Robert Simpson

The case involved Steven Burda's appeal of decisions by the Department of Human Services discontinuing SNAP benefits for his household and Medical Assistance benefits for himself, his wife, and daughter after their income exceeded program eligibility limits. Following multiple hearings, stipulations, and prior adjudications, an ALJ denied the appeals based on income calculations from late 2015 and early 2016, and the Bureau of Hearings and Appeals affirmed. Burda petitioned for review, arguing issues with evidence and expense considerations. The Commonwealth Court affirmed the order, finding that the wife's income alone surpassed the limits for both programs even after allowable deductions, with no errors in the eligibility determinations under applicable regulations.

healthcarefederal power

The case involved Anthony Glen Wright's petition challenging the Pennsylvania State Police's enforcement of SORNA and related amendments (Act 10 and Act 29) against him, following his 2009 convictions for sexual offenses committed in 2006. Wright, who was subject to Megan's Law II at the time of his conviction, argued that the newer laws' registration, notification, and reporting requirements violated ex post facto principles under the state and federal constitutions, imposed additional punishment like extended probation, and damaged his reputation, citing Commonwealth v. Muniz. PSP filed a preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer, asserting that the laws essentially recreated the constitutional requirements of Megan's Law II. The Commonwealth Court overruled the demurrer, finding that Wright's well-pled allegations of punitive effects and reputational harm stated potentially valid claims that the Acts' provisions were comparable to public shaming and imposed new obligations. The court directed PSP to file an answer within 30 days.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

The case involved Adam Jay Stewart, who had multiple convictions for underage drinking that resulted in driver's license suspensions, petitioning for a probationary license under Section 1554 of the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code after serving some of those suspensions. The Department of Transportation denied the petition, a hearing officer recommended affirming the denial, and the Executive Deputy Secretary upheld that recommendation by denying exceptions. The Commonwealth Court affirmed, holding that Stewart failed to meet the statutory thresholds requiring at least five years of cumulative suspensions and three years of credit at the time the petition was filed, and that the Executive Deputy Secretary had authority to act on the exceptions under the Administrative Code.

criminal lawprocedure

Steven Jones, a maintenance custodian driver for SEPTA, sustained work-related injuries in 2001 from falling through a grate, leading to ongoing workers' compensation benefits for conditions including cervical spine and shoulder issues after earlier proceedings. In 2017, the employer filed a termination petition based on an independent medical examination concluding full recovery as of March 2, 2017, while Jones filed related petitions seeking reinstatement and review of utilization review determinations that certain treatments were unreasonable. The Workers' Compensation Judge granted the termination petition and denied Jones's petitions, a decision affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board. The Commonwealth Court affirmed, holding that the medical evidence supported full recovery and rendered the utilization review petitions moot because post-termination treatment could not be causally related to the work injury.

labor & employment

The case involved Eugene F. Connell, who was terminated by his employer for violating work policies by using his cell phone for non-work purposes, leaving work without authorization for 90 minutes, and falsifying his timesheet to claim a full eight-hour shift. After a grievance settlement led to his reinstatement with a suspension, Connell sought unemployment compensation benefits, which were denied by the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review under Section 402(e) of the UC Law for willful misconduct. The court affirmed the denial, reasoning that the falsification of time records alone constituted willful misconduct, as it was a deliberate violation not excused by the claimant's personal reasons or any claimed permission for the absence.

labor & employment

Anthony Robinson, a parolee, petitioned the Commonwealth Court for review of an order by the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole denying him credit against his maximum sentence for time spent at Kintock-Erie Community Corrections Facility and Luzerne Treatment Center, as well as for unspecified additional periods in custody. The Board had held an evidentiary hearing on the facility credits but concluded neither program imposed sufficient restrictions on liberty to qualify as confinement equivalent to incarceration. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding that testimony about the facilities' conditions (such as the absence of bars or fences and the availability of unescorted passes) supported the denial of credit. It also held that Robinson's request for additional credit was waived because it lacked sufficient particularity regarding dates and grounds at the administrative stage.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Auto Shower II, Inc., a neighboring business owner, petitioning under Pennsylvania's Abandoned and Blighted Property Conservatorship Act to be appointed conservator of an adjacent vacant property owned by Mark and Katerina Juszczak. The trial court found the property met the statutory conditions for conservatorship due to prolonged vacancy, lack of marketing, disrepair, and need for substantial rehabilitation, and appointed the conservator. On appeal, the Commonwealth Court dismissed the owners' challenge because they failed to file post-trial motions as required by Pa. R.A.P. 1925, resulting in waiver of all issues regarding the conservatorship appointment. The court noted that the trial court's findings were supported by evidence of the property's condition and that procedural objections, such as the petitioner's standing, were not preserved.

