UC- appeal - preservation/waiver of issues

Pearson v. UCBR - ordered to be reported August 18, 2008 - Commonwealth Court -

http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/CWealth/out/2238CD07_8-18-08.pdf

original unreported decision - June 11, 2008
http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/CWealth/out/2238CD07_6-11-08.pdf

The court rejected the Board's argument that the "Claimant failed to preserve any issues for review," in which it alleged that he "failed to specifically challenge any of the Board’s findings in his petition for review or in his statement of questions involved," and that he "waived any challenge to the evidentiary support for the Board’s findings by not addressing the issue in his appellate brief."

The court said the it "may decline to consider issues a claimant fails to raise with sufficient specificity in his petition for review. See Pa. R.A.P. 1513; Deal v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 878 A.2d 131 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) " and that it "may decline to consider issues a claimant raises in the argument section of his appellate brief but fails to include in his statement of questions involved. See Pa. R.A.P. 2119(a); Leone v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 885 A.2d 76 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005)."

However, the court "decline[d] to apply waiver in this instance. In Claimant’s petition for review, we discern two issues preserved for argument. First, Claimant contends the Board failed to 'review all the facts. ' ....We interpret Claimant’s assertion as a challenge to the evidentiary support for the Board’s findings regarding the circumstances of Claimant’s discharge. Second, we interpret Claimant’s assertion that 'this case is not strong enough” to withhold unemployment compensation benefits as challenging whether Employer met its burden to prove it discharged Claimant for cause. Id.; see also Pa. R.A.P. 1513(d) (“The statement of objections will be deemed to include every subsidiary question fairly comprised therein.”). Because Claimant sufficiently addresses these arguments in his handwritten appellate brief, we will consider them on their merits."

tax sale - notice - posting

McCartan v. Montgomery Co. Tax Claim Bureau - Commonwealth Court - June 2, 2008 - UNPUBLISHED OPINION

http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/CWealth/out/1162CD07_6-2-08.pdf

Held: Unverified written document about of posting was not sufficient proof of posting, in the face of uncontradicted testimony of the property owner that the property was not posted. The trial court abused its discretion by finding that the property was properly posted based solely on the unnotarized “Affidavit for Posting of Notice of Public Tax Sale” where unrebutted evidence to the contrary was submitted into the record.

Compliance with the other notice requirements of the Law does not necessarily cure a defect in posting because the posting requirement serves three purposes: to inform the taxpayer of the impending sale; to notify others whose interests in the land may be affected by the sale; and, to notify the public at large of the impending sale.

The law is well-settled in Pennsylvania that a valid tax sale requires the tax claim bureau to strictly comply with all three of the notice provisions of sec. 602 of the law, 72 P.S. §5860.602, or the sale is void. The tax claim bureau must notify the owner of the property in the following three ways: (1) publication of the tax sale at least 30 days prior to the sale; (2) notification of the sale to each owner by certified mail at least 30 days in advance of the sale; and (3) posting notice of the sale on the property at least 10 days prior to the sale. 72 P.S. §§5860.602(a), (e). Strict compliance is necessary to guard against any deprivation of property without due process of law.

UC - willful misconduct - physician's failure to provide medical information

Zurn Industries v. UCBR - Commonwealth Court - June 5, 2008 - UNPUBLISHED OPINION

http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/CWealth/out/2093CD07_6-5-08.pdf

The claimant was not insubordinate and did not commit willful misconduct when his doctors failed to provide the employer with information about the claimant's functional capacity. he claimant contacted his doctors and asked them to provide the information.

As in as in Bogan v. UCBR, 447 A.2d 708 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982) and Houff v. UCBR, 397 A.2d 42 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979), "Claimant attempted to get the information Employer requested, but neither of his physicians provided acceptable information, at least not within the time demanded by Employer. Also, similar to Bogan, Employer was also unsuccessful in its attempt to have Claimant’s physicians specify any work restrictions. Claimant attempted to fulfill the directives of Employer but had no control over his physicians."

discovery - appeal - collateral order doctrine - privilege

T.M. v. Elwyn, Inc. - Superior Court - June 5, 2008

http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Superior/out/s66027_07.pdf

In general, discovery orders are not final, and are therefore unappealable. However, discovery orders involving privileged material are nevertheless appealable as collateral to the principal action pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 313 (“Collateral Orders”).

A collateral order is an order separable from and collateral to the main cause of action where the right involved is too important to be denied review and the question presented is such that if review is postponed until final judgment in the case, the claim will be irreparably lost. Pa.R.A.P. 313(b). “A discovery order is collateral only when it is separate and distinct from the underlying cause of action.”

An appeal from a discovery order raising a question of the application of a privilege is separable from the underlying issue, so long as the issue of privilege may be addressed by an appellate court without analysis of the underlying issue.

admin. law - appeal - waiver/preservation of issues - Merida v. UCBR distinguished

By an order dated June 5, 2008, this case has now been designated as an opinion, which will be reported and published.

See http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/CWealth/out/1912CD07_6-5-08.pdf

Thanks to David Hill of Philadelphia Legal Assistance for preparing and filing the motion which got this case reported

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ductmate Industries v. UCBR - Commonwealth Court - March 12, 2008

http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/CWealth/out/1912CD07_6-5-08.pdf

previously reported at http://www.courts.state.pa.us/opposting/cwealth/out/1912cd07_3-12-08.pdf

Claimant did not waive any issue when, in appealing from the referee decision, he said only that he "did not agree" with it, and UCBR reversed and granted benefits. The initial determination and referee decision both dealt with a single issue, whether claimant's acts constituted willful misconduct.

The employer argued that claimant's reasons were not specific enough, citing Merida v. UCBR, 543 A.2d 593 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988) and 34 Pa. Code 101.81(c)(4) http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/034/chapter101/s101.81.html both of which require an appellant to state the "reasons for appeal."

The court noted that in Merida there were two hearings. The employer did not attend the intial hearing, and the Board ordered a second one, during which the claimant raised a number of issues. The referee ruled against the claimant, but did not rule on the propriety of the second hearing.

The claimant appealed to the Board, making only the general objection that he did not agree with the referee's decision. The Board affirmed the referee, and the claimant appealed to the Commonwealth Court, arguing only that the Board erred in ordering the second hearing. The court determined that the claimant had waived the issue of the propriety of the second hearing, since he did not specifically bring it to the attention of the Board, which "could not be charged with scouring the record to determine every possible appeal."

