Renee Cohn Jubelirer

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.

labor & employmentprocedure

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.

family lawprocedure

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.

business & regulatoryhealthcare

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

propertybusiness & regulatory

This case involves a tort action brought by Ziaire Leger against Bethel Township and others for severe injuries sustained in a 2020 car crash at an intersection in the Township, which Leger alleged was caused by a negligently placed stop sign creating insufficient sight distance. The trial court granted summary judgment to the Township based on governmental immunity under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act, finding no evidence of actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition. On appeal, the Commonwealth Court reversed and remanded, holding that a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding constructive notice because evidence showed the Township was responsible for the stop sign, conducted patrols, and could have discovered the condition through reasonable inspection. The court reasoned that such evidence makes the notice issue one for the factfinder rather than appropriate for summary judgment.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved Jessica Braunstein appealing a denial of unemployment compensation benefits after she voluntarily quit her job at OS Restaurant Services d/b/a Outback Steakhouse, citing repeated sexual harassment by coworkers and retaliation by management. The Unemployment Compensation Board of Review affirmed a referee's decision finding her ineligible for benefits under Section 402(b) of the UC Law, as she had not shown a necessitous and compelling reason for leaving her employment. The Commonwealth Court affirmed the Board's order, reasoning that the factual findings established the employer had promptly acted on complaints reported to corporate offices and that the claimant had not demonstrated it would have been futile to report remaining incidents or that all relevant reports were made to the employer in a manner that would impute knowledge.

labor & employment

This case involved a grievance filed by the Fraternal Order of Police on behalf of Sergeant Brian Elledge against the City of Pittsburgh, challenging his transfers to different zones without written explanation and alleging violations of due process rights under the parties' collective bargaining agreement (CBA) during an ongoing discrimination investigation and related discipline. An arbitrator ruled in the officer's favor, finding the City violated Section 3 of the CBA by failing to provide required explanations for the transfers, and the trial court affirmed the award. The Commonwealth Court, applying the narrow certiorari scope of review applicable to Act 111 police arbitration awards, held that the arbitrator acted within his jurisdiction and authority by interpreting the CBA and engaging in fact-finding, without exceeding the scope of the grievance or modifying the agreement. The court therefore affirmed the trial court's order upholding the award.

labor & employment

Daniel A. Berger appealed the Court of Common Pleas' denial of his challenge to the Bureau of Administrative Adjudication's decision not to return his impounded vehicle without charge. The vehicle was towed due to unpaid parking tickets after Berger was found liable but did not pay or timely appeal. The Commonwealth Court affirmed in part and vacated in part, remanding for a new hearing because Berger's due process rights were violated by inadequate notice of the issues to be addressed at the administrative hearing regarding the towing and impounding under the Philadelphia Code.

procedurecivil rights

The case concerns Samantha Finger's appeal of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review's decision denying her benefits under Section 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law after she voluntarily quit her part-time job as a registered behavior technician. The Board and Referee found her ineligible because she did not establish a necessitous and compelling reason for quitting, despite an initial approval by the UC Service Center based on her claim of a better job offer. The court affirmed the denial, holding that the purported offer letter was uncorroborated hearsay that could not support a finding of a firm offer, the evidence showed contingencies rendering any offer non-firm, and Claimant failed to participate meaningfully in the scheduled hearing despite notice. The opinion emphasizes that a claimant bears the burden in voluntary quit cases and that mere possibilities of other employment are insufficient.

labor & employment

Brian Boylan appealed an 18-month suspension of his driver's license imposed by PennDOT after he refused chemical testing following a 2020 DUI arrest and motorcycle crash. The trial court held a hearing in 2020 but did not rule until January 2024, denying his appeal; Boylan then challenged the suspension in the Commonwealth Court, arguing the multi-year delay caused prejudice. The Commonwealth Court affirmed the trial court's order because Boylan failed to timely file a required concise statement of errors complained of on appeal under Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), resulting in waiver of his sole appellate issue. The court noted that a petition filed within the deadline sought a stay rather than identifying appeal issues and that counsel's filing error did not qualify as an extraordinary circumstance excusing the omission.

procedurecriminal law

In M. Miller v. UCBR, claimant Miesha Miller sought review of Unemployment Compensation Board of Review orders denying her request to backdate a benefits claim from December 2023 through March 2024 after her separation from employment with the U.S. Department of the Treasury. The claimant, who had been on medical leave, argued she was effectively unemployed from her last day of work and did not know she would need to resign until later, but the Referee and Board found her stated reason did not qualify under any permitted exceptions in Department regulations such as 34 Pa. Code § 65.43a. The Commonwealth Court affirmed the denials, holding that none of the enumerated regulatory exceptions applied—including those for medical conditions preventing filing, employer misinformation about recall, or good-faith efforts—and that a claimant's misunderstanding or ignorance of the filing process does not justify backdating. The court noted the claim was filed in April 2024 after a settlement agreement and that the Board properly applied the rules without error.