propertyprocedure

In this land use case, Protect PT challenged the constitutionality of Penn Township's Zoning Ordinance No. 912-2016, specifically the Mineral Extraction Overlay District that permits unconventional natural gas development as a special exception in the Rural Resource District, which also allows low-density residential and agricultural uses. The trial court, after extensive hearings, rejected the challenge and upheld the ordinance against claims that it violated substantive due process and the Environmental Rights Amendment by allowing incompatible heavy industrial activity. On appeal, the Commonwealth Court affirmed, finding that the ordinance's extensive regulations on setbacks, wastewater, traffic, and other impacts properly balanced economic benefits with public welfare, that UNGD was historically present and compatible with rural uses in the district, and that objectors failed to prove substantial actual risks or arbitrary zoning, consistent with precedents like Frederick v. Allegheny Township Zoning Hearing Board.

environmentpropertybusiness & regulatory

In M. Guy v. UCBR, claimant Michael Guy sought review of an Unemployment Compensation Board of Review order that affirmed a referee's dismissal of his appeal from two October 2018 determinations disqualifying him from benefits for voluntary quit and assessing a fault overpayment. The determinations, mailed to his last known address, set a November 6, 2018 appeal deadline, but Guy mailed his appeal on December 6, 2018. The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that Guy's delay was not excused by fraud, administrative breakdown, or non-negligent conduct, as his explanations of preoccupation with new employment, surprise at receiving the notices, and his wife's handling of the mail did not meet the legal standard for an untimely appeal under Section 501(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved the County of Allegheny Orphans’ Court challenging an Unemployment Compensation Board of Review decision that granted benefits to a former clerk of courts fired for violating the Unified Judicial System code of conduct. The employee had an undisclosed relationship with an inmate and hid the inmate’s vehicle and cash connected to alleged crimes, leading to her termination after she admitted the conduct during an internal investigation. At the referee hearing, a key subpoenaed witness did not appear, and the referee later reopened the record on her own initiative for additional testimony, which the Board ruled improper. The Board found no willful misconduct under Section 402(e) of the UC Law based solely on the first hearing’s evidence, as there was no demonstrated connection between the off-duty conduct and the employee’s work duties. The Commonwealth Court affirmed, holding that the referee lacked authority to reopen the record without a party request and that the employer failed to prove work-related misconduct.

labor & employment

Nathan Burrell petitioned for review of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole's order recommitting him as a technical parole violator and convicted parole violator while recalculating his maximum sentence date after new convictions in Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. Burrell challenged the Board's failure to credit all time spent in confinement and the timeliness of his recommitment hearing following waivers and admissions. The court found that Burrell had not received proper credit for periods of confinement due to jurisdictional issues involving out-of-state sentences and temporary custody in Pennsylvania, while concluding the hearing occurred within the required 120-day period after his waiver. As a result, the court vacated the recalculation portion of the Board's order and remanded for further recalculation of the maximum sentence date.

criminal lawprocedure

Pennsylvania State Senators Joseph B. Scarnati and Gene Yaw filed a petition for mandamus relief in the Commonwealth Court's original jurisdiction against the Department of Environmental Protection and the Environmental Quality Board. They sought to compel the EQB to promulgate proposed regulations setting water quality criteria for manganese under Act 40 of 2017, which imposed a 90-day deadline that had passed without action. The court sustained the respondents' preliminary objections and dismissed the petition. It held that the senators lacked standing because they alleged only a general interest in enforcement of the law rather than a particularized injury. The court further noted that the statutory timeline was directory rather than mandatory, providing an additional basis that mandamus was unavailable.

environmentprocedure

This case involved property owners who appealed a township zoning enforcement notice alleging violations of the local zoning ordinance for erecting accessory structures like sheds and fences without permits and for raising livestock on a parcel under the required acreage. The owners argued that their activities qualified as a prior nonconforming use, that prior enforcement actions were resolved or barred by collateral estoppel, that they were denied due process and a fair hearing, and that the 2010 zoning ordinance was invalid due to procedural defects in its enactment. The Commonwealth Court affirmed the trial court's order upholding the Zoning Hearing Board's decision, holding that the owners failed to obtain required permits, did not qualify for special exceptions, and could not raise procedural challenges to the ordinance before the ZHB. The court further determined it lacked jurisdiction over the ordinance validity claims, which must be brought directly in common pleas court under the Municipalities Planning Code.

