Fair Credit Reporting Act - denial of credit because of incorrect listing as "deceased"

Sheldon v. Experian Information Solutions - ED Pa. - September 28, 2010

http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/10D1006P.pdf

This is a putative class action arising under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. Jurisdiction is federal question. 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Plaintiffs purport to represent a class of individuals who have been incorrectly classified as "deceased" on credit reports issued by defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc., resulting in the denial of credit.

The complaint alleges that the inclusion of this information violates 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b) because Experian did not implement reasonable procedures to assure the reports’ accuracy. Additionally, it is alleged that the sale of the reports with the incorrect "deceased" notation violates 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(a) because Experian’s purpose for selling credit reports on deceased individuals does not come within a statutorily permitted purpose.

These violations are alleged to have been both negligent and wilful [sic]. Complaint, Count I. Defendant moves for summary judgment. The motion will be denied as to the allegedly negligent violations and granted as to those alleged to be wilful [sic].

wages - Wage Payment and Collection Law - attorney fees

Ambrose v. Citizens National Bank - Superior Court - September 21, 2010


http://www.pacourts.us/OpPosting/Superior/out/A09027_10.pdf


Former employees were entitled to attorney fees where they prevailed on fee claim under Wage Payment and Collection Law, 43 P.S. § 260.1 et seq., including fees for defending against the employer's counterclaims.


The employer's defenses to the WPCL claims and its counterclaim against the former employees were "inextricalby intertwined."


"Moreover, in light of the circumstances of this case, we find the trial court’s award of counsel fees served the express purposes of the WCPL by encouraging Appellees to pursue their wage claims and rebuff CNB’s attempts to intimidate them into dropping the complaints. . . .[T]he trial court’s award of attorneys’ fees prevented Appellees from having to exhaust their entire compensatory award in order to satisfy their legal bills. As the award promotes the purpose of the WPCL’s fee-shifting provision under the circumstances of this case, we reject CNB’s contention that the trial court erred in assessing all of the attorneys’ fees they incurred in this litigation."


The court also held that the trial court correctly decided that the employer's litigation conduct was in bad faith, since the employer was aware at an early stage that its counterclaims were "baseless" and "specious."

federal courts - pre-trial orders - violation - sanctions - FRCivP 16

Rorrer v. Cleveland Steel Container Corp. - ED Pa. - September 20, 2010


http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/10D0986P.pdf

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f), which authorizes sanctions for violations of pretrial orders issued pursuant to Rule 16, provides: (1) In General. On a motion or on its own, the court may issue any just orders, including those authorized by Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(ii)-(iii), if a party or its attorney: . . .(c) fails to obey a scheduling or other pretrial order. (2) Imposing Fees and Costs. Instead of or in addition to any other sanction, the court must order the party, its attorney, or both to pay the reasonable expenses - - including attorney’s fees - - incurred because of any noncompliance with this rule, unless the noncompliance was substantially justified or other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f)(1)(c), 16(f)(2).

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has held that “monetary sanctions for noncompliance with Rule 16 pretrial orders are required and appropriate absent a showing that the violationwas ‘substantially justified’ or the award of expenses is ‘unjust’ under the circumstances of the case.” Tracinda Corp. v. DaimlerChrysler AG, 502 F.3d 212, 241 (3d Cir. 2007). Substantial justification exists where there is a “genuine dispute concerning compliance.” Id. (quoting Fitz, Inc. v. RalphWilson Plastics Co., 174 F.R.D. 587, 591 (D.N.J. 1997)). To determine whether sanctions are “unjust,” a court considers “the degree of the sanction in light of the severity of the transgression which brought about the failure to comply.” Tracinda Corp., 502 F.3d at 241.

__._,_.___

UC - willful misconduct - drug testing - memo

In Turner v. UCBR (May 16, 2006) , the Commonwealth Court held (4-3) that the employer could establish written drug test results as business records under 42 Pa. C.S. 6108(b), by the "testimony of the supervisor of those persons who are actually performing the drug testing of a urine specimen. . . ". The court said that the testimony of the employer vice-president and director of toxicology of the lab that did the drug test "provided very detailed and sufficient information relating to the preparation of claimant's drug test result and justified not only a presumption about the trustworthiness of this record but its admission."

