

issued an order affirming the Certification for Extended 

Involuntary Commitment as well as an Opinion in support thereof 

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A14013-22

- 2 -

on November 19, 2021. On December 20, 2021, D.L., through 

counsel, filed the instant appeal [from] this [c]ourt’s November 

19, 2021 Decision and Order. On December 22, 2021, this [c]ourt 

directed counsel for D.L. to file their [Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)] Concise 

Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal[,] and counsel for 

D.L. filed their Statement on January 12, 2022, raising the 

following issues which are in verbatim form in relevant part as 

follows:

1. The Hospital failed to present sufficient evidence to 

support the involuntary commitment of Appellant 

where testimony could not establish to a reasonable

degree of medical certainty that Appellant had a 

mental illness that would be applicable for involuntary 

commitment under the Mental Health Procedures Act.

2. The Hospital failed to present sufficient evidence to 

support involuntary commitment where testimony 

could not provide any clear and present danger

Appellant posed to herself or others outside of 

expressions Appellant made regarding using a firearm 

to protect herself in her own home if her home were

invaded, and Dr. Coldren’s testimony established the 

main factor in extending her commitment was her 

refusal to take medication prescribed by the 

[H]ospital.

3. The involuntary commitment of Appellant was 

against the weight of the evidence where Dr. Coldren 

never confirmed whether Appellant had a firearm or 

the ability to pose a clear and present danger to 

others.

4. The involuntary commitment of Appellant was 

against the weight of the evidence where Dr. Coldren 

discharged Appellant with a diagnosis of dementia and 

had considered dementia as a possible diagnosis 

throughout her inpatient stay despite a diagnosis of 

unspecified psychosis being provided for the purposes 

of the involuntary commitment. 

 Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(a), 

the reasons for this [c]ourt's November 19, 2021 Decision and 

Order already appearing of record and addressing each of D.L.’s 
J-A14013-22

- 3 -

Errors Complained of on Appeal, the Superior Court is directed to 

this [c]ourt's Decision and Order dated November 19, 2021, where 

the detailed reasons for this [c]ourt’s Order are delineated.

Trial Court’s Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion, 1/19/2022, at 1-2. 

We must begin by determining whether D.L.’s case “is appealable, 

because appealability implicates our jurisdiction.” In the Interest of J.M., 

219 A.3d 645, 650 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citing In Interest of N.M., 186 A.3d 

998, 1006 (Pa. Super. 2018) (quoting Kulp v. Hrivnak, 765 A.2d 796, 798 

(Pa. Super. 2018) (“[Since we] lack jurisdiction over an unappealable order, 

it is incumbent on us to determine, ... whether the appeal is taken from an 

appealable order.”)). “Jurisdiction is purely a question of law; the appellate 

standard of review is de novo and the scope of review plenary.” Id. 

Upon receipt of D.L.’s Notice of Appeal and Docketing Statement, this 

Court issued a Rule to Show cause, indicating that:

Appellant purports to appeal from the “Judgement entered on this 

matter November 19, 2021.” Review of the trial court docket

reveals a “miscellaneous” docket entry on that date. The trial 

court’s Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion dated January 18, 2022, and 

filed January 19, 2022, states that the trial court “issued an order 

affirming the Certification for Extended Involuntary Commitment 

as well as an Opinion in support thereof on November 19, 2021.” 

It is unclear, however, whether the trial court entered an order on 

November 19, 2021, as the document filed on November 19,

2021, does not state whether it is an opinion or an order.

Rule to Show Cause Order, 2/15/2022. D.L.’s counsel filed a timely response 

as directed by this Court in the Rule to Show Cause Order. The response 

provided, in part, the following:

Appellant, D.L., through her counsel[,] Andrew Scott, Esq., 

represents that the docket with the prothonotary of the Berks 
J-A14013-22

- 4 -

County Court of Common Pleas has been reviewed and only the 

document filed by the Honorable Madelyn S. Fudeman on 

November 19, 2021, was located and nothing else marked as an 

order after the de novo hearing was found. There is no 

disagreement, and I have no authority to suggest otherwise, that 

a final order is required to pursue this appeal. The document 

dated November 19, 2021, does not specify whether it is an 

opinion or order and the content does not make clear which it is 

either. However, our response would be that this should be 

treated as a de facto order as it was understood that this affirmed 

the MHRO decision. This was filed after a de novo hearing was 

held in this matter on October 20, 2021, and as of the writing of 

this letter, no separate order was ever filed. 

In further support of this notion, the Honorable Madelyn S. 

Fudeman’s 1925(a) opinion filed on January 19, 2022, refers to 

Appellant’s appeal as arising from “this [c]ourt’s November 19, 

2021 Decision and Order.” The Judge incorporated her November 

19, 2021 filing as forming the basis for her 1925(a) opinion, and 

further directs the Superior Court to refer to its “Decision and 

Order dated November 19, 2021....” It appears clear from the 

record that the document was to be taken as a Decision and Order 

in this matter. Admittedly, the docket of the lower court labels 

the Decision and Order as “Miscellaneous,” but the dockets for 

Civil Commitments in Berks County are also exceedingly sparse in 

the information they provide[,] which in consideration on how to 

square this with Pa.R.A.P. 301, ... should arguably militate towards 

a more liberal interpretation. 