labor & employment

The case involved La’Var Ali Harley challenging the Pennsylvania State Police's requirement that he register as a sex offender under SORNA following his 2008 convictions for kidnapping for ransom, criminal conspiracy to commit aggravated assault, and possessing instruments of crime. The court granted PSP's application for summary relief and denied Harley's motion for judgment on the pleadings, dismissing the petition with prejudice. The core reasoning was that the kidnapping involved a minor victim, making it a registrable offense, that SORNA's application was not an unconstitutional ex post facto law per precedent, and that failure to advise of registration at sentencing does not eliminate the requirement.

criminal lawcivil rights

The case involved Ronald Koruszko, a self-employed real estate agent, challenging the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review's calculation of his weekly benefit amount for Pandemic Unemployment Assistance benefits under the CARES Act. After an initial self-certified determination set the amount at $540 based on $55,000 in income, the Department redetermined it to $324 using his 2019 Schedule C net income of $32,892, leading to an overpayment. The court affirmed the Board's order, holding that federal regulations require use of net income rather than gross income for self-employed claimants and that the redetermination process was properly followed despite the claimant's reliance on the initial figure. The decision turned on the applicable provisions of the CARES Act and Pennsylvania's Unemployment Compensation Law for computing benefits.

labor & employment

This case concerned an appeal by Nelson Cruz, LLC, the purchaser at an upset tax sale of a vacant commercial property in Delaware County, Pennsylvania, after the Court of Common Pleas set aside the sale. The property owner, HYMY PM, LLC, had petitioned to invalidate the sale on grounds that the Delaware County Tax Claim Bureau failed to provide proper notice under the Real Estate Tax Sale Law when prior mailings were returned as undeliverable. The Commonwealth Court affirmed the lower court's order, holding that the Bureau had the owner's updated mailing address on file yet made no effort to use it for notice. The decision rested on the statutory requirement for reasonable efforts to locate and notify the record owner before a tax sale can proceed.

taxespropertyprocedure

This case involved the termination of probationary police officer Robert Redman by the City of Pittsburgh, the Fraternal Order of Police's appeal on his behalf to the City Civil Service Commission under the collective bargaining agreement (CBA), and the trial court's remand for a hearing on whether Redman had joined the union and whether the termination was for proper cause. The Commonwealth Court denied the union's motion to quash the City's appeal and reversed the trial court's order. The court held that, under the CBA's explicit terms excluding just cause protections during the 12-month probationary period after MPOETC certification and the Commission's lack of authority to reinstate probationary officers, Redman had no property interest in continued employment and thus no right to appeal the termination.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved Barry Joseph Moyer challenging a Pennsylvania Parole Board order that recommitted him as a convicted parole violator for 12 months and denied credit for approximately 1,019 days of time spent at liberty on parole, based on his new conviction for corruption of minors. Moyer argued that the Board erred because his conviction under 18 Pa.C.S. § 6301(a)(1)(i) was not an enumerated sexual offense and the record did not support the finding that it was sexual in nature, contrary to requirements under Pittman v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole. The Commonwealth Court affirmed the Board's decision, holding that the trial court's sentencing order requiring sex offender supervision constituted substantial evidence that the offense was sexual in nature and provided an adequate, record-supported reason for denying street time credit.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Core5 at Route 100, LLC challenging the Lowhill Township Board's denial of its preliminary land development plan for a warehouse, on the grounds that one supervisor's appointment to fill a vacancy was illegal and that the appointee's vote should be invalidated. The trial court upheld the denial, applying the de facto officer doctrine to validate the actions of the improperly appointed supervisor without examining the supervisors' knowledge or motives. On appeal, the Commonwealth Court held that the doctrine does not apply where a public official knowingly disregards statutory appointment procedures in bad faith or to advance a personal agenda, provided a timely objection is raised. The court vacated the trial court's order and remanded for additional factual findings on the supervisors' knowledge, motivation, and bad faith before applying the doctrine to determine the validity of the vote.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

The case concerned whether the Upper Merion Area School District violated Pennsylvania's constitutional tax uniformity requirement by filing property tax assessment appeals only against commercial and industrial properties, including those at the King of Prussia Mall, while deliberately excluding single-family residential properties. The School District had adopted Policy 605.1, which used financial thresholds and third-party review but was applied in a manner that never targeted residential properties despite their eligibility. The trial court found the policy and its implementation discriminatory, and the Commonwealth Court affirmed that order, holding that the intentional exclusion of one class of properties breached uniformity principles even though the policy's monetary thresholds were facially neutral.

taxesproperty