In this case, however, there was only one issue - whether claimant's acts constituted willful misconduct. That was the issue decided in both the initial UCSC determination and the Board decision. Citing Black Lick Trucking Co. v. UCBR, 6677 A.2d 454 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995), the court held that an "inartful appeal" claiming only general disagreement with the referee decision does not prevent the UCBR from addressing the issues ruled on by both the job center/UCSC and referee. The referee should review all issues in the initial determination, and the Board should review all issues the referee considered -- the precise case here.

consumer - payday lending - Consumer Discount Company Law - Loan Interest and Protection Law

Dept. of Banking v. NCAS of Delaware - Pa. Supreme Court - May 29, 2008

http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Supreme/out/J-97-2008mopdf

Stating that it is "well established that Commonwealth public policy prohibits usurious lending, a prohibition that has been recognized for well over 100 years, " the state supreme court affirmed the decision of the Commonwealth Court, 931 A.2d 771 (2007) http://www.aopc.org/OpPosting/CWealth/out/519MD06_7-31-07.pdf in an action brought by the state Department of Banking to prevent the unlicensed defendant lenders from charging consumers fees that exceeded applicable state limits under the Consumer Discount Company Act, 7 P.S. §§6201-6219 (the “CDCA”), and the Loan Interest and Protection Law, 41 P.S. §§101-605 (the “LIPL”).

The court determined that Advance America, a payday lender, was subject to the licensing requirements of the CDCA, since the effective interest rate in its transactions -- more than 300% -- was much higher than the statutory limit of 6%.

Although the stated contract interest rate was 5.98% - just below the 6% limit prescribed by the CDCA - AA also charged consumers $149.95 per month as a "participation fee", which the court said was a charge under the statute that had to be include in the aggregate charges and thus was part of the interest rate determination, because the participation fee was a "necessary condition" of any credit advance by AA and was a "charge inextricably related to the amount actually loaned or advanced."

The court rejected the lender's argument that Delaware law should apply to the case by virtue of a choice-of-law provision in the contract with borrowers, stating that:

a) the case was brought by the state Dept. of Banking, not any individual borrower. The Department was not a party to or bound by the terms of any such contract. The "Department instituted this action pursuant to its police power, not only to protect consumers who had already entered into contracts with Appellant, but more broadly on behalf of the general public to enforce the policy protecting them from usurious lending....When viewed in this light,...the choice-of-law provision in Appellant’s contracts cannot bind the Department in this action to enforce Pennsylvania public policy."

b) even if the contractual provision applied, the Court "has recognized that choice-of-law agreements can be avoided when the terms offend Commonwealth public policy even in disputes between contracting parties....Pennsylvania courts have consistently held that the prohibition of exploitative lending is a fundamental public policy that cannot be circumvented."

c) Although some Pennsylvania statutes permit certain lenders to charge more than the statutory 6% rate under the Loan Interest and Protection Law, 41 P.S. sec. 101 et seq., "violation of any of these statutory provisions will itself offend the public policy of the Commonwealth, as established by the General Assembly."

The court held that its "interpretation harmonizes the remedial purposes of the statute by preventing lenders from charging 'extortionate' fees, while at the same time charging a legal interest rate, thus closing a wide loophole for usurious practices" and agreed with the argument of CLS, an amicus in the case, that this lending vehicle was "an example of the industry’s latest scheme to avoid usury laws....This Court has acknowledged that 'usury is generally accompanied by subterfuge and circumvention of one kind or another to present the color of legality.' ... We agree with the Department, and the amici that Appellant’s interpretation of the statute would undermine the usury laws’ purpose: 'to protect the citizenry of this Commonwealth from being exploited at the hands of unscrupulous individuals seeking to circumvent the law at the expense of unsuspecting borrowers who may have no other avenue to secure financial backing.'"

custody - jurisdiction - continuing jurisdiction

Billhime v. Billhime - Superior Court - June 4, 2008

http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Superior/out/A06024_08.pdf

This case involves Mother's petition for Pennsylvania courts to relinquish jurisdiction to Florida courts. The initial custody order was entered in Pennsylvania. In a later order, the court granted custody to the mother, who lives in Florida, where the children had been living for several years.

The UCCJEA, 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5422(a)(1), provides that the courts of this Commonwealth will exercise exclusive continuing jurisdiction to modify child custody orders originally entered here unless the child, or a child and at least one parent (or a person acting as a parent), no longer have a “significant connection” with Pennsylvania. For the child, the lack of a continuing “significant connection” with the Commonwealth is established if the court finds that substantial evidence concerning the child’s care, protection, training and personal relationships is no longer available here.

The trial court refused Mother's petition, relying almost exclusively on Father’s continuing “significant connection” with Pennsylvania. However, the court did not focus in any detail on whether the children continue to maintain a “significant connection” to Pennsylvania, noting only that they visit Pennsylvania three times per year and spend time with their father, friends and paternal grandfather. There was little evidence regarding the continuing availability in Pennsylvania of “substantial evidence concerning the child’s “care, protection, training and personal relationships,” as is expressly required by sec . 5422(a)(1) of the UCCJEA. In fact, essentially all of the evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing demonstrates that information relating to the children’s welfare is now located in the state of Florida.

In the absence of exclusive continuing jurisdiction, a Pennsylvania court may nevertheless modify a child custody order it previously issued if it has jurisdiction to make an initial determination under section 5421 of the UCCJEA. 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5422(b). Because the trial court did not address the applicability of section 5421 in connection with its initial consideration of Mother’s motion to relinquish jurisdiction, we remand for consideration and decision on this issue.

In the event the trial court determines that it lacks jurisdiction to make an initial custody determination pursuant to section 5421, it should grant Mother’s motion and relinquish jurisdiction of custody matters relating to these two children to the courts of the state of Florida. Order reversed. Case remanded.

appeals - MDJ appeals - appeal v. certiorari

Gladstone Partners v. Overland Enterprise - Superior Court - June 2, 2008

http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Superior/out/A06037_08.pdf

Appeal de novo and writ of certiorari are different, separate, and mutually exclusive.
These remedies do not and cannot exist simultaneously. MDJ Rule 1015 expressly prohibits a litigant from availing themselves of both an appeal de novo and certiorari review. Rule 1015 clearly requires a litigant desiring to challenge a magisterial district court’s judgment to choose either to appeal de novo or to seek certiorari review.

