Dan Pellegrini

Affiliations

• B.M. Tedrick v. SCSC (Comwlth of PA, Dept of Labor & Industry)

  Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2018-12-07

  The case involved Brendan M. Tedrick challenging the State Civil Service Commission's dismissal of his appeal after he was not selected for reinstatement to a Vision Rehabilitation Therapist position with the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry following his prior resignation. Tedrick had applied via the civil service eligibility list and received an interview but was not chosen over another candidate. The Commonwealth Court affirmed the Commission's order, holding that former employees lack any automatic right to reinstatement and that the Department followed proper procedures by evaluating applicants through interviews, where Tedrick's responses were rated lower due to issues like contradictory answers and lack of demonstrated skills. The court found no technical discrimination, noting that interviews are permitted under regulations and that the job posting met requirements for describing duties.

  labor & employment

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (2,868 words)

• Comwlth of PA v. M.A. Green

  Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2018-12-06

  This case involved Marcus A. Green's appeal from a trial court order forfeiting $3,343 in cash found on his person during a police search of his residence after he was observed selling cocaine. Green had been convicted of multiple drug possession, conspiracy, and firearms offenses, and he initially consented to the forfeiture of seized cash but later sought reconsideration, arguing an insufficient connection between the money and illegal drug activity. The trial court granted partial reconsideration for the cash on Green's person but allowed the Commonwealth to pursue forfeiture, which it granted after finding the money was in close proximity to controlled substances. The Commonwealth Court affirmed, holding that the proximity to drugs supported forfeiture under the Controlled Substance Act and that Green had not met his burden on the reconsideration motion for the other seized funds.

  criminal lawproperty

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (2,579 words)

• Piedmont Airlines, Inc. and New Hampshire Ins. Co. c/o Sedgwick Claims Mgmt. Svcs., Inc. v. WCAB (Watson) - 468 C.D. 2018 Piedmont Airlines, Inc. and New Hampshire Ins. Co. c/o Sedgwick Claims Mgmt. Svcs., Inc. v. WCAB (Watson)

  Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2018-10-29

  The case is an appeal by Piedmont Airlines, Inc. and its insurance carrier from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board involving a claim by employee Watson. The excerpted text consists of an October 29, 2018 order from the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania that re-designates an August 20, 2018 filing in the matter as a reported Opinion rather than a Memorandum Opinion. Senior Judge Dan Pellegrini issued the order, which has the effect of making the underlying ruling available as precedent. No substantive reasoning or analysis of the workers’ compensation issues appears in the provided excerpt.

  labor & employmentprocedure

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (80 words)

• C. Santore-Smith v. UCBR

  Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2018-10-19

  The case involved Cynthia Santore-Smith, a part-time school food service worker, who applied for unemployment compensation benefits for two weeks during the summer after her school closed for break. The Unemployment Compensation Board of Review denied benefits under Section 402.1(2) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, finding that the employer had provided a reasonable assurance letter that she would return to work in the same capacity when school resumed in the fall. Claimant appealed, arguing she had received benefits in a prior year, but the Board affirmed the denial and later denied reconsideration. The Commonwealth Court affirmed, holding that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying reconsideration because past erroneous benefit grants do not entitle a claimant to benefits in periods when she is ineligible due to reasonable assurance of reemployment.

  labor & employment

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (1,158 words)

• Tanya J. McCloskey, Acting Consumer Advocate v. PA PUC

  Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2018-10-11 · cited 8×

  The case involved a challenge by the Acting Consumer Advocate to the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission's approval of Aqua Pennsylvania Wastewater, Inc.'s acquisition of wastewater system assets from New Garden Township and its Sewer Authority under Sections 1329 and 1102 of the Public Utility Code. The Commission had granted the application, including a certificate of public convenience and use of the acquisition price as the rate base, within the required six-month period. The Commonwealth Court vacated the Commission's order and remanded the matter, holding that all affected ratepayers must receive individualized notice and an opportunity to participate because the rate base determination directly impacts rates set for customers. The court reasoned that under precedents like Barasch, such fundamental elements of rate-setting require due process protections beyond general publication. The Commission was directed to provide notice consistent with 52 Pa. Code § 53.45 and consider additional evidence from ratepayers before issuing a new order.

  business & regulatoryprocedure

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (7,302 words)

• E. Salahub v. North Cornwall Twp. ZHB v. ROGC Golf Partners, L.P.

  Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2018-10-11

  This case involved objectors appealing a trial court order that affirmed a zoning hearing board's grant of a use variance allowing a bowling alley to operate as an accessory use on property zoned agricultural and already used as a golf course. The Commonwealth Court reversed the trial court's decision. The court held that the landowner failed to meet the heavy burden of proving unnecessary hardship, as the property continued to conform to permitted golf course uses and accessory structures like maintenance facilities, and the only evidence presented related to economic benefits rather than inability to use the land for allowed purposes under the zoning ordinance.

  propertybusiness & regulatory

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (2,382 words)