Summary
framing the issue for review as whether Appellants “impliedly waived the protections” of Section 7111 by filing the lawsuit
Summary of this case from Octave ex rel. Octave v. WalkerOpinion
2012-12-27
Susan OCTAVE On Behalf of James OCTAVE, an incapacitated Person, and Susan Octave, Petitioners, v. David Wade WALKER and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Respondents.
Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court, Nos. 115 WAL 2012, 116 WAL 2012.
Prior report: Pa.Cmwlth., 37 A.3d 604.
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
AND NOW, this 27th day of December, 2012, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issue is:
Given the [petitioners] do not explicitly waive the protections of 50 P.S. § 7111, given the [petitioners'] Amended Complaint does not allege injuries to mental health, given the [respondents] raise the question of mental health and seek the [petitioner's] pre-collision mental health records, and given the [respondents'] claim of mental health relies exclusively on the conclusions of a third party, did the [petitioners] put mental health at issue and impliedly waive the protections of 50 P.S. § 7111 though the act of filing the within lawsuit?