The purpose of an appeal de novo is to give a litigant a new trial without reference to the record established in the minor court, whereas certiorari connotes a review of the record established in the minor court with an eye to cure defects in procedure and legal error....

The Pennsylvania Constitution does not guarantee the remedy of certiorari review, but, rather, the Judicial Code permits the courts of common pleas to issue writs of certiorari as they had done at common law, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 934. As such, the appellate courts of this Commonwealth have described certiorari review as an alternative to an appeal de novo.

The remedy of appeal de novo takes precedence over certiorari review due to the guarantee of the right to appeal found in Art. V § 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Thus, the simultaneous filing of an appeal de novo and a praecipe for writ of certiorari will result in the striking of the writ if it is later granted by the court of common pleas.

The time for appeal is not extended while certiorari proceeding are pending
Courts cannot extend appeal deadlines without showing a breakdown in the processes of the court or fraud that would justify an appeal nunc pro tunc. The MDJ Rules state the time limits for seeking appeal de novo and certiorari review with specificity.

A party challenging the subject matter or procedural jurisdiction of an MDJ via writ of certiorari may do so at any time after entry of the court’s judgment; otherwise, the time limit for seeking certiorari review is 30 days following entry of judgment. Pa.R.C.P.M.D.J. 1009B.

On the other hand, a party appealing de novo is constrained by a 30-day time limitation from the entry of judgment or, in the case of judgments of possession of residential real property, a 10-day time limitation from the entry of judgment. Pa.R.C.P.M.D.J. 1002A, 1002B.

Therefore, to find that the grant of a writ of certiorari tolls the time for taking appeal de novo would permit the courts of common pleas to extend the time for taking appeal de novo to a potentially-limitless period.

No good cause for late filing - MDJ Rules 1002A and 1002B permit the filing of an appeal beyond the stated time periods with leave of court and upon good cause shown. In the present case, the appellant did not request the leave of court or demonstrate cause as to why their appeal was filed beyond the 30-day time limit. Accordingly, we need not consider this grace proviso in the present case.

attorney fees - EAJA - paralegal time - prevailing market rates

Richlin Security Services v. Chertoff - US. Supreme Court - June 2, 2008

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-1717.pdf

The question presented in this case is whether the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 5 U. S. C. §504(a)(l) (2006 ed.) and 28 U. S. C. §2412(d)(1)(A) (2000 ed.), allows a prevailing party in a case brought by or against the Government to recover fees for paralegal services at the market rate for such services or only at their cost to the party’s attorney.

Held: A prevailing party that satisfies EAJA’s other requirements may recover its paralegal fees from the Government at prevailing market rates.

EAJA, like §1988, must be interpreted as using the term "attorney . . . fees" to reach fees for paralegal services as well as compensation for the attorney’s personal labor, making "self-evident"that Congress intended that term to embrace paralegal fees.

Since §504 generally provides for recovery of attorney’s fees at "prevailingmarket rates," it follows that paralegal fees must also be recoverable at those rates.

contracts - good faith and fair dealing

Spadoni v. Easton Area School District - ED Pa. - May 22, 2008

http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/08D0587P.pdf

Pennsylvania does not recognize an independent cause of action for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Temple Univ. Hosp., Inc. v. Group Health, Inc., 2006 WL 146426, at *5 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 12, 2006) (Pratter, J.) (quoting Lyon Fin. Servs. v. Woodlake Imaging, LLC, 2005 WL 331695, at *8 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 9, 2005) (Diamond, J.)).

“There may be an express or implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in any contract between the parties, but if so, its breach is a breach of contract rather than an independent breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing.” Temple Univ. Hosp. Inc., 2006 WL 146426, at *5 (quoting Engstrom v. John Nuveen & Co., 668 F. Supp. 953, 958 (E.D. Pa. 1987)).

Because breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing is a breach of contract action, a complaint must allege the proper elements of a breach of contract action to survive a motion to dismiss. Temple Univ. Hosp., 2006 WL 146426, at *6 (citing McAllister v. Royal Carribean Cruises, Ltd., 2003 WL 23192102, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 30, 2003) (Kauffman, J.)).

disability - severity - remand

Bishop v. Astrue

http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/08D0583P.pdf

I agree with the ALJ that there is little, if any, medical evidence supporting the level of disability alleged by plaintiff. I also respect that the ALJ’s credibility determination is entitled to deference.

However, I am bound by Third Circuit law which provides that benefits may be denied at step two of the sequential evaluation only if there are less than slight abnormalities which would have no more than a minimal effect on an individual's ability to work and that step two is designed to screen out only groundless claims.

In this case, resolving any doubt in favor of the applicant, as I must under the law, I find that based upon the record evidence, Bishop’s claim is not groundless and, thus, the ALJ legally erred when he found that Bishop’s trigeminal neuralgia/primary trochlear headache was not a severe impairment. Id. As a result, this case must be remanded to the ALJ to determine whether Bishop is disabled due to her severe impairment of trigeminal neuralgia/primary trochlear headache and other non-severe impairment.

Although due to the ALJ’s legal error this case must be remanded, I hesitate, for based on the record, I find it highly unlikely that Bishop’s impairments are severe enough to preclude all work. See Rutherford v. Barnhart, 399 F.3d 546, 553 (3d Cir. 2005)... ; Fisher v. Bowen, 869 F.2d 1055, 1057 (7th Cir. 1989)....However, it is not my duty to make the ultimate disability determination, as that decision is reserved solely for the Commissioner. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(1). My role is limited to determining whether the decision of the ALJ is legally sufficient and supported by substantial evidence....Therefore, the case must be remanded in order for the ALJ to supplement his findings in a manner consistent with this opinion.

custody - relocation

Hogrelius v. Martin - Superior Court - May 29, 2008

http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Superior/out/s16015_08.pdf

The court affirmed a decision granting mother permission to move with child to Virginia, where they would live with mother's new husband.

A lot of the opinion dealt with economic factors, including the fact that the stepfather alone earned more than both parents combined.

