Hite v. City of McKeesport – Pa. Cmwlth. – 3-8-24 – reported opinion
https://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Commonwealth/out/180CD23_3-11-24.pdf?cb=1
Held: Claimant for disability pension was denied due process when his request for a continuance to subpoena an examining physician was denied.
From the opinion:
The basic elements of procedural due process are “adequate notice, the opportunity to be heard, and the chance to defend oneself before a fair and impartial tribunal having jurisdiction over the case.” . . . . Additionally, the opportunity to be heard must occur “at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” . . . . This Court has noted that in addition, due process requires “an opportunity to offer evidence in furtherance of such issues.” . . . .We have further observed that “[t]he key factor in determining whether procedural due process is denied is whether the party asserting the denial of due process suffered demonstrable prejudice.”
Additionally, the power to grant or refuse a continuance is an inherent power of a court or administrative agency, which is normally discretionary and subject to review only on a clear showing of an abuse of that discretion. . . . .In such cases, our chief considerations in determining the existence of an abuse of discretion are “whether or not the grant or refusal of the continuance would be in furtherance of justice and whether or not a refusal would prejudice the rights of one of the parties.”
For example, in [one case] this Court concluded that the State Civil Service Commission abused its discretion in denying a continuance for the petitioner to obtain counsel, when the petitioner had attempted but was unable to obtain counsel prior to the hearing. See Replogle, 430 A.2d at 1222. By contrast, in a workers’ compensation matter, this Court upheld the denial of a continuance where each party had had ample opportunity to present its case, and the damaging testimony “sought to be refuted was extracted by appellant’s own counsel who called the claimant as his own witness as if on cross-examination, after a continuance at appellant’s request.” . . .. . This Court concluded that there was no abuse of discretion in denying a second request for a continuance in such circumstances..
In the instant matter, Hite requested a single continuance in order to secure the presence of a necessary witness.13 The hearing officer denied that request. However, the refusal of the continuance was not in the furtherance of justice: the opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Tucker was integral to Hite’s arguments on appeal.. . . . Further, the denial did prejudice Hite, as Dr. Tucker’s opinion was the basis for denying him his disability pension. . . . .Finally, if the hearing officer had granted the continuance, Hite would continue to receive what he had been receiving from the Plan: no money and no benefits. Accordingly, the denial prejudiced Hite, but not the Board.
