Tuesday, April 28, 2009

UC - willful misconduct - negligence v. breach of employer rule

Moran v. UCBR - Cmwlth. Cour - Ap[ril 27, 2009

http://origin-www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Cwealth/out/1659CD08_4-27-09.pdf

The court rejected claimant's argument that his failure to put the brake on his truck was merely negligence, under Navickas v. UCBR, 787 A.2d 284 (Pa. 2001), since claimant was fired not for a negligent error but rather for the violation of the work rule regarding putting the brake on trucks.

UC - appeal -proof of mailing - postage meter

Moran v. UCBR - Cmwlth. Cour - Ap[ril 27, 2009

http://origin-www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Cwealth/out/1659CD08_4-27-09.pdf

Employer's appeal was timely filed, where the date on the emvelope, from the the employer's postage meter, was within the appeal period, upholding the validity of 34 Pa. Code 101.82 and distinguishing Lin v. UCBR, 735 A.2d 697 (Pa. 1999), a pre-regulation decision.

Wednesday, April 15, 2009

adminative law - regulation v. statement of policy

Borough of Bedford, et al. v. DEP, et al. - Cmwlth. Court - April 14, 2009

http://origin-www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Cwealth/out/160MD08_4-14-09.pdf

DEP's motion for summary judgment denied. DEP claimed that the relevant document was a statement of policy, 45 P.S. 1102(13). The Plaintiffs claimed that it was a regulation, 45 P.S. 1102(12). The court said that the statutory definitions "do little to separate a statement of policy from a regulation" and that the resolution of the legal issue would require factual development.

There is an extensive discussion about the important administrative law issue of whether an agency promulgation is a

- regulation, which has the force of law, establishes a "binding norm," and must be adopted according to a strict procedure - The "basic procedures by which an agency promulgates a regulation are set forth in the Commonwealth Documents Law. In essence, these procedures require an agency to give notice to the public of its proposed rule-making and an opportunity for the public to comment.11 See Eastwood Nursing, 910 A.2d at 141 n.13. However, this is only the beginning. The agency must also obtain the approval of the Attorney General and the General Counsel of a proposed regulation’s form and legality. Sections 204(b) and 301(10) of the Commonwealth Attorneys Act, Act of October 15, 1980, P.L. 950, 71 P.S. §§732-204(b) and 732-301(10). Finally, an agency’s regulation must also undergo legislative scrutiny in accordance with the Regulatory Review Act." - OR

- statement of policy, which does not have the force of law , but rather is "merely an announcement to the public of the policy which the agency hopes to implement in future rulemakings or adjudications. A general statement of policy, like a press release, presages an upcoming rulemaking or announces the course which the agency intends to follow in future adjudications....A general statement of policy, on the other hand, does not establish a ‘binding norm’…. A policy statement announces the agency’s tentative intentions for the future. When the agency applies the policy in a particular situation, it must be prepared to support the policy just as if the policy statement had never been issued. Id. at 349-350, 374 A.2d at 679 (quoting Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Federal Power Commission, 506 F.2d 33, 38 (1974)) (emphasis added)."

Wednesday, April 01, 2009

UC - petition for review - statement of objections

Shimp v. UCBR - Cmwlth. Court - March 30, 2009 - unreported memorandum decision

http://origin-www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Cwealth/out/1798CD08_3-31-09.pdf

The pro se form petition for review stated that the "Board of Review should be reversed because (You must state with specificity why you believe the Board is in error)." Claimant did not make any allegation here but just attached a postal proof of mailing.

Claimant's failure to raise any allegation of error regarding the Board’s decision in the petition for review was a waiver and violated Pa.R.A.P. 1513(d), since there was no "general statement of the objections to the order or other determination." See Werner v. Zazyczny, 545 Pa. 570, 681 A.2d 1331 (1996) (Commonwealth Court was correct in refusing to consider issues not fairly comprised from objections raised in petition for review); Jimoh v. UCBR, 902 A.2d 608 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (issue not raised in the stated objections in the petition for review nor “fairly comprised therein” is waived and will not be addressed by this Court); Tyler v. UCBR, 591 A.2d 1164 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991) (same).