The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court, which held that the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ claims. Following the death of their son, Brenton Bisher and Carla Bisher sued, without representation by counsel, against eleven defendants comprising both named individuals and corporate entities alleging their medical malpractice resulting in their son’s death. Each parent brought their own wrongful death claims, and Carla filed a survival action on behalf of her son’s estate. The trial court struck the amended complaint with prejudice because of defects in the Certificates of Merit mandated by Rule of Civil Procedure 1042.3 in professional liability suits against licensed professionals. On appeal, the Superior Court sua sponte determined that the Bishers committed two errors that jointly deprived the trial court of subject-matter jurisdiction over all claims: Carla’s unauthorized practice of law and the lack of verification of the complaint. The panel concluded that it too lacked jurisdiction and quashed the appeal. The Supreme Court found that neither the unauthorized practice of law in the trial court nor the lack of verification identified by the Superior Court implicated subject-matter jurisdiction and thus could not be raised sua sponte. The Supreme Court also disagreed with the Superior Court’s alternative holding that the trial court properly struck the amended complaint because of the defects in the Certificates of Merit. The Court concluded that pleadings unlawfully filed by non-attorneys are not void ab initio because the unauthorized practice of law issue would be ripe for further litigation on remand. Instead, after notice to the offending party and opportunity to cure, the pleadings are voidable in the discretion of the court in which the unauthorized practice of law took place.