The court also rejected father's claims that the proposed alternate arrangements for his partial custody were not adequate, because they involved a reduction in his custody time and a longer commute (5.5 hours each way). The court rejected this contention as well, stating:

In addressing this prong of the Gruber analysis, a court’s determination is not whether the alternative schedule would maintain the current level of the non-custodial parent’s interaction with the children, but rather whether the substitute arrangements “will foster adequately an ongoing relationship” between the non-custodial parent and the children....This Court addressed a similar contention in Goldfarb v. Goldfarb, 861 A.2d 340, 346 (Pa.Super. 2004), and concluded that the distance between the noncustodial parent and his relocated children is not the controlling concern. We stated, 'If it were, no necessity for a Gruber analysis would ever have arisen, as physical proximity would be a sine qua non of most if not all custody determinations.' Id. Thus, although an alternative custody schedule necessarily reduces the frequency of a parent’s interaction with a child because of the distance involved, relocation should not be denied for that reason alone....Gruber, 583 A.2d at 185-86. See also Ketterer v. Seifert, 902 A.2d 533, 539 (Pa.Super. 2006) (fact that move of considerable distance will increase cost and logistical problems of maintaining contact between non-custodial parent and child will not necessarily preclude relocation when other factors favor it).

The court found that the proposed custody schedule for the father -- alternating weekends, most holidays, and seven weeks during the summer, as well as alternate holidays, and during extended breaks from school - would increases father’s extended, overnight custody and would adequately foster a healthy relationship between father and child.

UC - voluntary quit - "purely personal reasons"

Johnson v. UCBR - Commonwealth Court - May 29, 2008 - UNREPORTED DECISION

http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/CWealth/out/27CD08_5-29-08.pdf

Claimant was denied UC benefits when she quit her part-time, weekend job without good cause under sec. 4021(b) of the UC Law. Her desire to spend more time with elderly family members was not good cause, in the absence of proof that her presence was required for them to get proper care. Her reason for leaving was thus "purely personal." She also failed to establish that she discussed the issue with her employer or made other efforts to preserve her job.

"Under certain circumstances, the family obligations of a claimant may constitute necessitous and compelling cause to quit employment. Du-Co Ceramics Co. v. UCBR, 546 Pa. 504, 686 A.2d 821 (1996).

For instance, in Pittsburgh Pipe and Coupling Company v. UCBR, 401 Pa. 501, 165 A.2d 374 (1960), the Supreme Court affirmed the granting of benefits to a claimant who quit his employment to return home and take care of his wife, who had suffered a disabling spinal injury, and their children.

Similarly, in Beachem v. UCBR, 760 A.2d 68 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000), we concluded that a claimant who quit his employment to move back in with his eleven-year-old son, who was having emotional and behavioral problems, established necessitous and compelling cause for quitting, thereby entitling him to unemployment compensation benefits.

We have also granted benefits to a claimant when he quit his employment to move back home, in part, to take care of his ailing father. Speck v. UCBR, 680 A.2d 27 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996).

However, in Green v. UCBR, 529 A.2d 597 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987), we explained that while family obligations may constitute a necessitous and compelling reason to leave one's employment, the reasons may not be purely personal."

disability - findings and reasons

Levine v. Astrue - ED Pa. - March 27, 2008

http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/08D0368P.pdf

The court ordered a remand due to several unexplained conflicts and inconsistencies the ALJ’s findings, which are "not for an appellate court to explain....See Fargnoli v. Massanari, 247 F.3d 34, 41-42 (3d Cir. 2001)."

"Despite finding that the treating physician’s opinion was entitled to controlling weight, ...the ALJ did not discuss these limitations in his assessment of RFC, even though “a clear and satisfactory explanation” must accompany an ALJ’s finding of RFC. Fargnoli, 47 F.3d at 41....The ALJ’s opinion below is deficient in this respect because it does not specifically discuss the mental impairments the treating physician reported."

"The ALJ’s decision did not explain the conflict between the skill level the ALJ found plaintiff to have and the skill requirements of the jobs the VE testified the plaintiff could perform. The VE and the ALJ must explain such inconsistencies on the record, and if they have not, the matter must be remanded. See Burns, 312 F.3d at 127 (requiring that conflicts between an ALJ’s findings and the DOT definitions be explained “on the record and that the ALJ explain in his decision how the conflict was resolved”). This matter is therefore remanded so that the ALJ can explain these inconsistencies."

appeal - time - unreasonably short appeal period

Premier Comp Solutions, LLC v. Dept. of General Services - Commonwealth Court - May 28, 2008

http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/CWealth/out/570MD07_5-28-08.pdf

This case involves petitioner's challenge to respondent's award of a single-source contract, in which there was no public notice or competitive bidding, as required by Article III, sec. 22, of the state constitution. The case was brought in the the Commonwealth Court's original jurisdiction.

DGS filed POs, claiming that Premier did not challenge its decision within the 7-day period set out in the regulations. The court held that Premier did not have a legally enforceable interest and thus couldn't challenge the DGS decision in any event.

However, the court did discuss the 7-day appeal period, stating in dicta tha if Premier did have such an interest, then a statute

"foreclosing its right to challenge a contract within such a short period of time [seven (7) days] would implicate due process rights. See Luke v. Cataldi 593 Pa. 461, 932 A.2d 45 (2007). Moreover, such a remedy is not an available or adequate remedy. See Pentlong Corp. v. GLS Capital, Inc., 780 A.2d 734 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001). If we were to hold otherwise, administrative agency decisions could be made virtually unchallengeable – a decision could made in secret making it impossible for any interested party to take an appeal."

