2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 2-18-2010 

# D arry l B o ok e r v . U SA P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-2688

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " D arry l Boo ke r v . U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1867. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1867NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 09- 2688

___________ DARRYL BOOKER, A ppel l ant

v. UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

____________________________________ A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 07- cv- 01960) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le W ill iam W . C a ld w e ll

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

February9, 2010 B efor e: R E N D E L L , H A R D I M A N and A L D I SE R T , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: February18, 2010)

___________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

___________ P E R C UR I AM A ppel l antD arr y l B ooker , pr ocee di ng pr o s e, appea l s fr om the j udgm entof the D istric t C o u rt g ra n tin g A p p e llee s’ m o tio n to d ism iss . F o r th e re a so n s th a t f o llo w , w e w ill vacate the judgm ent of t he D i stri ctC ou rtand rem and for further proceedings.A s t he D i s t r i ctC our tnot ed, t he U ni t ed St at es i nvoked Penns y l vani a l aw and A ppel l ant 1 has notcont es t ed i t s appl i cat i on. T he R ul e s peci fi cal l ypr ovi des foran unl i m i t ed numberof ext ens i ons of t i m e, s o l ong 2 as the r eques ti s fi l ed bef or e the expi r at i on of the pr i orext ens i on and the pl ai nt i ff ha s sh o w n g o o d ca u se. S ee P a. R . C iv. P. 10 4 2 . 3 (d). A ppel l antw as or i gi nal l ynot i fi ed thathi s appea l m i ghtbe di s m i s s ed as unt i m el y , as 3 the not i ce of

appea l w as fi l ed one da yl at e. See Fed. R . A pp. P. 4( a) ( 1) ( B ) ( pr ovi di ng 60- d a ya p p e a l p e rio d in a c tio n in w h ich U n ited S tate s is a p a rty ). A p p e llan t su b se q u e n tly fi l ed a mot i on forext ens i on of t i m e i n t he D i s t r i ctC our tpur s uantt o Feder al R ul e of A p p ell ate P roc ed u re 4 (a)(5). O n Ju ly1 , 2 0 0 9 , the D istri ct C o u rtg ran ted A p p ell an t’ s 2 B ooker , a fe der al i nm at e, fi l ed a c om pl ai nti n t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfor th e M i d d l e Di s t r i c to f

P e n n s y l v a n i a p u r s u a n tt o th e F e d e r a l To r tCl a i ms Ac t , 2 8 U. S . C. §§ 1346( b) , 2671- 2680, al l egi ng t hatbetw een 1997 a nd 2006, pr i s on m edi cal s t aff att he v a rio u s f e d e ra l p riso n s in w h ich h e w a s in c a rc e ra ted c o m m itt e d m e d ica l m a lp ra c tice in tr eat i ng hi s heartcondi t i on. A ppl y i ng Penns y l vani a l aw , the D i s t r i ctC our tconcl uded 1 thatB ookerw as r equi r ed t o compl yw i t h t he C ert i fi cat e of M er i t( “C O M ”) r equi r ement of Penns y l vani a R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 1042. 3( a) ( 1) and gr ant ed hi m s ever al ext ens i ons of t i m e i n w hi ch t o do s o. W i t hi n the t i m e pr ovi ded bythe D i s t r i ctC our t , B ookerfi l ed a 2 lette r f ro m S tev e n S p e n c e r, M D , M P H , a p h y sic ian a t A b in g to n M e m o ria l H o sp ital in J e n k in to w n , P e n n s y lv a n ia , in a n a tte m p t to c o m p ly w ith th e re q u ir e m e n ts o f R u le 1 0 4 2 .3 . A ppel l ee i m m edi at el yobj ect ed, ar gui ng thatthe l et t erw as i ns uffi ci entt o s at i s fythe l i t er al r equi r ement s of the R ul e. T he D i s t r i ctC our tagr eed a nd ent er ed an opi ni on and or der di s m i s s i ng t he ac t i on w i t houtpr ej udi ce a nd deny i ng A ppel l ant ’ s r eques tforan ext ens i on of t i m e i n w hi ch t o fi l e a c om pl i antC O M . A ppel l antappea l ed. 3R ul e 4( a) ( 5) m ot i on. A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l notdi s m i s s the appe al as unt i m el yfi l ed. 3 W e hav e j uri sdi ct i on ov er this app eal pu rs uan tt o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 29 1. W e exerci se p lena ryrev iew o v er the D istri ct C o u rt ’s de cisi o n to g ran t a m o ti o n to d ism iss, see D eH art v. H or n, 390 F. 3d 262, 272 ( 3d C i r . 2004) , as w el l as overthe C our t ’ s concl us i on that A ppel l antfai l ed t o compl yw i t h t he r equi r ement s of the R ul e 1042. 3. See N ew el l v. R ui z, 286 F. 3d 166, 167 n. 2 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . W e r evi ew the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deni al of A ppel l ant ’ s r eques tforan ext ens i on of t i m e forabus e of di s cr et i on. See G al l as v. S u p rem e C o u rto f P en n sy lvan ia, 2 1 1 F . 3 d 7 6 0 , 7 7 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). R ule 1042 . 3(a) (1) provides: I n anyact i on bas ed upon an a l l egat i on thata l i cens ed pr ofes s i onal devi at ed fr om an ac cept abl e pr ofes s i onal s t andar d, the att orneyforthe pl ai nt i ff, or th e p lain tiff