This holding is questionable in light of the Superior Court decision in Commonwealth v. Barton-Martin (September 8, 2010), a criminal case in which the court struck down a DUI conviction based on lab reports, where the lab analyst who did the testing and wrote the report did not appear at trial and was not shown to be unavailable, citing Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 129 S.Ct. 2527 (2009), which was authored by Justice Scalia, with Thomas concurring.

Like Barton-Martin, Melendez-Diaz is a criminal case. Both rely on the confrontation clause of the 6th Amendment. A similar provision in the state constitution, Article I, sec. 9, says that in "all criminal prosecutions the accused hath a right. . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him. . . ."

However, there may be a correlative right to confront witnesses in civil cases as a matter of state due process, the state administrative agency law, 2 Pa. C.S., and other sources. Well-established rules about the use of hearsay in administrative hearings support this position. Hearsay evidence, properly objected to, is not competent evi­dence to support a finding. Hearsay evidence admitted without objection will be given its natural probative effect and may support a finding if it is corroborated by any competent evidence in the record, but a finding of fact based solely on hearsay will not stand. Walker v. UCBR, 367 A.2d 377, 370 (Pa. Cmwlth 1976). This long-standing rule is "not a mere technical rule of evidence, but a funda­men­tal rule of law which ought to be followed by agencies when facts crucial to the issue are sought to be placed on the record and an objection is made thereto.” A.Y. v. DPW, 641 A.2d 1148, 1151 (Pa. 1994).

In addition to these basic principles, which Turner undercuts , there is extensive language in Melendez-Diaz (which in turn relied on Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) that can be used to argue that Turner was wrongly decided. In Melendez-Diaz, the court struck down a conviction based in part on written "certificates of analysis" that were used to establish that a substance taken from the defendant was cocaine.

The most useful language in Melendez-Diaz for UC cases involving drug cases involves statements that reject lab reports as "neutral scientific testing" or as business records.

Excerpts from the case about testing --

- Forensic evidence is not uniquely immune from the risk of manipulation.
- Confrontation is designed to weed out not only the fraudulent analyst, but the incompetent one as well.
- “The forensic science system, encompassing both research and practice, has serious problems
- There is "little reason to believe that confrontation will be useless in testing analysts' honesty, proficiency, and methodology-the features that are commonly the focus in the cross-examination of experts."

Excerpt about drug tests as business records
- The federal evidence rule about records kept in the regular course of business does not apply "if the regularly conducted business activity is the production of evidence for use at trial. " It doesn't cover records "calculated for use essentially in the court, not in the business.

UC - willful misconduct - disparate treatment - burden of proof/persuasion

Geisinger Health Plan v. UCBR - Cmwlth. Court - en banc 4-3 decision - February 5, 2009 - 964 A.2d 970 Pa. Cmwlth. 2009)


http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Cwealth/out/2029CD07_2-5-09.pdf


Claimant was fired for sending pornographic emails at work. He claimed improper disparate treatment, because others who had done the same were not terminated.


The Court (4-3) held that "[d]isparate treatment is an affirmative defense by which a claimant who has engaged in willful misconduct may still receive benefits if he can make an initial showing that: (1) the employer discharged claimant, but did not discharge other employees who engaged in similar conduct; (2 ) the claimant was similarly situated to the other employees who were not discharged; and (3) the employer discharged the claimant based upon an improper criterion. See Department of Transportation v. UCBR, 755 A.2d 744, 748 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (“[T]he essence of disparate treatment is not only whether unlawful discrimination has occurred but also whether similarly situated people are treated differently, based upon improper criteria.”). Once the claimant has made this showing, the burden then shifts to the employer to show that it had a proper purpose for discharging the claimant.


The court noted, several times, that there are "opinions of this Court that have been less than clear in applying the burden of proving disparate treatment," contrasting cases like Remcon Plastics, Inc. v. UCBR, 651 A.2d 671 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994), with others such as Walsh v. UCBR, 943 A.2d 363, 368 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008). The court noted that "it is important to remember that the disparate treatment defense to a finding of willful misconduct is not found in the Law, but has its genesis in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Woodson v. UCBR, 461 Pa. 439, 336 A.2d 867 (1975)."