Query: Could this issue be raised in the landlord-tenant context of the 10-day period to appeal an MDJ judgment?

time - computation

Rodriguez v. Board of Probation and Parole - Commonwealth Court - May 28, 2008 - UNREPORTED DECISION

http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/CWealth/out/2154CD07_5-28-08.pdf

In a case in which a prisoner challenged the actions of the Board as untimely, the court set out the regulatory and statutory rules for counting time:

1 Pa. Code § 31.1 sets forth how days are to be counted for time periods in regulations. It provides “in computing a period of time prescribed or allowed . . . regulations of the agency . . . ., the day of the act, event or default after which the designated period of time begins to run may not be included, . . . . The last day of the period so computed shall be included, unless it is Saturday, Sunday or a legal holiday in this Commonwealth, in which event the period shall run until the end of the next day which is neither a Saturday, Sunday nor a holiday.”4

n. 4 - Section 1908 of the Statutory Construction Act, 1 Pa. C.S. §1908, counts days in statutes in the same manner. It provides: “When any period of time is referred to in any statute, such period in all cases, . . . shall be so computed as to exclude the first and include the last day of such period[.]”

disability - remand - additional evidence, findings

Bauer-Cromartie v. Astrue - ED Pa. - May 21, 2008

http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/08D0565P.pdf

additional evidence
The court remanded the case because of the ALJ's failure to follow the Appeals Council's insructions to gather further evidence about one of claimant on plaintiff’s impairments. "[A]lthough the likelihood that plaintiff’s impairment meets the de minimus standard for severity is high, it is impossible for me to properly evaluate whether this is, in fact, the case. McCrea v. Commr., 370 F.3d 357, 360 (3d Cir. 2004)."

Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1512(f), the court ordered the ALJ to obtain a "consultative exam and take any other appropriate measures needed to properly evaluate plaintiff’s claim including consultation with a medical expert and questioning of plaintiff at a hearing, if necessary," if "more salient records regarding the impairment are not available..."

statement of evidence to support findings
The court also ordered the to "clearly set forth the evidence supporting her physical RFC determination [concerning claimant's arthritis] and, if necessary, obtain a physical RFC statement from a medical professional." The ALJ had found that the now 62 year-old claimant could do medium work -- lifting 50 pounds occasionally and 25 pounds frequently -- in spite of her arthritis.

UC - willful misconduct - medical condition - expert testimony

Philadelphia Parking Authority v. UCBR - Commonwealth Cour - May 22, 2008 - UNREPORTED DECISION

http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/CWealth/out/2157CD07_5-22-08.pdf

Reversing the referee and UCBR, the court held that a claimant who admitted to being habitually late did not establish good cause for this violation of the employer rules with her lay testimony about a medical condition - obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), holding that she needed expert testimony to prove the diagnosis and its effects.

"To meet its burden of proof in establishing willful misconduct as to the violation of a work rule, an employer must establish the existence of the rule, that the employee was aware of the rule and that the rule was violated....Once employer has met its burden, the burden shifts to the claimant to prove that the rule was unreasonable or that there was good cause for violating it."

The employer established the rule and claimant's violation. The court held that claimant did not establish good cause.

The court said that, while it was "sympathetic with Claimant, we cannot neglect the fact that Claimant failed to present expert testimony as to the nature of her mental disorder. Claimant merely testified that she had OCD, which caused her to wash her hands after each of her morning activities and, thus, caused her to be late for work. Expert testimony was needed to provide a proper diagnosis of Claimant’s mental disorder and to explain how the mental disorder affects Claimant’s judgment and behavior. Expert testimony was also necessary to explain how a diagnosis of OCD could cause a person to be habitually late for work involuntarily, i.e., why simply waking earlier would not rectify the problem or why the disorder would cause someone to be one hour late for work one day, but only thirty minutes late for work the following day. As Claimant failed to present sufficient evidence establishing that her OCD condition constituted good cause for violating Employer’s work rule regarding excessive tardiness, the Board erred in concluding that Claimant’s actions did not rise to the level of willful misconduct.

admin. law - due process - notice of charges

Goslin v. State Board of Medicine - Commonwealth Court - May 23, 2008

http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/CWealth/out/1830CD07_5-23-08.pdf

A registered nurse was charged by the State Board of Medicine with various offenses involving whether she was properly licensed to practice midwifery.

She was found to have violated a section of the law barring "practicing as a midwife without a license and for holding herself out to the public as a midwife."

She appealed, inter alia, on the ground that "the Board deprived her of due process by failing to provide notice that she was charged with violating" that section of the law. The Court agreed.

The court said that in an administrative proceeding, the essential elements of due process are notice and an opportunity to be heard.....The purpose of the notice requirement is to afford the person reasonable notice of the charges against her so that she will have sufficient opportunity to answer the charges....For such notice to be adequate, it must at the very least contain a sufficient listing and explanation of charges so that the individual can know against what charges she must defend herself if she can.

The court concluded that "[g]iven the different purposes" of the two statutes, the charges against the nurse the one act, did not give her adequate notice to defend against the offenses charged in the other, which she was found to have violated.

predatory lending - definitions - N.J. case

Nowosleska v. Steele, et al. - N.J. Superior Court, Appellate Division - May 19, 2008

http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/a5759-06.pdf

Borrowers moved to open a default judgment entered against them in a case in which they "were induced to pay with the title to property valued at $405,000 in order to pay off debts totaling $145,000." The various transactions included a $50,000 fee to one of the lenders.

In its opinion opening the default judgment based on possible "grave injustice" and "equity and justice" under N.J. law, the court mentioned several definitions of "predatory lending," as follows:

While predatory lending is a general concept not subject to precise definition, one authority has described it as: a mismatch between the needs and capacity of the borrower . . . In essence, the loan does not fit the borrower, either because the borrower's underlying needs for the loan are not being met or the terms of the loan are so disadvantageous to that particular borrower that there is little likelihood that the borrower has the capability to repay the loan. Assocs. Home Equity Servs. , Inc. v. Troup, 343 N.J. Super. 254, 267 (App. Div. 2001) (quoting Daniel S. Ehrenberg, If the Loan Don't Fit, Don't Take It: Applying the Suitability Doctrine to the Mortgage Industry to Eliminate Predatory Lending, 10 J. Affordable Housing & Community Dev. L. 117, 119-20 (Winter 2001)).