if n o t re p re se n ted , sh a ll file w ith th e c o m p lain t o r w ith in six ty day s aft ert he fi l i ng of the compl ai nt , a ce r t i fi cat e of mer i ts i gned bythe at t or neyorpar t yt hat. . . an appr opr i at e l i cens ed pr ofes s i onal has s uppl i ed a w r i t t en s t at ementt hatt her e exi s t s a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i t ythatthe ca r e, sk il l or k n o w ledg e e x erc ised o r ex h ibit ed in the tr ea tm en t, p rac ti ce o r w o rk thati s t he s ubj ectof the compl ai nt , fel l out s i de ac cept abl e pr ofes s i onal s t andar ds and thats uch conduc tw as a ca us e i n br i ngi ng aboutthe h a rm . . . . T hi s rul e i s s ubs t ant i ve s t at e l aw t hatm us tbe appl i ed bythe fe der al di s t r i ctcour t s . See C hamber l ai n v. G i ampapa, 210 F. 3d 154, 158- 61 ( 3d C i r . 2000) ( concl udi ng thatthe N ew J er s ey“af

fi davi tof m er i t ” s t atut e cons t i tut es s ubs t ant i ve s t at e l aw w hi ch mustbe appl i ed b yfe d era l distri ct co u rt s in d iversityac ti o n s). U n d er P en n sy lvan ia l aw , p lai n ti ff ’s fa il u re to c o m p lyw ith th e C O M re q u ire m e n ts e n tit les th e d e f e n d a n t to d ire c t th e p ro th o n o tar yto4

ent era j udgm entof non pr os agai ns tthe pl ai nt i ff. See Pa. R . C i v. P. 1042. 6. T he pl ai nt i ff mayt hen s eek r el i ef f r om the j udgm entof non pr os , r eques t i ng thati tei t herbe s truck oropened. See Pa. R . C i v. P. 3051. C our t s have he l d t hatthe entr yof j udgm ent non pr os i s t her efor e the equi val entof a di s m i s s al w i t houtpr ej udi ce, and i s notfat al t o t he pl ai nt i ff’ s s ui ts o l ong as hi s cl ai m s ar e nott i m e- barr ed. See, e. g. , St r oud v. A bi ndgt on M emori al H os pi t al , 546 F. Supp. 2d 238, 249 ( E . D . Pa. 2008) ; Scar amuzza v. Sci ol l a, 345 F . S u p p . 2 d 5 0 8 , 5 1 0 -11 (E . D . P a. 20 0 4 ). In a n att em p t t o sati sfythe C O M req u ir em en t, B o o k er f il ed a lett er f

rom D r. S p e n c e r w h ich sta ted in f u ll: I am w r i t i ng t hi s l ett eron behal f of D arr y l B ooker . I w as s enthi s m edi cal

. . . file to re v iew in lig h t o f e v e n ts s u rro u n d in g th e d iag n o sis o f h is cor onaryar t erydi s eas e. I n br i ef, he w as s een mul t i pl e t i m es bythe pr i s on m edi cal s t aff

fort he chi ef c om pl ai ntof che s tpai n. Fr om m yr evi ew of the not es , t he di agnos i s form os tof thos e vi s i t s w as m us cul os kel et al pai n. T he v isit th a t I f

o u n d to b e th e m o st q u e stio n a b le o c c u rre d o n 9 /1 2 /0 6 . A t th is t i m e, M r . B ookercompl ai ned of c hes tpai n and w as once a gai n di agnos ed wi th mu s c u l o s k e l e t a l p a i n a n d g i v e n a n a n t i - i n f l a mm a t o r yme d i c a t i o n . T wo w eeks l at erD arr y l w as s entt o t he ER w i t h an ac ut e M I . O t hernot es documentobt ai ni ng an EK G , butI coul d notfi nd a not e thatcomm ent s on h is p re v io u s a b n o rm a l E K G s in c lu d in g th o s e d o n e o n 1 /6 /0 6 a n d 4 /7 /0 6 . T h o se E K G s re v e a l f

