Dan Pellegrini

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

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

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

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

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

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

This case involved an appeal by Victor Vega and VPR Motors, an official emission inspection station, challenging the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation's (PennDOT) suspension of their certificate for two years and a $5,000 fine for fraudulent recordkeeping and issuing emission inspection stickers without performing the required inspections. The trial court upheld the penalties after a de novo hearing, and the Commonwealth Court affirmed that decision. The court found substantial evidence that four stickers were affixed to vehicles without conducting proper visual inspections, gas cap tests, or entering data into the system as required, and that work orders falsely indicated inspections had been completed. The reasoning centered on the station's failure to follow mandated procedures, which constituted violations under the relevant regulations, supporting the consecutive suspensions and fines.

business & regulatoryenvironment

The case involved Abdul Boyd's challenge to a Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole decision recommitting him as a convicted parole violator following a new federal drug conviction and recalculating his parole violation maximum date. Boyd argued that under Section 6138(a)(5.1) of the Prisons and Parole Code, his state backtime should have been served before his federal sentence, entitling him to credit for approximately 34 months spent in federal custody. The Board denied the claim, finding Boyd was unavailable to serve state backtime while in federal custody and that his street time was properly forfeited. The Commonwealth Court granted counsel's motion to withdraw after an independent review confirmed the appeal was meritless, as the Board lacked authority to compel Boyd's return from federal custody (particularly since he did not post bail) and correctly applied the relevant statutes and precedents. The court therefore affirmed the Board's order.

criminal lawprocedure

Edward Elmore petitioned for review of a Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole order that recommitted him as a convicted parole violator to serve 24 months of backtime and set a new maximum release date of February 6, 2020. Elmore argued that the Board miscalculated his maximum date by starting the backtime period on April 1, 2017, instead of December 23, 2016, when he was returned to a state correctional institution. The court affirmed the Board’s order, explaining that under the Prisons and Parole Code the period of backtime for a convicted parole violator begins only when the Board revokes parole by obtaining the required second signature, because the original sentence must be served first once revocation occurs.

criminal law

The case involved Robin Williams, a former table games dealer, who was denied unemployment compensation benefits after her employer terminated her for violating its attendance policy by accumulating too many points for lateness and absences. Williams appealed the Referee's denial to the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, which upheld the decision because she missed the initial evidentiary hearing without good cause; she later admitted receiving the hearing notice but failing to open it promptly due to disorganized mail. The Commonwealth Court affirmed the Board's order, finding that the employer established a prima facie case of willful misconduct under Section 402(e) of the UC Law and that Williams's negligence in missing the hearing did not constitute proper cause to reopen the merits. The court also noted that without her testimony, there was no evidence supporting her claim of good cause for the underlying absences, such as a dental emergency.

labor & employmentprocedure

Glue Wilkins appealed the dismissal of his complaint against District Attorney Francis T. Chardo under Section 1405 of the County Code, which allows claims for willful misconduct by a district attorney in office. The complaint alleged misconduct by Chardo while serving as First Assistant District Attorney in connection with Wilkins' 2003 attempted homicide conviction. The trial court dismissed the action as frivolous after reviewing it under the in forma pauperis rules. The Commonwealth Court affirmed, holding that Section 1405 applies only to district attorneys and not to assistant district attorneys, and that the claims were also barred by the statute of limitations.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a workers' compensation claim petition filed by Craig Watson, a training supervisor for Piedmont Airlines, after he slipped on snow and broke his finger while walking through an employee parking lot at Philadelphia International Airport to catch a shuttle bus to his workplace. The Workers' Compensation Judge granted benefits, finding the injury arose in the course of employment, and the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board affirmed. On petition for review, the Commonwealth Court affirmed, holding that the parking lot qualified as part of the employer's premises because it served as a customary means of ingress and egress requiring an employee badge for access, and that the claimant's presence there was required by the nature of his employment. The court reasoned that the injury was caused by the condition of the premises while the claimant was engaged in activities connected to reaching his workstation.

labor & employment

Gaugamela Holdings, LLC sued the School District of Pittsburgh and Gladstone Community Partnership, LLC in equity to void the sale of a former school property, alleging the district failed to follow the Public School Code's requirements for selling unused property. The trial court sustained the defendants' preliminary objections and dismissed the complaint. On appeal, the Commonwealth Court affirmed, holding that the suit was barred by laches because Gaugamela waited over a year after its purchase offers were rejected and the sale closed before filing, during which time the defendants had completed the transaction and recorded the deed, resulting in prejudice from the delay.

