Rule 1303.1 - Scheduling Of Arbitration Hearing. Discovery Time Limits(a) A matter subject to compulsory arbitration shall be scheduled for a hearing as set forth below.(1) An appeal of a decision of a magisterial district judge pursuant to Pa.R.M.D.J. 1002 shall be scheduled for arbitration within ninety (90) days of the filing of the appeal in the Court of Common Pleas.(2) All other matters subject to compulsory arbitration shall be scheduled after one hundred fifty (150) days from the commencement of the action.(3) The parties may seek to schedule an arbitration hearing earlier than the limits listed above in subsection (b) upon the filing of a joint praecipe with the Prothonotary. A copy of the praecipe must be provided contemporaneously to the Court Administrator. (i) There shall be no discovery permitted after the filing of a joint praecipe.(b) Discovery in all matters subject to compulsory arbitration other than appeals pursuant to Pa. M. D. J. 1002 shall be limited to one hundred fifty (150) days from the commencement of the action, unless otherwise ordered by the Court for good cause shown. In no case shall discovery be permitted to exceed two hundred forty (240) days.(c) If a party fails to appear for a scheduled arbitration hearing, the Court may act as follows: (1) immediately hear the matter as an ex parte, non-jury trial and enter a verdict; or(2) order the matter to proceed to arbitration for a hearing and the entry of an award by the arbitration panel.(d) A non-jury verdict entered by the Court shall not exceed $50,000.00 to any party, exclusive of costs and interest. Amended effective 1/1/2022Comment: When the Court "hears the matter," it is accelerating the time for conducting a de novo trial. However, the proceeding is still a "trial" and the rules otherwise applicable to a trial in the Court of Common Pleas are not suspended. Therefore, counsel, or a party if unrepresented, should be prepared to present testimony and introduce evidence at the trial, and the Court should make findings of fact and conclusions of law. See Hayes v. Donohue Designer Kitchen, Inc., 818 A.2d 1287 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2003) .