Appeal From Order Entered February 26, 1985 Court of Common Pleas, Civil Division, Montgomery County, No. 79-20168
Paul Shalita, Philadelphia, for appellant.
Steven L. Sugarman, Paoli, for Feege, appellee.
Lois A. Wood, Philadelphia, for Tinari, appellee.
Curtis P. Cheyney, III, Philadelphia, for Travelers, appellee.
Cavanaugh, Olszewski and Tamilia, JJ.
[ 353 Pa. Super. Page 597]
The roots of this case go back many years. Appellant, Mary Jane McGee, was injured in 1968 and claimed workmen's compensation. The employer agreed to pay compensation at the rate of $60.00 per week for an indefinite period of time and in 1970 petitioned to terminate the agreement. The referee denied termination of the agreement and the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board vacated the referee's order. Subsequently, new testimony was taken before the referee who then suspended the agreement. The Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board affirmed the suspension and the Commonwealth Court affirmed the Board's order. An appeal was taken to the Supreme Court which reversed the Commonwealth Court's affirmance of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board's order and remanded the matter to the Board for further proceedings. McGee v. L.F. Grammes & Sons, Inc., 477 Pa. 143, 383 A.2d 864 (1978). Subsequently, the Board directed that compensation be continued pursuant to the compensation agreement and the insurer filed a Petition for Clarification which the Supreme Court denied in McGee v. L.F. Grammes & Sons, Inc., 485 Pa. 643, 403 A.2d 573 (1979).*fn1 Appellant was paid the compensation she was entitled to on July 18, 1979 with the appropriate interest.
In October, 1979 the appellant instituted an action in trespass against several lawyers, two law firms, a workmen's
[ 353 Pa. Super. Page 598]
compensation referee and Travelers Insurance Company. The appellant alleged that she was maliciously deprived of her property from March 23, 1978 to April 23, 1979. (Paragraph 18 of the complaint). In 1985 the court below granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and the plaintiff below has appealed to this court.
The court below determined that the plaintiff alleged that the defendants below (appellees herein) had committed the torts of abuse of process and malicious use of process and that in both torts a seizure of property must be established. Since it was clear from the affidavits, depositions and interrogatories on file that no seizure of property occurred, summary judgment was entered in favor of all appellees.
In order for the appellant to prevail under either the theory of abuse of process or malicious use of civil process, she must establish that she was deprived of her property or was arrested. Blumenfeld v. R.M. Shoemaker, 286 Pa. Super. ...