propertyprocedure

Shawn Brady challenged the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole's recalculation of his parole violation maximum date after he was recommitted as both a technical and convicted parole violator, which resulted in forfeiture of credit for prior time spent at liberty on parole. His appointed counsel filed an application to withdraw, arguing that the petition for review was frivolous and without merit. The Commonwealth Court denied the withdrawal, holding that a recent decision in Young v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole raised a potentially meritorious question about whether the Board could revoke street time previously credited under 61 Pa. C.S. § 6138(c)(2) following a later criminal conviction. The court ordered counsel to file a brief on the merits addressing the Board's authority to reach back and forfeit such credit.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved PennDOT's appeal of a trial court order that rescinded the one-year suspension of Eric Hoffman's driver's license under Vehicle Code Section 1547(b)(1)(i) for refusing chemical testing after his arrest for DUI. An officer found Hoffman asleep in the driver's seat of a parked minivan in a lot at 4:30 a.m., with the vehicle off, keys in his hand, bloodshot eyes, and open beer cans nearby; after arresting him for being in actual physical control of the vehicle while intoxicated, the officer read the DL-26 form and Hoffman refused a blood test. The Commonwealth Court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the officer lacked reasonable grounds to believe Hoffman had exercised control over the vehicle's movement while intoxicated, as the evidence only showed his physical presence in the vehicle after drinking and did not meet the minimum objective facts required under precedents like Banner v. Department of Transportation.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Erica M. Tice's petition for review of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review's decision denying her benefits after she was terminated from her part-time stylist position for repeated tardiness and policy violations deemed willful misconduct under Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law. Tice had not appeared at the referee's hearing and sought a remand, claiming she did not receive timely notice due to postal delivery issues, but the Board found her testimony not credible and declined to reopen the matter. The Commonwealth Court affirmed, reasoning that the Board is the sole arbiter of credibility and that no good cause was established on the record for missing the hearing.

labor & employmentprocedure

In this case, claimant Lizette Banks sought review of a Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board order that affirmed a judge’s termination of her benefits on the ground that she had fully recovered from a 2001 work-related thumb and forearm injury, along with denial of her penalty petition alleging an improper 2002 suspension notice. The Commonwealth Court affirmed, holding that the employer’s medical expert provided credible testimony of full recovery based on physical examinations showing no objective findings or physiological basis for ongoing complaints, while the claimant’s experts were deemed less persuasive. The court further concluded that the employer’s contest was reasonable and that any issues with the earlier suspension had been resolved through a prior stipulation that reinstated benefits while preserving the employer’s right to seek termination. The decision rested on the sufficiency of the employer’s evidence and the limited scope of the current petitions.

labor & employment

The case involved a negligence lawsuit by David and Brenda Carletti against the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) after Mr. Carletti suffered severe injuries, including brain damage, when his bicycle hit a linear patch or hump in the roadway on State Route 320. The Carlettis claimed PennDOT negligently designed, maintained, or failed to warn about the defect, which fell under the highway exception to sovereign immunity. After a jury verdict for the plaintiffs, PennDOT sought JNOV or a new trial, arguing insufficient non-hearsay evidence of notice and the defect's role, plus inadequate jury instructions on hearsay statements from witnesses that an expert relied upon. The Commonwealth Court reversed the trial court's denial of post-trial relief and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial court committed legal error by not providing the requested limiting instruction under Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 105.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In this workers' compensation case, Thomasina Owens petitioned to amend her accepted July 2015 left arm burn injury (from a workplace coffee spill) to include carpal tunnel syndrome allegedly caused or aggravated by her repetitive machine operator duties, while her employer sought to terminate benefits on grounds of full recovery. The Workers' Compensation Judge denied the claim petition, finding Owens failed to prove a causal link or resulting disability from carpal tunnel, and granted the termination petition based on her recovery from the burns. The Workers' Compensation Appeal Board affirmed, and the Commonwealth Court upheld that decision, holding that substantial evidence supported the WCJ's credibility determinations favoring the employer's medical experts over Owens' and that the WCJ's findings were adequately reasoned. The court emphasized that it could not reweigh evidence or disturb the fact-finder's credibility assessments regarding the onset and cause of her symptoms.

labor & employment

Richland Properties, Inc. purchased a commercial property in October 2016 that had been erroneously classified by Allegheny County as tax-exempt for the 2016 tax year, even though the prior owner had paid taxes on a $4 million assessment and later received a refund. After closing, Richland sought permission from the Board of Property Assessment to file a late (nunc pro tunc) appeal challenging the assessment and tax status, which the Board denied because the misclassification occurred after the March 31, 2016 appeal deadline and did not justify an exception. The trial court upheld the denial, and the Commonwealth Court affirmed, holding that the prior owner could not have relied on the error when missing the deadline and that Richland therefore had no basis for late filing. The court noted that property taxability is generally fixed on January 1 of the tax year and that nunc pro tunc relief requires extraordinary circumstances such as fraud or administrative breakdown that misled the party entitled to appeal.

taxespropertyprocedure