PAMED Files Brief Against Expansion of Statute of Limitations

On September 23, 2026, PAMED joined the Pennsylvania Coalition for Civil Justice Reform (PCCJR) and other aligned groups in filing an amici curiae brief in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The case, Poteat v. Asteak, concerns the effort by a plaintiff to characterize what is fundamentally a professional negligence claim as a breach-of-contract claim to avoid the shorter statute of limitations that applies to tort claims. 

Specifically, the plaintiff, Antoine Poteat, sued criminal defense attorneys Gary Asteak and Nino Tinari in Lehigh County alleging incompetent legal representation. But, instead of suing on malpractice grounds, a tort with a two-year statute of limitations, Poteat sued for breach of contract, grounds carrying a four-year statute of limitations.

The county court dismissed the case, applying the longstanding “gist of the action” doctrine that serves to prevent tort cases from being converted into contract cases and vice versa. Poteat appealed to the Superior Court. A divided Superior Court panel reversed, finding the gist of the action doctrine inapplicable to the case and finding an implied duty for an attorney to provide competent representation.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court took the case to determine whether the gist of the action doctrine should apply here. Application of the doctrine would prohibit Poteat from recasting a negligence claim as a breach of contract when Poteat did  not allege a breach of a specific term of the contract.

Our amici brief argues that the longstanding Pennsylvania “gist of the action” doctrine should be applied here to preserve the distinction between tort and contract claims and prevent litigants from simply relabeling a claim to obtain different remedies or a more favorable statute of limitations. Our brief also argues that the Superior Court committed errors of analysis and includes policy arguments as to why preservation of the gist of the action is critical.

While this case concerns a legal malpractice claim, failure of the Supreme Court to reverse the lower Superior Court decision will create a substantial risk that medical malpractice claims that carry a two-year statute of limitations could, soon, be re-packaged as contract claims with a four-year statute of limitations to allow plaintiffs more time to sue.

Oral argument will likely be scheduled for the first half of 2027. The Supreme Court’s opinion can be expected during the second half of 2027 or early 2028.