There were strong dissents from Judges Pelligrini and Friedman (joined by Smith-Ribner).


So far as I know, there was no appeal in the case.

UC - hearing - remand -

Hill v. UCBR - Cmwlth. Court - unreported memorandum decision

http://www.pacourts.us/OpPosting/Cwealth/out/2245CD09_9-14-10.pdf

Claimant’s excuse that she did not attend because she got the hearing date “mixed up,” was not a valid reason for a remand hearing even if the Board believed her. The Board has discretion under its regulation, 34 Pa. Code §101.24(a), to decide whether a remand is necessary. The denial of an application for remand will be reversed only for a clear abuse of discretion. Flores v. UCBR, 686 A.2d 66 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996).

This Court has held that a claimant’s own negligence is not “proper cause” to justify the failure to appear at a referee’s hearing. Savage v. UCBR, 491 A.2d 947 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985). Clearly, it was Claimant’s own negligence that prevented her from attending the hearing.

mortgages - racial discrimination in lending - 42 USC 1981

Anderson v. Wachovia Mortgage Corp. - 3d Cir. Court of Appeals - September 13, 2010


http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/092275p.pdf


This case is brought by three African-American couples who, in 2004, purchased adjacent houses in a Dover, Delaware, community known as “Silver Lake.” Plaintiffs received mortgages from Wachovia Mortgage Corporation, but only after Wachovia imposed several conditions on the approvals of these mortgages. Plaintiffs allege that these conditions were racially motivated, and brought suit against Wachovia under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and various state law causes of action.

This appeal requires us to identify, as a matter of first impression, the elements of a prima facie case of lending discrimination under § 1981. Whether plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case of discrimination is a close call, but even if they have, they have not undermined Wachovia’s legitimate reasons for imposing the conditions it did.

Thus, we conclude that they have not shown that the mortgage conditions were imposed for discriminatory reasons. The District Court therefore properly granted summary judgment to Wachovia on the § 1981 claim. We also conclude that the District Court correctly granted summary judgment on plaintiffs’ breach of contract and tortious interference claims, and that it acted within its discretion in denying plaintiffs’ motion to compel certain discovery. Finally, we find that the District Court acted within its discretion in remanding plaintiffs’ good faith and fair dealing claim to Delaware state court. We will therefore affirm the District Court’s orders and judgment.

insurance - cancellation - notice to homeowner

Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance v. Insurance Department - Cmwlth. Court - September 10, 2010


http://www.pacourts.us/OpPosting/Cwealth/out/411CD10_9-10-10.pdf


The court held that the insurance company improperly cancelled the homeowner's insurance, because it did not give her the proper statutory notice. Several notices to the homeowner were returned as "undeliverable." The homeowner, an elderly woman, was going back and forth from her home to that of a relative, but the agency found that she " did not officially change her address; therefore, there was no need for her to notify Nationwide of a change of address." Moreover, the insurance company did not follow its own internal policy of contacting the local agent of record for further investigation.


The "Commissioner found that there was no evidence that Nationwide made any attempt to re-send the notice or otherwise notify the homeowner that her policy was being cancelled prior to submission of the claim in December 2008. As such, the insurer's contention that it is truly unfair to Nationwide to void the cancellation since it was the homeowner’s conduct that prevented her from receiving the cancellation notice is without merit."

The Unfair Insurance Practice Act, 40 P.S. §§1171.1-1171.15, prohibits persons engaged in the business of insurance from engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices. Yorktowne Mutual Insurance Company v. Insurance Department, 662 A.2d 1164 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 543 Pa. 721, 672 A.2d 313 (1996). The insurer has the burden of proving compliance with the statutory requirements for cancellation of a homeowners’ policy of insurance. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Department of Insurance, 578 A.2d 999 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 527 Pa. 595, 588 A.2d 915 (1991).

