Jelena Todorovic Clemente v. Anna Koget

── Jelena Todorovic Clemente v. Anna Koget ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Date: April 21, 2026 Category: General UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 25-2880 __________ JELENA LUKE TODOROVIC CLEMENTE, Appellant v. ANNA KOGET, D.O.; JAMES ROSSETTI, D.O.; UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH PHYSICIANS, D/B/A UPMC Shadyside; UPMC PRESBYTERIAN SHADYSIDE, D/B/A UPMC Shadyside; ALLEGHENY CLINIC, D/B/A Allegheny Health Network Cancer Institute West Penn Hospital ____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 2:24-cv-00059) District Judge: Honorable Christy Criswell Wiegand ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) April 16, 2026 Before: BIBAS, CHUNG and BOVE, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed April 21, 2026) ___________ OPINION* ___________ PER CURIAM Jelena Todorovic Clemente appeals pro se from the District Court’s order dismissing her third amended complaint with prejudice. We will affirm. * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.  I. Clemente’s lawsuit stems from the death of her husband in March 2022 following his treatment for cancer; she attributes his death to the medical negligence of the individual defendants, his treating physicians. She filed wrongful death and vicarious liability claims against them and their respective institutions (“the Defendants” or “Appellees”) under Pennsylvania law on behalf of herself and as personal representative and executor of her late husband’s estate in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, which had diversity jurisdiction. Clemente subsequently amended her complaint ostensibly to remove the estate as a party after the District Court advised her that she could not represent it in federal court as a pro se party. She then filed a second amended complaint, which the District Court dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on the Defendants’ motions because she failed to allege sufficient facts that would permit her to proceed with her claims pro se. In particular, the court concluded that Clemente was still improperly attempting to bring claims on behalf of her husband’s estate and its beneficiaries. The District Court allowed Clemente to file a third amended complaint, but it ultimately dismissed that one as well for the same reasons. In her latest effort, Clemente had filed an affidavit signed by her husband’s eldest daughter, who disclaimed any interest in the estate and signed a general release of liability. However, the District Court noted that the decedent’s will and Clemente’s own court filings referred to two other potential beneficiaries (another daughter and son) who could be entitled to recovery under Pennsylvania’s Wrongful Death Act, 42 Pa. C.S. § 8301. Clemente still could not 2 show that no other interests were at stake besides her own, so the court dismissed her wrongful death claims with prejudice to the extent she sought to represent the estate pro se, and without prejudice to a future action brought on the estate’s behalf by counsel. In the absence of any underlying basis on which to hold the institutional defen