D.L.’s Responsive Letter, 2/23/2022, at 1-2. The letter concludes that the 

trial court’s decision “is sufficiently clear for the Superior Court to render a 

decision and that to quash the appeal at this stage unnecessarily delay[s] a 

resolution in this matter.” Id. In response, this Court discharged the Rule to 

Show Cause, but indicated that this issue could be revisited by this panel. We 

do revisit the issue because, as noted above, the appealability implicates our 

jurisdiction. See J.M., 219 A.2d at 650. 
J-A14013-22

- 5 -

We begin by noting that the Hospital, with reliance on Pa.R.A.P. 

301(a)(1), asserts that no order is appealable unless entered on the trial 

court’s docket. Moreover, the Hospital contends that no order was entered; 

rather the November 19, 2021 decision was entered as “misc.” and contained 

no information regarding the giving of notice as required by Pa.R.Civ.P. 

236(b). The Hospital further cites Frazier v. City of Philadelphia, 735 A.2d 

113, 115 (Pa. 1999), for the proposition that “an order is not appealable until 

it is entered on the docket with the required notation that appropriate notice 

has been given.” Additionally, the Hospital points out that an appeal must be 

taken from the trial court’s order, not from an opinion, relying on Lengyel v. 

Frank Black, Jr. Inc., 438 A.2d 1003, 1004 (Pa. Super. 1981), which states 

that “[a]ppeals do not lie from a mere opinion of the inferior court, since even 

though the appellate court can infer from the opinion filed what was intended, 

it can neither affirm nor reverse a decree which has never been entered.” 

Although not mentioned by the Hospital, the Frazier opinion further 

explains that the fact that, 

the parties may have received notice of the order does not alter 

the formal date of its entry and the associated commencement of 

the period allowed for appeal for purposes of the rules. The 

procedural requirements reflected in the rules serve to promote 

clarity, certainty and ease of determination, so that an appellate 

court will immediately know whether an appeal was perfected in 

a timely manner, thus eliminating the need for a case-by-case 

factual determination. 

Frazier, 735 A.2d at 115. As in the instant case, the appellant in the Frazier

case had received notice of the judgment, but “because there was no 
J-A14013-22

- 6 -

corresponding entry in the docket, formal entry of the order did not occur 

under the rules, and the appeal period was not triggered.” Id. Therefore, 

only after the actual notation was placed on the docket and Frazier perfected 

his appeal within thirty days after the notation was entered on the docket, his 

appeal was considered timely. Accordingly, our Supreme Court remanded the 

case for consideration of the merits. 

Here, the trial court’s identifying of its November 19, 2021 decision as 

an opinion and order does not meet the directives as stated in the Frazier

decision. However, as noted in Appellant D.L.’s brief, Pa.R.A.P. 105(a)

provides some guidance, stating that:

Rule 105. Waiver and Modification of Rules

(a) Liberal construction and modification of rules. These 

rules shall be liberally construed to secure the just, speedy 

and inexpensive determination of every matter to which 

they are applicable In the interest of expediting decision or 

for other good cause shown, an appellate court may, except 

as otherwise provided in Subdivision (b) of this rule, 

disregard the requirements or provisions of any of these 

rules in a particular case on application of a party or on its 

own motion and may order proceedings in accordance with 

its direction. 

With reliance on Rule 105, which allows this Court to disregard requirements

stated in any of the rules, it is apparent that, although the trial court did not 

specifically identify its decision entered on November 19, 2021, it clarified its 

intent that that document was a decision and order in its Rule 1925(a) 

Opinion. Moreover, by incorporating its November 19, 2021 “Decision and 

Order” into its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the issues identified by Appellant D.L. 
J-A14013-22

- 7 -

were addressed by the trial court. Additionally, it is apparent that the parties 

were aware that the November 19, 2021 document was an affirmation of the 

MHRO’s decision and that the Hospital would not be prejudiced if the appeal 

went forward. Clearly, the error rested on the trial court’s failure to properly 

label the document and include the fact that notice to the parties of the entry 

of the document on the docket was provided. We do not condone these 

failures; however, because the parties were aware of the trial court’s 

determination and Appellant D.L.’s appeal was timely, we will proceed with 

our review of the trial court’s decision to affirm the MHRO’s decision to extend 

the involuntary commitment of D.L. for ninety days. 

Despite D.L.’s listing of four separate issues in her Concise Statement, 

her brief contains only one substantive issue, stating “[w]hether the [H]ospital 

failed to present sufficient evidence to support the involuntary commitment of 

D.L. where testimony could not establish to a reasonable degree of medical 

certainty that Appellant had a mental illness that would be applicable for 

involuntary commitment under the [MHPA].” D.L.’s brief at 4. To address 

this issue, “we must determine whether there is evidence in the record to 

justify the [trial] court’s findings.” In re S.M., 176 A.3d 927, 935 (Pa. Super. 

2017) (quoting T.T., 875 A.2d 1123, 1126 (Pa. Super. 2005)). Moreover, “we 

must accept the trial court’s findings of fact that have support in the record, 

[but] we are not bound by its legal conclusions from those facts.” Id. 
J-A14013-22

- 8 -

We have reviewed the extensive certified record, the briefs of the 

parties, the applicable law, and the thorough and well-crafted opinions 

authored by the Honorable Madelyn S. Fudeman of the Court of Common Pleas 

of Berks County, dated January 18, 2022, and November 19, 2021. We

conclude that Judge Fudeman’s comprehensive opinions properly dispose of 

the issue presented by Appellant D.L. on appeal and we discern no abuse of 

discretion or error of law. Accordingly, we adopt Judge Fudeman’s opinions 

as our own and affirm the de facto order extending D.L.’s involuntary 

commitment. 

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 08/01/2022