Section 5(a)(9) of the Act provides, in pertinent part, as follows: No cancellation or refusal to renew by any person shall be effective unless a written notice of the cancellation or refusal to renew is received by the insured either a t the address shown on the policy or at a forwarding address. 40 P.S. §1171.5(a)(9). Accordingly, “[i]f written notice is not received by the insured, the cancellation is ineffective.” Donegal Mutual Insurance Company v. Department of Insurance, 719 A.2d 825, 827 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998). Herein, it is undisputed that Miller did not receive written notice of the cancellation of her homeowner’s policy as it was returned as “undeliverable” to Nationwide.

The language of Section 5(a)(9) of the Act "is clear and unambiguous. The cancellation of a homeowner’s policy is ineffective if written notice is not received by the insured. . . . Accordingly, the Commissioner properly determined, based on credible evidence, that Nationwide failed to comply with Section 5(a)(9) of the Act and the cancellation of Miller’s homeowner’s policy was ineffective.

UC - voluntary quit - reduced wages

Krantz v. UCBR - Cmwlth. Court - Stpe. 9, 2010 - unreported memorandum decision


http://www.pacourts.us/OpPosting/Cwealth/out/2300CD09_9-9-10.pdf


Where a claimant asserts that an employer’s unilateral reduction of his wages was the reason for his decision to quit, the claimant must prove that the reduction in wages was unreasonable and substantial in order to establish cause of a necessitous and compelling nature for quitting. Griffith Chevrolet-Olds, Inc. v. UCBR, 597 A.2d 215, 218 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991). Mere dissatisfaction with one’s wages is not enough. Id. Each case is determined based on its own circumstances, and there is no talismanic percentage that separates a reduction that is substantial from one that is not. Ship Inn, Inc. v. UCBR, 412 A.2d 913, 915 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1980).


Because it must be a unilateral action of employer that causes the loss in wages, the Court has considered the issue differently based on whether the claimant receives a salary from employer or receives, in whole or in part, a commission reflective of conditions beyond the employer’s control (such as the claimant’s effort). See Griffith Chevrolet; # 1 Cochran, Inc. v. UCBR, 579 A.2d 1386, 1390-91 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990); Grenier v. UCBR, 505 A.2d 1363, 1365 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986); Morysville Body Works, Inc. v. UCBR, 430 A.2d 376, 377 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981).


Where the claimant is a salaried employee, it is a relatively simple matter to determine whether there was an unreasonable, unilateral reduction in the claimant’s salary, whether it was due to unilateral action by employer, and whether the reduction was “substantial” under the circumstances of that case. Morysville Body Works, 430 A.2d at 377. In contrast, where the employee’s income consists, in whole or in part, of the receipt of commissions, it can become much more complicated to determine whether any reduction in income constitutes a necessitous and compelling reason to quit. Grenier, 505 A.2d at 1365.


Thus, in determining whether the reduction in a claimant’s pay by an employer’s unilateral action is substantial, the claimant’s commission history must be considered when calculating the claimant’s pay. Of course, even if the claimant’s pay is commission-based, where the reduction in the claimant’s pay is the result of the employer’s unilateral actions, the claimant can establish cause of a necessitous and compelling nature to quit his employment. #1 Cochran, 597 A.2d at 1388.

UC - vol. quit - medical reasons - non-expert evidence

Visay v. UCBR - March 22, 2010 - unpublished memorandum opinion

http://www.pacourts.us/OpPosting/Cwealth/out/1833CD09_3-22-10.pdf


The court held that, under the circumstances of this case, the claimant did not have to produce expert medical evidence to explain why she (temporarily) left her job, holding that "[t]here is no doubt Claimant here offered evidence which, if believed by the fact-finder, would have satisfied her burden to explain her motivation to leave her employment. Judd v. UCBR, 496 A.2d 1377, 1379 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985) (citations omitted) (emphasis added); see also Steffy v. UCBR, 499 Pa. 367, 453 A.2d 591 (1982).


In Judd, the court said that "anxiety and emotional distress can be necessitous and compelling cause for terminating one’s employment, and … a claimant does not necessarily have to present expert medical evidence in order to establish that he had compelling medical reasons for terminating his employment, but instead may establish that fact by any competent evidence such as claimant’s own testimony and/or documentary evidence." (emphasis in original).

Thus, the Board erred in determining Claimant was required to present expert medical evidence to prove why she left her employment.


