Case Name: Nancy NICOLAOU and Nicholas Nicolaou, Petitioners v. James J. MARTIN, M.D., Louise A. Dillonsynder, CRNP, Jeffrey D. Gould, M.D., St. Luke's Hospital, St. Luke's Hospital and Health Network, St. Luke's Hospital Union Station Medical Surgical Clinic d/b/a St. Luke's Southside Medical Center, St. Luke's Orthopaedic Surgical Group, and Nazareth Family Practice, Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 2017-08-18
Citations: 170 A.3d 990
Docket Number: No. 58 MAL 2017
Parties: Nancy NICOLAOU and Nicholas Nicolaou, Petitioners v. James J. MARTIN, M.D., Louise A. Dillonsynder, CRNP, Jeffrey D. Gould, M.D., St. Luke’s Hospital, St. Luke’s Hospital and Health Network, St. Luke’s Hospital Union Station Medical Surgical Clinic d/b/a St. Luke’s Southside Medical Center, St. Luke’s Orthopaedic Surgical Group, and Nazareth Family Practice, Respondents
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 170
Pages: 990–990

Head Matter:
Nancy NICOLAOU and Nicholas Nicolaou, Petitioners v. James J. MARTIN, M.D., Louise A. Dillonsynder, CRNP, Jeffrey D. Gould, M.D., St. Luke’s Hospital, St. Luke’s Hospital and Health Network, St. Luke’s Hospital Union Station Medical Surgical Clinic d/b/a St. Luke’s Southside Medical Center, St. Luke’s Orthopaedic Surgical Group, and Nazareth Family Practice, Respondents
No. 58 MAL 2017
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
August 18, 2017

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM
AND NOW, this 18th day of August, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by Petitioners, are:
a. Did the Trial Court err in granting Respondents' Motion for Summary Judgment and holding" that Petitioners' medical malpractice action was time barred under 42 Pa.C.S. § 5524(2) and did not meet the Discovery Rule Exception when Plaintiff did not, and was financially unable to, confirm Respondents' negligent misdiagnosis until final medical testing confirmed she had Lyme Disease on February 13, 2010?
b. Did the Trial Court abuse its discretion in granting Respondents' Motion for Summary Judgment when there was a genuine issue of material fact, which should be presented to a jury, as to whether Petitioners' • medical malpractice' action is tolled frotó the running of the Statute of Limitations under 42 Pa.C.S. § 5524(2) by the Discovery Rule?
Justice Wecht did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.