HUD Treasury Task Force on Predatory Lending, Curbing Predatory Home Mortgage Lending 17-24 (2000) http://www.huduser.org/Publications/pdf/treasrpt.pdf discusses predatory lending in general and the difficulty in providing a definition of predatory lending. Predatory lending includes "the practice of making loans containing interest rates, fees or closing costs that are higher than they should be in light of the borrower's credit and net income, or containing other exploitative terms that the borrower does not comprehend." Henry v. Lehman Commercial Paper, Inc. 471 F.3d 977, 984 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Debra Pogrund Stark, Unmasking the Predatory Loan in Sheep's Clothing: A Legislative Proposal, 21 Harv. BlackLetter L.J. 129, 134 (2005) (stating that "predatory lending is the situation where a mortgage broker or mortgage lender engages in fraudulent, deceptive or sharp practices to induce borrowers (often the elderly or minorities) to enter into 'bad' loans," which would include loans that are overpriced, loans where there is no net economic benefit to the borrower, loans where the borrower cannot afford the payment so the lender is relying on the borrower's equity for payment, and loans with other exploitative terms not understood by the borrower).

veterans - representation of claimants - accreditation - atty. fees - disagreement

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-10779.pdf

SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is amending its regulations governing the representation of claimants for veterans benefits in order to implement provisions of the Veterans Benefits, Health Care, and Information Technology Act of 2006, and to reorganize and clarify existing regulations.

As amended, the regulations establish the procedures and rules necessary for VA to facilitate the paid representation of claimants by accredited agents and attorneys after a Notice of Disagreement has been filed with respect to a case.

The purpose of these regulations is to fulfill Congress’ direction that agents and attorneys may be paid for services rendered after a Notice of Disagreement is filed with respect to a decision by an agency of original jurisdiction while ensuring that claimants for veterans benefits have responsible, qualified representation.

DATES: Effective Date: The final rule is effective June 23, 2008.

social security - Ticket to Work and Self-Sufficiency Program - amendments

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-10879.pdf

SUMMARY: We are revising our regulations for the Ticket to Work and Self-Sufficiency Program (Ticket to Work program), which was authorized by the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999.

The Ticket to Work program provides Social Security Disability Insurance and disabled Supplemental Security Income beneficiaries expanded options for access to employment services, vocational rehabilitation services, and other support services.

We are revising our prior rules to improve the overall effectiveness of the program to maximize the economic self-sufficiency of beneficiaries through work opportunities.

We have based these revisions on our projections of the future direction of the Ticket to Work program, our experience using the prior rules, and recommendations made by commenters on the program.

DATES: These final rules are effective July 21, 2008.

education - free eduction - child support is not "compensation"

Velazquez v. East Stroudsburg School District - Commonwealth Court - May 19, 2008

http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/CWealth/out/1530CD07_5-19-08.pdf

Under 24 P.S. 13-1302 and 22 Pa. Code 11.19, a child has a right to attend school without payment of tuition in the district in which his custodial grandmother lives, despite grandmother's receipt of court-ordered support from one of his parents.

The child had lived with his grandmother for most of his life. The child's father was incarcerated and the mother was living in North Carolina or Florida. The grandmother received public assistance and was required to seek support from the parents. That support was not "compensation" for maintaining the child. Despite the receipt of support, the grandmother was "supporting the child gratis as if it were [her] own."

The trial court "mischaracterized the child support payments received by [the grandmother] as compensation to reach its erroneous conclusion that she did not support the child gratis as if he were her own child. Parents are liable for support of their children who are unemancipated and 18 years of age or younger, 23 Pa. C.S. §4321(2), and parents must provide for reasonable expenses of raising their children....The order imposed against the child's mother was for payment of child support to fulfill her obligation to provide child care expenses for the child, not to compensate the grandmother for her services."

Furthermore, grandmother was required to seek child support from the parents under 55 Pa. Code §187.23(b)....Her receipt of public assistance is not deemed personal compensation or gain, see 22 Pa. Code §11.19(a), and it would be absurd to conclude that the child support payments represent personal compensation when she was required to seek the payments in order to receive public assistance.

The case sub judice is clearly distinguishable from Brenner ex rel. Johnson v. West Shore School District, 780 A.2d 726 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001). Unlike the parents in Brenner, the child's parents are not involved in any of the child's daily needs, and his mother provides only minimal child support. The father is incarcerated, and his mother resides out of state. The grandmother is the child's sole caregiver and provides all of his daily needs. She continuously supports him throughout the year, not merely during the school term, and she assumes all responsibilities for meeting school requirements and for making education-related decisions in the absence of his parents....The Brenner holding, therefore, does not support the School District's position.

The purpose of Section 1302 of the School Code is to prevent district 11 shopping....The evidence fails to establish, and the School District does not suggest, that grandmother was engaged in district shopping when she sought to re-enroll Jher grandson in the School District. Because grandmother established the child's entitlement to receive free school privileges in the School District, the Court concludes that the trial court committed an error of law and accordingly reverses its order.

This case was litigated by the Education Law Center in Philadelphia http://www.elc-pa.org/

admin. law - impartial tribunal - right of expression - state constitution

Day v. Civil Service Commission - Commonwealth Court - May 19, 2008

http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/CWealth/out/550CD05_5-19-08.pdf

Police officer was dismissed after publicly criticizing fellow officers, contrary toi departmental regulations. The court upheld the civil service decision to dismiss the officer.

due process - impartial tribunal - state constitution
While rejecting his claim on the facts, the court recognized that under Lyness v. State Board of Medicine, 529 Pa. 535, 605 A.2d 1204 (1992), due process is violated where prosecutorial and adjudicatory functions are commingled, and that "the due process rights of Pennsylvania citizens are broader than those afforded by the U.S. Constitution."

This was clarified in Stone and Edwards Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Department of Insurance, 538 Pa. 276, 648 A.2d 304 (1994), where the court said that: [T]he form of impermissible “appearance” of bias and partiality proscribed in Lyness must clearly be one that arises from an actual environment of commingled functions. Given the nature and constraints of our various governmental bodies, the question of due process reasonably involves an inquiry into the nature of the process actually provided. Id., 538 Pa. at 281-282, 648 A.2d at 307." However, the court found "no evidence whatsoever of a commingling of functions" in the case, "not even an appearance of impropriety."

right of expression - state constitution
A person's free speech rights under Article 1, Section 7 of Pennsylvania Constitution are "broader free expression rights than does the federal constitution. Pap’s A.M. v. City of Erie, 571 Pa. 375, 812 A.2d 591 (2002). Notwithstanding this broader penumbra, Pennsylvania law allows an employer to implement a chain of command policy to regulate the time, manner, and place of expression....We must remember that speech can also constitute conduct, and an employee’s conduct, in the workplace, may be regulated by the employer. Fuller v. Borough of Waynesburg, 503 A.2d 1031 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986)...."