Claimant was a combat veteran who worked at transitional housing facility (THF) for homeless women veterans. The job required her to live at the facility. At some point, claimant suffered from her own PTSD problems and got extended off-site treatment at two other facilities. When she returned to work after treatment, the employer did not have any available positions, so she applied for UC.


At the hearing, she did not offer any expert medical evidence but testified and offered other evidence, which showed that she is a veteran; while at the THF, she saw a psychologist and underwent therapy in order to get her “life started over again”; both the program director and her psychologist suggested that she leave the House to partake in the out-of-state PTSD program “to deal with some of [her] traumatic issues.” This testimony explained Claimant’s subsequent actions and was not subject to a hearsay objection. It also shows communication between Claimant and Employer concerning her mental health problems. The record also contains a letter from a staff nurse at the PTSD facility, corroborating Claimant’s testimony that she was participating in the PTSD program. Plaintiff also testified that after the PTSD treatment, she got further treatment at a VA facility.


The court contrasted this case and the holding in Judd with the facts and opinion in Jordan v. UCBR, 684 A.2d 1096 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996), where the court held that the claimant "could not prove his mood disorder caused his unreasonable and unjustifiable conduct without offering expert testimony, and the claimant himself was not qualified to offer an expert opinion. . . .Unlike the claimant in Jordan, however, Claimant here did not assert that her mental health problem compelled an uncontrollable action or irresponsible decision, which was therefore not willful. These types of assertions clearly require expert opinion. Instead, Claimant here asserted advice for remote treatment resulted in her conscious, reasonable decision to seek that treatment. Accordingly, the Board’s reliance on Jordan is misplaced. Rather, in this case the Judd standard is appropriate for determining whether Claimant proved a compelling reason to leave her employment.

abuse - expungement - corporal punishment

F.R. v. DPW - Cmwlth. Court - September 1, 2010


http://www.pacourts.us/OpPosting/Cwealth/out/2062CD09_9-1-10.pdf


This Court concludes, based upon the plain language of the definition of “nonaccidental” and the purpose and intent behind the CPSL, that criminal negligence is the proper standard in corporal punishment cases.

While there is little doubt that the Crimes Code and the CPSL are linked in some ways, it is clear, as acknowledged by our Supreme Court in P.R. v. DPW, 569 Pa. 123, 801 A.2d 478 (2002), that the Crimes Code standard applies in criminal proceedings, while the CPSL standard applies to administrative proceedings. This does not imply that corporal punishment is barred under the CPSL, but rather that the standard of determining when corporal punishment crosses the threshold into child abuse is different in the criminal and administrative contexts. See P.R., 569 Pa. at 132, 801 A.2d at 483 (citing Section 6302(c) of the CPSL, 23 Pa. C.S. § 6302(c), and recognizing that CPSL “offers no restriction on the existing rights of parents to use corporal punishment.”) The appeal now before the Court is from an administrative proceeding under the auspices of the CPSL, and, thus, the Crimes Code does not apply.

The Supreme Court . . .held that to show child abuse in cases of corporal punishment, the agency must show, through substantial evidence, that the child’s serious injury was the result of criminal negligence. Id. at 138, 801 A.2d at 487. . . .[W]e believe the General Assembly’s amendment of the CPSL following P.R. was an effort to codify the Supreme Court’s decision in P.R., not circumvent it. . . .[T]he criminal negligence standard proffered by our Supreme Court in P.R. is now codified in the CPSL under the auspices of the definition of “nonaccidental.” The result is that P.R. remains controlling precedent, and criminal negligence is still the proper standard in corporal punishment cases.

These two statutes [the Crimes Code and the CPSL] act in tandem to create a very limited safe harbor in which parents may use corporal punishment without being found to have engaged in child abuse—one couched in the criminal world; one couched in the administrative world. Thus, an indicated report of child abuse under the CPSL may be proper in a situation in which criminal charges are not. This is what the Supreme Court recognized in P.R., it is what was found to be the purpose and legislative intent behind the statutes, and it is why the Supreme Court used the criminal negligence standard in applying the CPSL to corporal punishment cases. In this way, these considerations work hand-in-hand and create a workable statutory scheme that upholds the General Assembly’s intent to protect children and to provide parents choices in raising and reasonably disciplining their children.

