Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

[U] Bruzgo v. Szulborski

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

February 4, 2014

DOROTHY J. BRUZGO, Appellant
v.
ROBERT SZULBORSKI, M.D., Appellee

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION

Appeal from the Order April 29, 2013, Court of Common Pleas, Luzerne, Civil Division at No. 2008-11911

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., DONOHUE and STABILE, JJ.

JUDGMENT ORDER

DONOHUE, J.

Dorothy J. Bruzgo ("Bruzgo") appeals from the order of court granting Robert Szulborski's preliminary objections and dismissing her seventh amended complaint with prejudice. For the following reasons, we dismiss this appeal.

The Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure provide that the appellant's brief must contain the following separate and distinct components: statement of jurisdiction; order in question; statement of the scope and standard of review; statement of the case; summary of the argument; argument for appellant; conclusion; opinions of the lower court; statement of errors complained on of appeal. Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a). If the appellant does not meet these requirements and the defects in his or her brief are substantial, this Court may quash or dismiss the appeal. Pa.R.A.P. 2101.

The brief Bruzgo has submitted fails to conform to the requirements set forth above in almost every material respect. Most pertinent to our review, Bruzgo has failed to include a statement of questions involved or any relevant argument. What appears under the heading "Argument" appears to be two counts that may have been part of the complaint or one of the amended complaints filed in the court below. Appellant's Brief at 4-7. There is absolutely no argument as to how or why the trial court erred in granting Szulborski's preliminary objections. We may not fill this void for Bruzgo, because it is well established "[t]his Court will not develop arguments on the behalf of an appellant." Keller v. Mey, 67 A.3d 1, 7 (Pa.Super. 2013).

The substantial defects in Bruzgo's brief preclude meaningful appellate review. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.[1]

Appeal dismissed.

Judgment Entered.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.