custody - standing - in loco parentis - stepfather in U.S. military - physical absence from home

M.L.S. v. T.H.-S – Superior Court – Augusut 29, 2018 – reported opinion

http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Superior/out/Opinion%20%20Affirmed%20%2010367963841427432.pdf?cb=1

Held:  Stepfather (SF) of 11 year-old child stands in loco parentis to child, even though SF is in active military service and lives apart from the child for the majority of time, where:

            - SF listed child as a dependent and received benefits from SF’s military service (15 years in the US Navy)

            - SF spoke with child on phone every other day while stationed in the U.S.

            - SF undertook many parental duties, as permitted by his military service, and served in many respects in place of child’s deceased father

Physical absence from home due to military services is “merely one factor” concerning in loco parentis.

SF both assumed parental status and discharged parental duties.

labor - employee v. indpt. contractor - beauty salon

A Special Touch v. Dept. of Labor & Industry – Cmwlth. Court – August 23, 2018

http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Commonwealth/out/1181CD16_8-23-18.pdf?cb=1

A Special Touch, a beauty salon, petitions for review of an adjudication of the Department of Labor and Industry (Department) that imposed an unemployment compensation tax on it for five persons who worked at the salon in a variety of positions.

In its adjudication, the Department classified these five workers as employees, but it classified five other workers who worked there in similar positions as independent contractors.

Because all ten workers were “customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession or business” under Section 4(l)(2)(B) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law),2 we reverse the Department’s holding in that respect.

consumer - debt collection - FDCPA - use of true name

Levins v. Health Care Recovery Group – 3d Cir. – August 22, 2018

http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/173330p.pdf

 Elaine and William Levins allege that Healthcare Revenue Recovery Group LLC (“HRRG”) violated  §§ 1692e(14), 1692d(6), and 1692e(10) of the FDCPA by leaving telephone voice messages that did not use its true name, did not meaningfully disclose its identity, and used false representations and deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect a debt or obtain information about a consumer.

 In particular, the Levinses complain that voicemail messages in which HRRG went by the name of “ARS” were insufficient to identify it as HRRG or even as “ARS ACCOUNT RESOLUTION SERVICES,” which is an alternative business name used by HRRG. HRRG moved to dismiss the complaint, as amended, for failure to state a claim, and the District Court granted that motion.

Held: the Levinses have stated a plausible claim that HRRG violated § 1692e(14)’s “true name” provision, but they have not stated plausible claims under §§ 1692d(6) or 1692e(10).

housing - sec. 8 - recertification - false information - intent

MaCool v. Berks County Housing Authority – July 30, 2018 – unpublished* memorandum opinion

http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Commonwealth/out/1384CD17_7-30-18.pdf?cb=1

Held:  Where tenant “unequivocally...did not provide true and correct and complete information on her recertification forms,” the Housing Authority had the right and discretion to remove  the tenant from the sec. 8 program, regardless of the trial court’s finding that the tenant did not intend to lie.

==============================

*An unreported Commonwealth Court case may not be cited binding precedent but can be cited for its persuasive value.  See 210 Pa. Code § 69.414(b) and Pa. R.A.P.  3716