UC - willful v. unintentional conduct - credibility

Oliver v. UCBR - Cmwlth. Court (en banc) - September 1, 2010 - 5-2 decision


http://www.pacourts.us/OpPosting/Cwealth/out/1798CD09_9-1-10.pdf


Daycare worker held to have committed willful misconduct by violating employer rule about "100% supervision policy" for the children under her care. "Claimant took her group of six children from the playroom to an outdoor play area. Employer had a policy that a teacher must supervise all of the children in her charge at all times. Claimant’s supervisor noticed that one child was still in the playroom. She retrieved the child and delivered him to Claimant. Claimant’s failure to supervise this child resulted in her termination," even though she claimed that this was an inadvertent "honest mistake."


While Claimant concedes that she violated Employer’s rule, she asserts that her conduct was not willful, intentional, or deliberate and does not constitute willful misconduct, but "[c]ritically, Claimant’s version of the events was not credited by the Board," which reversed the referee. The Claimant did not raise the issue of the Board’s alleged failure to support its decision for overriding the referee’s credibility determinations in the Statement of Questions Involved or in the Argument section of her brief. . . [I]t does not appear that Claimant preserved the issue of whether the Board failed to provide sufficient support for arriving at a different credibility determination than the referee in the Statement of Questions Involved. . . .Assuming arguendo, that Claimant did raise this issue in the Statement of Questions Involved, Claimant must also raise the issue in the Argument Section of the brief. . . .At no time in the brief did Claimant argue that the Board erred when it overrode the credibility determination of the referee without adequate explanation. This Court does not raise non-jurisdictional issues sua sponte. Claimant failed to preserve this issue." The court then goes on to discuss, at length, the issue of whether the claimant's testimony was uncontradicted, under Treon v. UCBR, 499 Pa. 455, 460, 453 A.2d 960, 962 (1982).

The court held that "Claimant’s conduct was not a mere mistake. . . Even if her actions constituted an honest mistake, it would not justify the violation of Employer’s rule." Heitczman v. UCBR, 638 A.2d 461 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994) (fork-lift driver's accident was disqualifying willful misconduct because it violated an employer safety rule concerning about driving a fork-lift).


Dissent (Brobson and Leavitt) - The "Board failed to support its decision for overriding the credibility determination of the referee. . . ."As the ultimate finder of fact, the Board certainly had the right to disbelieve Claimant, even though her testimony was uncontradicted. Treon v. UCBR, 499 Pa. 455, 460, 453 A.2d 960, 962 (1982). The Board, however, is not free to disregard findings of the referee based upon consistent and uncontradicted evidence without providing the reasons for its reversal." The court and Board were wrong to find the claimant's testimony "internally inconsistent. . . The Board has not set forth its reason for reversal, and the Board’s reason for reversal is not “plain enough” from the record. . . .Because I am unable to determine why the Board reversed the referee, there is not an adequate basis for judicial review"

real property - tax sale - notice - posting - front door v. back door

Schooley v. Beaver Co. Tax Claim Bureau - Cmwlth. Court - September 1, 2010


http://www.pacourts.us/OpPosting/Cwealth/out/2517CD09_9-1-10.pdf


Tax sale overturned despite property owners having received actual notice of tax sale, where the TCB did not satisfy the statutory requirement of "conspicuous posting" of a notice of the sale on the property, affirming Ban v. Tax Claim Bureau of Washington Co., 698 A.2d 1386 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997), where as here the notice was posted on the back door of the property. Ban held that " the Tax Sale Law required posting on the front-door of his property where it would have been visible from the public street, providing notice to the public at large, conspicuous and reasonably calculated to provide notice to the general public."