In this case, the "department’s regulation, which prohibited criticism of the department made to the public rather than to the appropriate supervisory personnel, was not constitutionally overbroad. Id., at 1033, n.4. The chain of command policy regulating procedures to follow when making complaints of improper conduct by fellow officers and superiors is necessary for the orderly and efficient operation of paramilitary organizations, such as a police department."

consumer - credit cards - bank overdrafts - proposed rules

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-10247.pdf

SUMMARY: The Federal Reserve Board, Office of Thrift Savings, and National Credit Union Administration (collectively, the Agencies) are proposing to exercise their authority under section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act to prohibit unfair or deceptive acts or practices.

The proposed rule would prohibit institutions from engaging in certain acts or practices in connection with consumer credit cards accounts and overdraft services for deposit accounts.

This proposal evolved from the Board’s June 2007 Notice of Proposed Rule under the Truth in Lending Act and OTS’s August 2007 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking under the Federal Trade Commission Act.

The proposed rule relates to other Board proposals under the Truth in Lending Act and the Truth in Savings Act, which are published elsewhere in today’s Federal Register.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 4, 2008.

Truth in Savings Act- overdrafts - proposed rule

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-10243.pdf

SUMMARY: The Federal Reserve Board (Board) proposes to amend Regulation DD, which implements the Truth in Savings Act, and the staff commentary to the regulation, to provide additional disclosures about account terms and costs associated with overdrafts.

The proposed amendments would set forth content and timing requirements for a notice to consumers about any right to opt out of an institution’s overdraft service.

Requirements for disclosing overdraft fees on periodic statements would be expanded to apply to all institutions and not solely to institutions that promote the payment of overdrafts.

The proposed amendments also address balance disclosures provided in response to balance inquiries from consumers.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 18, 2008.

FTC - FCRA - risk-based pricing - proposed rule

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-10640.pdf

SUMMARY: The Board and the Commission are publishing for comment proposed rules to implement the risk-based pricing provisions in section 311 of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (FACT Act), which amends the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

The proposed rules generally require a creditor to provide a risk-based pricing notice to a consumer when the creditor uses a consumer report to grant or extend credit to the consumer on material terms that are materially less favorable than the most favorable terms available to a substantial proportion of consumers from or through that creditor.

The proposed rules also provide for two alternative means by which creditors can determine when they are offering credit on material terms that are materially less favorable.

The proposed rules also include certain exceptions to the general rule, including exceptions for creditors that provide a consumer with a disclosure of the consumer’s credit score in conjunction with additional information that provides context for the credit score disclosure.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 18, 2008.

Truth in Lending - credit cards - proposed rule

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-10242.pdf

SUMMARY: On June 14, 2007, the Board published proposed amendments to Regulation Z, which implements the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), and to the staff commentary to the regulation, following a comprehensive review of TILA’s rules for open-end (revolving) credit that is not home-secured.

The proposed revisions addressed disclosures provided with credit card applications and solicitations, at account-opening, on periodic statements, when terms are changed on an account, and in advertisements.

The Board is seeking comment on a limited number of additional revisions to the regulation and commentary. New proposed amendments address creditors’ responsibilities to establish reasonable instructions for receiving timely payments and when a due date falls on a weekend or holiday.

Creditors’ responsibilities when investigating a claim of unauthorized transactions or an allegation of a billing error are also addressed.

Advertisements for deferred interest plans would be required to provide additional information about how interest could be imposed.

Comments submitted to the Board in response to the June 2007 proposed revisions remain under consideration by the Board and need not be submitted a second time.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 18, 2008.

support - paternity - estoppel - right to hearing

Lebanon County CYW v. Wagner - Superior Court - May 14, 2008

http://www.phfa.org/consumers/homeowners/real.aspx

“[I]n any child support matter in which paternity is denied on the grounds of estoppel, the trial court must conduct a hearing on the issue of estoppel and determine whether the mother is estopped from pursuing her claim against the alleged father.” Freedman v. McCandless, 654 A.2d 529, 533 (Pa. 1995) (emphasis added).

“Only when the doctrine of estoppel does not apply will the mother be permitted to proceed with a paternity claim against a putative father with the aid of a blood test.” Jones v. Trojak, 634 A.2d 201, 206 (Pa. 1993) (citation omitted). Thus, it was improper for the trial court to order genetic tests without providing Appellant a hearing on the issue of estoppel.

The fact that the child was in the custod of the county CYS is of no moment. The agency stands in the shoes of the parent and is bound by the parent's conduct concerning paternity.

Medicare - proposed revisions to Medicare Advantage and prescription drug benefit program

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/08-1244.pdf

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would make revisions to the Medicare Advantage (MA) program (Part C) and prescription drug benefit program (Part D).

The regulation contains new regulatory provisions regarding special needs plans, medical savings accounts (MSA) plans, and cost-sharing for dual eligible enrollees in the MA program, the prescription drug payment and novation processes in the Part D program, and the enrollment, appeals, and marketing processes for both programs.

We are proposing these changes based on lessons learned since 2006, the initial year of the prescription drug program and the revised MA program.

DATES: To be assured consideration, comments must be received at one of the addresses provided below, no later than 5 p.m. on July 15, 2008.

consumer - Fair Credit Reporting Act - degree of accuracy - causation of damages

Krajewski v. American Honda Finance Corp. and Trans Union, LLC - ED Pa. - May 2008

http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/08D0495P.pdf

Plaintiff and her ex-husband bought a car, which got repossessed by AHFC after their adult son was arrested and the car, in the son's possession at the time, was seized by the police under the Controlled Substances law. AHFC then reported this to Trans Union, a credit reporting agency (CRA), which in turn marked plaintiff's consumer report as "RPO" meaning repossession.

Plaintiff disputed the characterization of "repossession," alleging that she had never missed any payments and that her credit report should not reflect a repo. Plaintiff tried to get a loan to pay the debt and redeem the car and alleges that she could not because of the "repossession" notation on the credit report. She filed two notices of dispute with the CRA.

Plaintiff sued AHFC and Trans Union on multiple causes of action. AHFC's motion for summary judgment was declined on most claims, because of disputed factual and legal issues, included whether plaintiff "exposed" the car to seizure, as prohibited in the contract.

Plaintiff's claims agains Trans Union included the following issues.

