In this case, Giann Rodriguez sought unemployment compensation benefits after leaving his job at Lowes Home Centers, claiming he could not return due to work restrictions from a back injury and that the employer could not accommodate them. The Unemployment Compensation Board of Review affirmed a referee's determination that Rodriguez was ineligible under Section 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law because he failed to establish a necessitous and compelling reason for voluntarily quitting. Rodriguez did not attend the referee's hearing or provide any explanation for his absence, so the Board credited the employer's testimony that it had offered him suitable light-duty positions, such as a seated garden center role, which he did not accept or attempt. The Commonwealth Court affirmed the Board's order, holding that without any evidence from the claimant in the record and no proper cause shown for reopening the hearing, it could not consider his unpresented explanations and had to uphold the denial of benefits based on the credited facts.
This case involved A.S. and R.S. challenging the Department of Human Services' denial of their late administrative appeals from indicated reports of child abuse on the ChildLine registry. The court decided to reverse the Department's order and grant nunc pro tunc relief, allowing the appeals to proceed on the merits. The core reasoning was that petitioners' counsel had faxed and mailed the appeals within the 90-day deadline, supported by fax confirmations, and any failure to receive them was likely due to administrative issues at the Department, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, with no negligence by the petitioners.
The case involved a Pennsylvania WIC-authorized store and its owner challenging a three-year disqualification from the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, along with a $358.07 reimbursement order, after an inventory audit revealed discrepancies between documented purchases and WIC redemptions for items like PediaSure and Similac. The Hearing Examiner found a pattern of claiming reimbursement exceeding inventory, and the Commonwealth Court affirmed, holding that federal and state regulations mandate the three-year disqualification with no discretion for a lesser penalty. The court also denied the petitioners' motion to remand for new receipts, concluding the evidence was not newly available and should have been presented at the hearing, while substantial evidence supported the findings of non-compliance.
Jerome Walker, a parolee from a prior Pennsylvania drug and gun conviction, petitioned for review after the Pennsylvania Parole Board recommitted him as a convicted parole violator based on new federal convictions and denied him credit toward his original state sentence for pre-sentence confinement time spent under both a Board detainer and federal charges. Walker sought credit under Section 6138(a)(5.1) of the Prisons and Parole Code, citing Baasit v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole, and argued that applying Smith v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole to deny credit constituted an unconstitutional ex post facto change. The Commonwealth Court affirmed the Board's order, concluding that Gaito v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole remains controlling precedent and that the Board properly denied credit for time not served solely on its detainer or already credited against the federal sentence. The court found no error of law, abuse of discretion, or constitutional violation in the Board's decision.
The case involved Dwayne Arthur Reid, Jr., who was convicted by the Court of Common Pleas of York County of two summary offenses under the City of York's Traffic Code for parking an unattached trailer on a public roadway. Reid appealed the convictions, raising issues including lack of signage, due process violations, denial of a jury trial, and challenges to the validity of the ordinance. The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the trial court's order because Reid filed an untimely Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal under Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b), which is a strict bright-line rule that results in waiver of all appellate issues. The court noted that no extraordinary circumstances justified allowing a late filing nunc pro tunc, and it did not reach the merits of Reid's claims.
This case involved cross-appeals from a trial court order reversing the West Chester Borough Council's approval of a preliminary land development plan to build a 128-unit multi-family dwelling on a property in the Town Center zoning district. The Commonwealth Court affirmed the reversal, concluding that the plan violated the zoning ordinance's building height restriction based on the developer's own measurements and the ordinance's clear definition of how height is calculated. The court also held that the plan complied with applicable parking requirements, as supported by a qualified expert's study using industry standards for dense multi-use urban areas, and with build-to line and setback provisions. The decision turned on statutory interpretation of the zoning ordinance and review of the administrative record without substituting new factual findings.