Legal Opinion

Pollock v. Feinstein

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided February 13, 2007PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION BY

McEWEN, P.J.E.:

¶ 1 Appellant, Sonya Pollock, appeals from the order denying her petition to strike the judgment of non pros entered in favor of appellees, Michael A. Feinstein, M.D., and Timothy F. Shawl, M.D., a judgment entered by the prothonotary after appellant failed to file a certificate of merit within sixty days of the filing of a complaint. See: Pa.R.C.P. No. 1042.6. We affirm.

¶ 2 This appeal arises from a claim brought by appellant against appellees for their alleged failure to obtain her informed consent to a procedure performed by ap-pellee, Dr. Feinstein, on September…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Womer v. HillikerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
  2. Montgomery v. Bazaz-SehgalSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  3. Varner v. Classic Communities Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
  4. Valles v. Albert Einstein Medical CenterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  5. Valles v. Albert Einstein Medical CenterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2002

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Zokaites Contracting Inc. v. Trant Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2009
  2. Shinal, M. v. Toms, S.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2015
  3. Berdecia-Cortes, J. v. Rogers, D.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
  4. Bisher, B. v. Lehigh Valley HealthSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2020
  5. Surefire Dividend Capture v. The PNC FinancialSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2025

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API