in d in g s th a t ar e a [ sic ] c o n c e rn in g f o r c a rd iac isc h e m ia y e t th e re is n o d o c u m e n tatio n o f th e a p p ro p ria te f

o llo w u p w h ich w o u ld us ual l yi ncl ude an e choca r di ogr am, s t r es s t es t , and pos s i bl ya ca r di ol ogy eval uat i on. I t her efor e bel i eve thi s cas e w arr ant s a cl os erl ook. Pl eas e fe el free t o co ntactm e i f y ou hav e anyqu est i on s or concerns. I n the documentt o w hi ch the l ett eri s appende d, “N ot i ce of Fi l i ng of C ert i fi cat e of M er i t , ” A ppel l antr eques t s gui dance i n pr oper l yphr as i ng the C O M and, i f nec es s ary , an ext ens i on of t i m e i n w hi ch t o s at i s fythos e r equi r ement s . O n appea l , A ppel l anthasW hi l e the U . S. A t t or neyal s o ar gues that“the doct or ” fa i l ed t o s t at e i n hi s l et t erthathe 4 has “s ubm i t t ed a w r i t t en s t at ementopi ni ng” as m uch, the R ul e ac tual l ycal l s forA ppel l ant h im s e lf to s u b m it s u c h a le tte r, n o t D r. S p e n c e r. ( A p p e lle e ’s B r., 1 2 -1 3 .) 5 i ndi cat ed thatt he “doc t ort hatpr epar ed the C ert i fi cat e of M er i t( C O M ) has s t at ed af t ert he fac the w oul d have ha d no pr obl em m aki ng and s uppor t i ng s uch a s t at ementaboutthe m ed ical serv ices a n d tr ea tm en t th at w as re v ea led in the m ed ical reco rds.” (A p p ell an t’ s B r., 4 -5 -1 .) A ppel l ee a r gues t hatt he D i s tr i ctC our tpr oper l yconcl uded thatD r . Spencer ’ s l ett er do es not s at i sfyt he li t eral requi rem ents of the R ule, as i tdo es not s t at e t hat “there exis t s a re a so n a b le p ro b a b ili tyth a t th e c a re , sk ill o r k n o w led g e . . . ex h ib ited in th e tre a tm e n t, pr act i ce orw or k t hati s t he s ubj ectof the compl ai nt , fel l out s i de ac cept abl e pr ofes s i onal s ta n d a rd s a n d th a t s u c h c o n d u c t w a s a c a u s e in b ri n g in g a b o u t th e h a rm . . . .” 4 ( A ppel l ee’ s B r . , 12. ) A ppel l ee mai nt ai ns thatB ookers houl d notbe exc us ed fr om com ply i ng w i t h the l et t er of t he R ule m erel ybyvirtue o f his pro se st atus. In W o m er v . H il li k er, 90 8 A . 2 d 2 6 9 (P a. 20 0 6 ), the P en n sy lvan ia S u p rem e C o u rt held that w hil e full com pli ance w i t h R ule 1042 . 3 is exp ect ed, the R ule i s non et heles s subjectt o cert ai n eq uit able excepti on s:

. . . w e h a v e a lw a y s u n d e rsto o d th a t p ro c e d u ra l ru les a re n o t en d s in th e m s e l v e s , a n d t h a tt h e r i g i d a p p l i c a t i o n o f o u rru l e s d o e s n o ta l w a ys s e r v e d t h e i n t e r e s t s o f

f a i r n e s s a n d j u s t i c e . I ti s f o rth i s r e a s o n th a twe ad o p ted R u le 12 6 , w h ich p rov ides in p erti n en t part th at “[ t] h e c o u rtat ev ery s t age of anys uch ac t i on orpr ocee di ng m aydi s r egar d anyerr orordefe ctof p r o c e d u r e wh i c h d o e s n o ta f f e c tth e s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s o f th e p a r t i e s . ” P a . R. C iv . P . N o . 1 2 6 . W ith th is la n g u a g e , w e in c o rp o ra ted e q u itab le6

c o n sid e ra tio n s in th e f

o rm o f a d o c trin e o f

su b sta n tial c o m p lian c e in to R u le 1 2 6 , g i v i n g t h e t r i a l c o u r t s t h e l a t i tu d e t o o v e r l o o k a n y “ pr ocedur ald e f

