Rule 1042.3.Certificate of Merit.
Adopted January 27, 2003 · Last amended March 30, 2016 · Last verified June 30, 2026
Full Text of Rule 1042.3
Plain-English Summary
This rule is the gatekeeper for malpractice and other professional-liability suits. In any action alleging that a licensed professional deviated from an acceptable professional standard, the plaintiff’s attorney (or an unrepresented plaintiff) must file a certificate of merit with the complaint or within sixty days after filing it.
The certificate makes one of three representations: that an appropriate licensed professional has supplied a written statement that there is a reasonable probability the care, skill, or knowledge fell outside acceptable professional standards and caused the harm; that the claim against the defendant is based solely on the conduct of other licensed professionals for whom the defendant is responsible; or that expert testimony of an appropriate licensed professional is unnecessary to prosecute the claim. A separate certificate is filed as to each professional.
The deadline has give and teeth. The court must, for good cause, extend the time up to sixty days, but a plaintiff who fails to file faces a judgment of non pros under Rules 1042.6 and 1042.7.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a certificate of merit?
A document the plaintiff in a professional-liability case must file within sixty days of the complaint, certifying that an appropriate professional has stated a reasonable probability the care fell outside acceptable standards, that the claim rests on others’ conduct, or that expert testimony is unnecessary.
What happens if a certificate of merit is not filed?
The defendant may praecipe for a judgment of non pros — dismissing the claim — after giving the required notice. The court must, upon good cause shown, extend the time to file by up to sixty days.
Is a certificate of merit needed for every defendant?
Usually. A separate certificate of merit must be filed as to each licensed professional against whom a claim is asserted, but a defendant who joins or cross-claims against a licensed professional need not file one unless that claim rests on unrelated acts of negligence.
Official Note
Official Note: The requirements of subdivision (a) apply to a claim for lack of informed consent.
Official Note: It is not required that the ‘‘appropriate licensed professional’’ who supplies the necessary statement in support of a certificate of merit required by subdivision (a)(1) be the same person who will actually testify at trial. It is required, however, that the ‘‘appropriate licensed professional’’ who supplies such a statement be an expert with sufficient education, training, knowledge and experience to provide credible, competent testimony, or stated another way, the expert who supplies the statement must have qualifications such that the trial court would find them sufficient to allow that expert to testify at trial. For example, in a medical professional liability action against a physician, the expert who provides the statement in support of a certificate of merit should meet the qualifications set forth in Section 512 of the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error (MCARE) Act, 40 P. S. § 1303.512.
Official Note: A certificate of merit, based on the statement of an appropriate licensed professional required by subdivision (a)(1), must be filed as to the other licensed professionals for whom the defendant is responsible. The statement is not required to identify the specific licensed professionals who deviated from an acceptable standard of care. The purpose of this subdivision is to ensure that a claim of vicarious liability made against a defendant is supported by a certificate of merit. Separate certificates of merit as to each licensed professional for whom a defendant is alleged to be responsible are not required. Only a single certificate of merit as to a claim under subdivision (a)(2) is required.
Official Note: In the event that the attorney certifies under subdivision (a)(3) that an expert is unnecessary for prosecution of the claim, in the absence of exceptional circumstances the attorney is bound by the certification and, subsequently, the trial court shall preclude the plaintiff from presenting testimony by an expert on the questions of standard of care and causation.
Official Note: This subdivision relates to licensed professionals named as defendants. It should not be interpreted to require certificates of merit under subdivision (a)(2) or otherwise as to non-defendant licensed professionals.
Official Note: There are no restrictions on the number of orders that a court may enter extending the time for filing a certificate of merit provided that each order is entered pursuant to a new motion, timely filed and based on cause shown as of the date of filing the new motion. The moving party must act with reasonable diligence to see that the motion is promptly presented to the court if required by local practice. In ruling upon a motion to extend time, the court shall give appropriate consideration to the practicalities of securing expert review. There is a basis for granting an extension of time within which to file the certificate of merit if counsel for the plaintiff was first contacted shortly before the statute of limitations was about to expire, or if, despite diligent efforts by counsel, records necessary to review the validity of the claim are not available.
Amendment History
The provisions of this Rule 1042.3 adopted January 27, 2003, effective immediately, 33 Pa.B. 748; amended February 11, 2005, effective immediately, 35 Pa.B. 1416; amended December 5, 2005, effective immediately, 35 Pa.B. 6894; amended June 16, 2008, effective immediately, 38 Pa.B. 3481; amended March 20, 2013, effective May 1, 2013, 43 Pa.B. 1835; amended March 30, 2016, effective immediately, 46 Pa.B. 1895. Immediately preceding text appears at serial pages (366166) to (366167).