J-A28043- 14

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 DR. SOFIA LAM D/B/A SUBURBAN PAIN CONTROL CENTER IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 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 Contr ol Center, appeals from the June 25, 2013 and March 11, 2014 orders gran ting summary judgment in favor of Appellees, Joseph Heng, D.C. d/b /a ActiveCare Rehabilitation, and Home Elite, Ltd. and 1256 Gordo n, Ltd. An appellant must timely comply whenever the trial co urt orders a concise statement of matters complained of on appeal purs uant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Commonwealth v Lord , 553 Pa. 415, 719 A.2d 306 (1998). “[F]ailure to comply wit h the minimal requirements of Rule 1925(b) will

result in automatic waiver of the issues raised.” Greater Erie Indus. Development Corp. v. Presque Isle Downs, Inc. , 88 A.3d 222, 224 (Pa. Super. 2014) ( en banc ) (emphasis in original). “[O]ur Supreme Court doesJ-A28043- 14

- 2 -

not countenance anything less than stringent application of waiver pursuant to Rule 1925(b). x 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 prothonota ry 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

mu st 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 t n v. Hammer , 879 A.2d 223, 227 (Pa.Super. 2005). Instantly, Appellant filed her notice of appeal on M arch 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 twe nty-one days of entry of the order. App ellant’s statement was due on or before April 25, 2014

. Although Appellant timely filed a Rule 1925(b) state ment, Appellant did not serve a copy of the Rule 1925(b) statement on the tria l 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 fil e a Rule 1925(b) statement and strictly followed the proper filing an d notice procedures, and given that Appell ant failed to comply with the court’s order, we agree Appellant waived her issues. Accordingly, we affirm. See generally In reJ-A28043- 14

- 3 -

K.L.S. , 594 Pa. 194, 197 n.3, 934 A.2d 1244, 1246 n.3 (20 07) (stating where issues are waived on appeal, we should affirm rat her than quash appeal). Order affirmed. Case is stricken from the argument li st. Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 9/22/2014