e c t” th a t d o e s n o t p re

ju d ice a p a rty ’s r ig h ts. T h u s, w h ile w e lo o k f o r f u ll compl i ance w i t h t he t erm s of ourrul es , w e pr ovi de a l i m i t ed exc ept i on underR ul e 126 t o t hos e w ho comm i ta mi s s t ep w hen att empt i ng t o do w hat anypar t i cul arrul e r equi r es . M or eover , w e made R ul e 126 a rul e of uni ver s al appl i cat i on, s uch thatthe tr i al cour tm aydi s r egar d anys uch p ro c e d u ra l d e f

e c t o r e rro r a t ev e rysta g e o f a n ya c tio n o r p ro c e e d in g to w h i c h t h e c i v i l p r o c e d u r a l ru l e s a p p l y. Id. at 27 6 (cit ati o n s o m itted). H av ing co n clud ed that su ch eq u it ab le ex ce p ti o n s are avai l abl e t o pl ai nt i ffs w ho m ake a n eff or tt o s ubs t ant i al l ycompl yw i t h R ul e 1042. 3, t he W om erC our tnonethel es s r ej ect ed W om er ’ s ar gum entthathe had s ubs t ant i al l ycompl i ed w i th the R ul e bypr ovi di ng defe ndantw i t h an expe r tr epor tw hi ch s etfor t h t he i nfo rm at i on t hat a C O M w ou l d h ave co ntai ned and w hich com po rt ed w i t h the purpo se u n d erly ing R u le 10 4 3 . 2 – to af firm that h is cl aim s w ere n o t fri v o lou s. T h e C o u rt d isag ree d , ex p lai n ing : “R u le 10 4 2 . 3 is cl ea r an d u n am b igu o u s in it s m an d ate tha t i n ev ery pr ofes s i onal l i abi l i t yact i on a s peci fi c r epr es ent at i on aboutthe pl ai nt i ff’ s cl ai m m us tbe fi l ed i n the off

i ci al r ecor d i n a documentcal l ed a ‘ cert i fi cat e of mer i t ’ atthe t i m e the compl ai nti s fi l ed orw i t hi n s i xt yday s ther eaf t er . ” I d. at278. T he C our tconcl uded that pl ai nt i ff’ s fai l ur e t o fi l e anys uch documentw i t h t he courtort o r eques tan ext ens i on of tim e in w h ich to d o so w a s n o t “a p ro c e d u ra l m iss tep ” b u t ra th e r “ a w h o les a le f a ilu re to t ake a nyof the ac t i ons t hatone of ourrul es r equi r es . ” I d. B eca us e the pl ai nt i ff ha d m ade no att empt t o pr ovi de the courtw i t h the i nform at i on r equi r ed byR ul e 1042. 3, i thel d that he coul d nott ake a dvant age of t he exc ept i ons out l i ned i n R ul e 126 fors ubs t ant i al7

c o m p lian c e . S e e id . (“R u le 1 2 6 is a v a ilab le to a p a rtyw h o m a k e s a su b sta n tial a ttem p t to conform , and nott o a part yw ho di s r egar ds the t erm s of a rul e i n t hei rent i r etyand det erm i nes forhi m s el f the s t eps he ca n t ake t o s at i s fythe pr ocedur e thatw e have adopt ed to en h an ce the f

u n cti o n ing o f th e tri al co u rt s. ”). Si nce W om er , s t at e and f eder al cour t s appl y i ng Penns y l vani a l aw have a ppl i ed the “s ubs t ant i al compl i ance ” doctr i ne i n s i tuat i ons w her e the pl ai nt i ff ha s at t empt ed but fai l ed t o m eett he t echni cal r equi r ement s of R ul e 1042. 3. See, e. g. , R amos v. Q ui en, 631 F. Supp. 2d 601, 612 ( E . D . Pa. 2008) ( excus i ng pl ai nt i ff’ s l at e fi l i ng of a CO M undert he s ubs t ant i al compl i ance doctr i ne w her e pl ai nt i ff r eques t ed ext ens i on fr om C our tof Co mmo n P l e a s b e f