propertyprocedure

The case involved Greenwood Gaming & Entertainment, Inc., operator of Parx Casino, seeking a tax refund after the Pennsylvania Board of Finance and Revenue denied its request to deduct costs of complimentary event tickets from its gross table game and slot machine revenues under the Gaming Act. The Commonwealth Court reversed the Board's decision. The court reasoned that tax provisions must be strictly construed in the taxpayer's favor, that event tickets constitute intangible personal property rather than nondeductible 'services' under the Act's definitions, and that the costs were therefore properly deductible from taxable revenues.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

The case involved Valery Williams, a Philadelphia property owner, appealing water bill assessments from the Philadelphia Water Department dating back to 2009 for curb box replacement, missing meter replacement, and related repairs. The Tax Review Board reduced the total to $440 after a hearing, and the trial court affirmed that decision following a de novo review, finding that Williams failed to meet her burden of proving the assessments incorrect. The Commonwealth Court dismissed the appeal because Williams did not timely file her concise statement of errors under Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), resulting in waiver of all issues for review. The court noted that notice of the filing deadline appeared on the docket and that Williams filed the statement 24 days late, though it also addressed the merits in concluding there was no due process violation and sufficient evidence supported the trial court's findings.

taxespropertyprocedure

The case involved Donna L. Adriance, who was terminated from her part-time job as an in-home support worker for submitting inflated mileage reimbursement reports. She applied for unemployment compensation benefits, which were initially granted but then denied by the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review on the grounds of willful misconduct under Section 402(e) of the UC Law. The Commonwealth Court affirmed the Board's decision, holding that the employer provided substantial evidence of inaccurate reporting and that the claimant failed to demonstrate good cause or credible explanation for the discrepancies. The court noted that the Board, as fact-finder, properly discredited the claimant's testimony regarding her mileage documentation practices.

labor & employment

The case involved Helen Irvin, through her son acting as agent under a power of attorney, seeking review of a Department of Human Services order that dismissed as untimely her appeal of a county assistance office decision. The office had imposed a 14-month penalty period on Irvin's eligibility for Medicaid long-term care benefits after determining she had transferred over $143,000 in assets for less than fair market value within the five-year look-back period. The appeal was filed more than 170 days after the 30-day deadline stated in the notice, and the Bureau of Hearings and Appeals found the agent failed to establish grounds for an appeal nunc pro tunc under 55 Pa. Code §275.3, such as fraud, administrative breakdown, or non-negligent circumstances, or to show diligence after learning of the decision. The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the agent did not meet the burden to excuse the delay or demonstrate that the notice was not properly provided.

healthcareprocedure

This case involved April Goode's appeal of the termination of her Section 8 housing assistance by the Housing Authority of the City of Shamokin for failing to timely provide required documentation of utility payments and other program compliance items after initial warnings and conditional continuances. The trial court upheld the termination following an evidentiary hearing, and on further appeal the Commonwealth Court affirmed, finding that Goode had missed multiple deadlines despite notice and opportunities to cure, and that the administrative process complied with HUD regulations. The court rejected claims of procedural unfairness, concluding that the hearing officer had no disqualifying bias from his board position and that the proceedings afforded Goode adequate notice and an impartial forum. The decision rested on the administrative record showing repeated noncompliance and the absence of any legal error in applying the program's termination rules.

federal powerprocedure

In this case, A.G. appealed the imposition of two consecutive six-month driver's license suspensions by PennDOT after she was convicted of two counts of careless driving causing unintentional death under 75 Pa. C.S. §3714(b), which resulted in two fatalities from a single incident. The trial court upheld both suspensions, and the Commonwealth Court affirmed. The court reasoned that each conviction for the offense, which is defined in terms of causing death to 'another person,' triggers a separate suspension under 75 Pa. C.S. §1532(b)(1), and the single criminal episode rule does not apply to limit the number of suspensions when multiple deaths occur. The decision relied on statutory language and precedent holding that multiple victims create multiple offenses for purposes of licensing sanctions.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Donna Hill, the spouse of an incarcerated inmate, challenging the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections' new mailing policy implemented after a lockdown due to drug exposure; the policy routes non-legal mail through a third-party facility in Florida for scanning while allowing legal mail to be opened in the inmate's presence. Hill sought to enjoin the policy, claiming it improperly destroyed, delayed, confiscated, and recorded mail in violation of constitutional rights to communicate. The Commonwealth Court overruled DOC's preliminary objection to jurisdiction but sustained its demurrer for failure to state a claim without prejudice, reasoning that Hill had not alleged sufficient facts to support a cognizable constitutional challenge or claim for injunctive relief despite recognizing a potential First Amendment basis under precedents like Procunier v. Martinez. The court granted Hill leave to file an amended petition.

criminal lawcivil rightsfree speech