The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has agreed to hear a challenge to the civil lawsuit that Nancy Raynor leveled against several attorneys who sought a nearly $1 million sanction against her—which a trial judge agreed to, but was later reversed by an appeals court.

The justices on Wednesday agreed to take up the case, captioned Raynor v. D'Annunzio, which Raynor brought against three attorneys and two law firms alleging wrongful use of civil proceedings, Dragonetti Act violations and abuse of process.

The suit stemmed from the 2014 proceedings that captured the attention of Pennsylvania lawyers after Raynor, a Malvern-based medical malpractice defense attorney, was hit with a $946,197 sanction for allegedly causing a mistrial by eliciting an improper reference to smoking in a lung-cancer-related case. Those sanctions were overturned in the appellate courts.

Raynor's Dragonetti suit, which was filed in 2017, was initially tossed out at the trial court phase before the Superior Court reinstated it earlier this year.

The Supreme Court agreed to take up the Dragonetti suit specifically to deal with whether the sanctions motion in the underlying case constituted "civil proceedings" under the Dragonetti Act, and whether the Superior Court's decision essentially created "new Pennsylvania law" by giving Raynor standing when she was not a party in the underlying action.

In the Superior Court's March ruling, the three-judge panel reversed the lower court's finding that contempt proceedings cannot constitute "civil proceedings" for the purposes of bringing a Dragonetti Action.

Judge Kate Ford Elliott, who wrote the majority's 21-page opinion, said civil proceedings and motions for contempt both "put an individual's basic fundamental right of property in legal jeopardy."

"We find that a motion seeking a finding of contempt and a request for sanctions is, separate and distinct from post-trial motions alleging trial court error filed in the underlying lawsuit for the purposes of the Dragonetti Act, tantamount to the filing of a civil lawsuit," Ford Elliott said.

The sanction against Raynor stemmed from a medical malpractice case captioned Sutch v. Roxborough Memorial Hospital, which involved allegations that doctors failed to tell a woman that a chest X-ray showed a suspicious nodule. The sanction was imposed after Raynor allegedly failed to instruct a medical expert not to mention the deceased plaintiff's smoking history. That alleged mistake led to a new trial after the first trial resulted in a $190,000 verdict in 2012. The new trial ended with a nearly $2 million award.

Along with the nearly $1 million sanction, Raynor was also hit with a separate $45,000 sanction for allegedly attempting to pressure a witness in the same case. That sanction, however, was upheld by the Superior Court.

In January 2017, Raynor sued Joe Messa and his firm, Messa & Associates, as well as ­attorneys Matthew D'Annunzio and William T. Hill and the firm Klehr Harrison Harvey Branzburg. Hill and D'Annunzio worked at Klehr Harrison at the time the medical malpractice case was tried, but D'Annunzio had since moved to Offit Kurman. Along with the Dragonetti Act claim, Raynor alleged wrongful use of civil proceedings and abuse of process.

In making her claims, Raynor had contended the defendants pursued the sanctions for vindictive purposes and so they could recover "greater fees than those to which the ­attorney defendants were entitled under their contingent fee agreement with [Rosalind Sutch, the plaintiff in the ­underlying ­medical ­malpractice case] for the legal services rendered in the Sutch action."

Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Arnold New, in August 2017, dismissed her civil suit, saying her complaint admitted that Raynor had violated an order in the underlying trial, so her claims had to fail.

Along with contending that the contempt proceedings constituted civil proceedings for the purposes of pursuing a Dragonetti claim, Raynor also contended that, even though she was not a party in the underlying action, she had standing to bring the claims. Although the Superior Court agreed with New's decision to toss the abuse of process and wrongful use of civil proceedings claims, the appeals court agreed with Raynor on the standing issue.

"While we make no determination as to whether appellants will be successful on the merits, they are entitled to their day in court," Ford Elliott said.

Raynor's attorney, Clifford Haines, said the Supreme Court's decision was not unexpected.

"We interpret this as a good sign and we anticipate a positive result," Haines said.

Robert Fiebach of Cozen O'Connor, who ­represents Klehr Harrison, Hill and D'Annunzio, said he was happy the justices took up the case.

"We're hopeful that the court will agree with us that the Superior Court went beyond existing law, and that the existing law should not be expanded," Fiebach said.

Fox Rothschild attorney Robert Tintner, who is representing Messa, also said he was pleased the high court took up the case.

"We're pleased they agree there's an issue of first impression there they have to address," he said.