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NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 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

“[F]ailure to comply with 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 does 
J-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 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 Asstn 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. Appellant’s statement was due on or before April 25, 2014. 

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 Appellant failed to comply with the court’s order, we agree

Appellant waived her issues. Accordingly, we affirm. See generally In re 
J-A28043-14

- 3 - 

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