o r e c a s e wa s r e mo v e d t o f e d e r a l c o u r ta n d f

i l e d COM d u r i n g th a tt i me fr ame) ; W eave rv. U ni ver s i t yof Pi t t s bur gh M edi cal C ent er , 2008 W L 2942139, at*8 ( W . D . Pa. 2008) ( hol di ng t hat“[w ] hi l e the t extof the C O M di d notcorr es pond t o t he cl ai m of di r ectl i abi l i t yal l eged i n t he compl ai nt– an err orw e do notbel i eve s houl d be condoned l i ght l y– s uch i ncons i s t encydoes notr equi r e di s m i s s al ”) ; Sabo v. W orr al l , 959 A .2 d 3 4 7 , 3 5 2 (P a . S u p e r. C t. 20 0 8 ) (h o ld in g , w h e re p lain tiff ’s c o u n se l h a d tim e ly p re p a re d a C O M b u t h is p a ra leg a l f a iled to f ile it o n tim e , tha t p lain tiff h a d su b sta n tially compl i ed w i t h t he R ul e) . C f. N ew el l v. R ui z, 286 F. 3d 166, 169- 71 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( endor s i ng s ubs t ant i al compl i ance doctr i ne w i t h r es pectt o t he A ffi davi tof M er i tr equi r ed underN ew J er s eyl aw w her e pl ai nt i ff mi s t akenl yfi l ed C O M as r equi r ed i n N ew Y or k, b u t d e f e n d a n ts w e re n o t p re

ju d ice d b yp e rm itt in g p lain tiff ’s p o ten tiallym e rito rio u s c laim8

t o p r o c e e d , p l a i n t i f

f h a d t a k e n s t e p s t o c o mp l ywi t h th e s t a tu t e , th e p u rp o s e o f th e two s t atut es w er e s i m i l ar , defe ndant s had not i ce of pl ai nt i ff’ s cl ai m , and pl ai nt i ff’ s act i on w as r eas onabl e undert he ci r cumst ance s ) . B uts ee Str oud v. A bi ngt on M emori al H os pi t al , 546 F . S u p p . 2 d 2 3 8 , 2 5 4 -55 (E . D . P a. 20 0 8 ) (ho lding that, d esp it e ind icati o n s fro m p lai n ti ff ’s compl ai ntand amended C O M t hathe i nt ended t o r ai s e both vi car i ous and di r ecttheor i es of l i abi l i ty , hi s fai l ur e t o i ndi cat e both t heor i es i n hi s or i gi nal C O M m andat ed di s m i s s al of hi s di r ectl i abi l i t ycl ai m ) ; H ooverv. D avi l a, 862 A . 2d 591 ( Pa. Super . C t . 2004) (ho lding that p ro se p lai n ti ff ’s l ac k o f k n o w ledg e o f ru le do es n o t exc u se n o n co m p li an ce ). W e under s t and the val ue of thi s R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e and the i m por t antpol i cy cons i der at i ons w hi ch l ed the Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our tt o adopti t . C oncerned about the rise in m alpra cti ce ac ti o n s b eing fil ed in P en n sy lvan ia co u rt s, the S u p rem e C o u rt s oughta devi ce “ t hatw oul d s erve t o i dent i fyand w eed non- m er i t or i ous m al pr act i ce c l a i ms f r o m t h e j u d i c i a l s y s t e m e f f i c i e n t l ya n d p r o mpt l y . ” W o me r , 9 0 8 A. 2 d a t2 7 5 . To th a t en d , the C o u rt d e ter m in e d th a t: the p rese n ce in the rec o rd o f a C O M sign als t o the p arti es a n d the tri al co u rt thatt he pl ai nt i ff i s w i l l i ng t o att es tt o t he bas i s of hi s m al pr act i ce c l ai m ; that he i s i n a pos i t i on t o s uppor tt he al l egat i ons he has m ade i n hi s pr ofes s i onal l i abi l i t yact i on; and thatr es our ces w i l l notbe w as t ed i f addi t i onal pl eadi ng and di s coveryt ake pl ace . I d. U nl i ke i n W om er , how ever , t hi s i s nota ca s e w her e A ppel l anthas t aken no a ct i on or has i gnor ed hi s obl i gat i ons t o t he C our t . R ather , A ppel l ant , w hi l e i ncar cer at ed and p ro c e e d in g p ro se a n d in f o rm a p a u p e ris, h a s lo c a ted a q u a lifie d p h y sic ian , co m p iled h is9

m edi cal r ecor ds , t i m el yfi l ed the nec es s aryr eques t s forext ens i ons of t i m e and a t t empt ed t o p r o v i d e t h e Co u r twi t h a c o mp l i a n tCO M . I n s o d o i n g , Ap p e l l a n tma d e wh a twe b e lie v e to b e a s u b s ta n tia l a tte m p t to c o n f o rm to th e re q u ir e m e n ts o f th e R u le . A c c o rd in g ly , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in g ra n tin g A p p e llee ’s m o tio n to di s m i s s w i t houtaff

or di ng A ppel l antan opportuni t yt o fi l e a c om pl i antC O M . B as ed on the for egoi ng, w e w i l l vaca t e the j udgm entof the D i s t r i ctC our tand r emand forfur t her pr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i t h t hi s opi ni on.