Notice provisions are to be strictly construed, that strict compliance is required to prevent deprivation of property without due process of law, and that if notice is defective, then the sale is void. . . .The courts: “must consider not only whether the posting is sufficient to notify the owner of the pending sale, but provides sufficient notice to the public at large. . . .” Id., 698 A.2d at 1388. Thus, according to Ban, the Tax Sale Law’s notice requirement includes the requirement that notice be posted such that it can be seen by the public, is conspicuous, and is placed in such a manner so as to attract the attention of an ordinary passerby. Actual notice to the property owner does not cure defective posting. Id.; see also O’Brien v. Lackawanna Cnty. Tax Claim Bureau, 889 A.2d 127 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005).

real property - tax sale - proof of mailing - USPS Form 3817

In re York Co. Tax Claim Bureau - Appeal of Luciani - Cmwlth. Court - September 1, 2010


http://www.pacourts.us/OpPosting/Cwealth/out/2164CD09_9-1-10.pdf



In an issue of first impression, the court held that the only acceptable proof of mailing under the Real Estate Tax Sale Law, 72 P.S. §5860.602(h), is through the use of the USPS Form 3817, certificate of mailing. In this case, the TCB's only proof of mailing was a handwritten notation on its own letterhead.

social security - disability - RFC - VE v. DOT - SSR 00-4P

McHerrin v. Astrue - ED Pa. - August 31, 2010


http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/10D0930P.pdf


The court affirmed the magistrate's recommendation for a remand because of the ALJ's failure to resolve a discrepancy about RFC involving testimony of the VE and information in the DOT.


SSR 00-4P Defines the Procedure the ALJ Must Follow When the VE’s Testimony Conflicts with the DOT.
SSR-04p is a self-promulgated Social Security ruling that interprets Social Security regulations 20 C.F.R. § 404.1566(d),(e) and § 416.966(d),(e). Social Security rulings are binding at all levels of the adjudicative process. Walton v. Halter, 243 F.3d 703 (3d Cir. 2001). The specific purpose of adopting SSR 00-4p was to clarify Social Security’s standards for identifying and resolving conflicts between “occupational evidence provided by a VE or VS and information in the DOT.” SSR 00-4p. SSR 00-4p states that the Commissioner primarily relies on the DOT for information about the requirements of work in the national economy, and on testimony by the VE to resolve complex vocational issues. The ruling states that evidence provided by a VE during an administrative hearing should be consistent with the occupational information supplied by the DOT. Id. SSR 00-4p further provides that “[n]either the DOT nor the VE or VS evidence automatically ‘trumps’ when there is a conflict.” Id. Rather, the ALJ “must resolve the conflict by determining if the explanation given by the VE or VS is reasonable and provides a basis for relying on the VE or VS testimony rather than the DOT information.” Id. In this Circuit, courts have interpreted this ruling to mean that the ALJ has an affirmative duty to ask a VE if a conflict exists between his opinion and the DOT before relying on the VE’s testimony. Walker v. Astrue, 2010 WL 3167557, *5-6 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 10, 2010).


The Third Circuit has held that failure of the ALJ to comply with the requirements in SSR 00-4p to fully develop the record may result in remand of a claim by the district court where the VE’s testimony is inconsistent with the DOT and there is no other substantial evidence in the record to support the ALJ’s decision, Rutherford, 399 F.3d at 557.

UC - willful misconduct - bad language - provoked or de minimis

Triplie v. UCBR - Cmwlth Court - Sept. 1, 2010 - unreported memorandum opinion


http://www.pacourts.us/OpPosting/Cwealth/out/2575CD09_9-1-10.pdf


This is an unreported case but the court gave a useful summary of the law on this issue:

This Court has held that abusive, vulgar, or offensive language addressed to a supervisor may support a finding of willful misconduct, so long as it is not provoked or de minimis.4 Allen v. UCBR, 638 A.2d 448, 451 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994). Even a single instance of vulgarity directed to, and unprovoked by, a supervisor is sufficient for a finding of willful misconduct. Losch v. UCBR, 461 A.2d 344, 345 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983). Furthermore, insubordination in general may constitute willful misconduct. Losch, 461 A.2d at 345.

4 See, e.g., Blount v. UCBR, 466 A.2d 771 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983) (holding that threat by claimant found to be off-hand utterance in nature of joke was not willful misconduct); Luketic v. UCBR, 386 A.2d 1045 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1974) (finding justified and not to be willful misconduct claimant’s statement that employer was being less than honest); Horace W. Longacre, Inc. v. UCBR, 316 A.2d 110 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1974) (holding allegedly offensive remark by claimant to be provoked and de minimis).

__._,_.___