Superior Court 7/2/08 - DENTAL CARE ASSOCIATES, INC. v. KELLER ENGINEERS, INC.

DENTAL CARE ASSOCIATES, INC. v. KELLER ENGINEERS, INC.
No. 698 MDA 2007 2008 PA Super 143 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 7/2/2008
Appeal from the Order April 2, 2007 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County, Civil Division at No. 06-00497
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., DONOHUE, and POPOVICH, JJ.
Opinion by: POPOVICH, J.
Appellant Dental Care Associates, Inc. appeals the order denying its “Petition to Strike/Open Judgment of Non Pros” due to its failure to file a certificate of merit. We affirm.

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here


Sub judice, consistent with the rationale in Varner, we hold that
Appellee, a Pennsylvania corporation engaged in the business of providing
engineering services, qualifies as a “licensed professional” for purposes of
the certificate of merit provisions under Rule 1042.1(b)(1)(vi). Concomitant
therewith, we conclude that Appellant’s causes of action against Appellee are
inextricably intertwined with the propriety of assessing the professional
engineering services Appellee provided in the storm water management plan
and civil design of Appellant’s property. This is evident from an examination
of the report prepared by the consultant (Brinjac Engineering) hired by
Appellant to review the design work performed by Appellee; to-wit:
BRINJAC has reviewed [Appellee’s] Storm [W]ater
Management Report for the property and found the report
to be thorough in scope and of sound engineering
methods. There was a discrepancy noted on the pages entitled
SCS segmental Travel Time, in which, the pre[-] and post[-
]development overland flow lengths did not appear to match the
Time of Concentration line depicted on the plans. Upon
reevaluation of these values in accordance with PennDOT’s
Design Manual 2 Chapter 10, BRINJAC found that the post[-
]development storm flows increased approximately 0.75 to 1
cubic foot per second per design year. The existing pipe network
onsite has the capacity to convey this increase in flow.
Exhibit “D” attached to Appellant’s “Petition to Strike and Open Judgment of
Non Pros,” 11/13/05; Record No. 19 (emphasis added).3 We read the
preceding excerpt, which is exemplary of the content of the Brinjac
Engineering Report, to contain topics “beyond the realm of common
knowledge and experience” that would require expert testimony to explicate.