Fair Credit Reporting Act - 15 USC 1681 et seq. - technical accuracy v. maximum possible accuracy
Under sec. 1681e(b) of the FCRA, "[w]henever a consumer reporting agency prepares a consumer report it shall follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates.”

To prevail on a claim of negligent failure to comply with § 1681e(b), a plaintiff must show the following four elements: (1) that “inaccurate information was included in a consumer’s credit report,” (2) that “the inaccuracy was due to defendant’s failure to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy,” (3) that “the consumer suffered injury,” and (4) that “the consumer’s injury was caused by the inclusion of the inaccurate entry”....Trans Union argues that it is entitled to summary judgment because the information was accurate, meaning that plaintiff cannot show the first element.

A plaintiff cannot sustain a claim to enforce § 1681e(b) without showing an inaccuracy in her credit report. Whether the accuracy requirement of § 1681e(b) merely requires technical accuracy or requires something more has not been clarified by either the United States Supreme Court or the Third Circuit. Plaintiff urges this court to follow the D.C. Circuit’s reasoning in Koropoulos v. The Credit Bureau, Inc., 734 F.2d 37 (D.C. Cir. 1984), which rejected the technical accuracy defense in the context of a consumer reporting agency defendant. The court denied summary judgment for the consumer reporting agency where “there is a genuine issue of fact as to whether the report was sufficiently misleading so as to raise the issue of whether [the defendant’s] procedures for assuring ‘maximum possible accuracy’ were reasonable.” Id. at 42.

In rejecting the technical accuracy defense as applied to consumer reporting agencies, the D.C. Circuit based its conclusion on the FCRA’s requirement that consumer reporting agencies employ reasonable procedures to assure more than mere accuracy....The FCRA provides: “Whenever a consumer reporting agency prepares a consumer report it shall follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates.” 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b) (emphasis added). District courts in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania have applied Koropoulos....I, too, will follow Koropoulos and deny summary judgment if “there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the report was . . . misleading.” 734 F.2d at 42.

Whether the credit report in the instant case is accurate and not misleading depends on the meaning of “repossession” as used in the report. “Repossession” is not defined by federal or Pennsylvania statute. It is defined by the dictionary as “the act of resuming possession of property when the purchaser fails to keep up payments on it.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1926 (1981) (emphasis added). Similarly, one dictionary definition of the verb “repossess” is “to resume possession of (an item purchased on installment) in default of the payment of installments due.” Id. (emphasis added). Given these definitions, and applying the Koropoulos approach, a reasonable jury could conclude that Trans Union’s reporting was so misleading as to be inaccurate. Therefore, I will not grant Trans Union’s motion for summary judgment on the basis of the alleged accuracy of the report.

causation
Trans Union asserts in the alternative that “Trans Union is entitled to summary judgment on [p]laintiff’s claims of damages relating to credit denials in August 2006 because these allegedly occurred prior to her disputes”....Trans Union also asserts that “there is no evidence that an actual recipient of [p]laintiff’s consumer report was misled or would have acted on [p]laintiff’s application for credit differently if the reason why the repossession occurred had been included in [p]laintiff’s report.”

Plaintiff argues that, in the context of damages, Trans Union erroneously conflates § 1681i(a)’s reinvestigation requirement with § 1681e(b)’s reasonable procedures requirement. I agree. Section 1681 relates to “reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy” in reporting generally, 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b), and so the time at which a consumer disputes the information is irrelevant to the § 1681e(b) analysis.

With respect to causation, a plaintiff need not “satisfy his burden only by introducing direct evidence that consideration of the inaccurate entry was crucial to the decision to deny credit”...Instead, a plaintiff need only “produce evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could infer that the inaccurate entry was a ‘substantial factor’ that brought about the denial of credit.”

federal courts - 11th Amendment - statute of limitations - continuing violation

Larsen v. State Employee Retirement System - MD Pa. - May 15, 2008

http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/opinions/jones/07v1838.pdf

In this § 1983 action by a former state supreme court justice concerning his pension, the court discuss two issues of general interest -- the Eleventh Amendment and the continuing-violations doctrine, as applied to the issue of the statute of limitations.

A. Eleventh Amendment Immunity
The Eleventh Amendment “has been interpreted to make states generally immune from suit by private parties in federal court.”... “This immunity extends to state agencies and departments.”...Eleventh Amendment immunity also extends to state officials sued in their official capacity because in such a case the state is the real party in interest.... Suits against state officials in their personal or individual capacity, however, are not barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

“Eleventh Amendment immunity is, however, subject to three primary exceptions: (1) congressional abrogation, (2) waiver by the state, and (3) suits against individual state officers for prospective injunctive and declaratory relief to end an ongoing violation of federal law.”
Under the third exception, the doctrine of Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), a suit against a state officer seeking prospective relief designed to end a continuing violation of federal law is not barred by the Eleventh Amendment under the theory that the action is not against the state because the alleged violation of federal law strips the officer of his official authority....Thus, for the doctrine to apply, the plaintiff must allege an ongoing violation of federal law....In addition, “[t]he relief sought must be prospective, declaratory, or injunctive relief governing an officer’s future conduct and cannot be retrospective, such as money damages.”

In determining whether the request relief falls within the Ex parte Young exception, a court must “look to the substance rather than the form of the relief sought.”....The doctrine applies only against state officials sued in their official capacities, not against states or state agencies....Further, “Young does not apply if, although the action is nominally against individual officers, the state is the real, substantial party in interest and the suit in fact is against the state.” ....“In determining whether the Ex parte Young doctrine avoids an Eleventh Amendment bar, the Supreme Court has made it quite clear that ‘a court need only conduct a ‘straightforward inquiry into whether [the] complaint alleges an ongoing violation of federal law and seeks relief properly characterized as prospective.’” The Supreme Court has also recognized, however, that “[f]or Eleventh Amendment purposes, the line between permitted and prohibited suits will often be indistinct.”

B. Statute of Limitations - the continuing-violations doctrine
“Actions brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are governed by the personal injury statute of limitations of the state in which the cause of action accrued.”... The applicable Pennsylvania statute of limitations for personal injury actions is two years....

Although the applicable statute of limitations is borrowed from state law, “the accrual date of a § 1983 cause of action is a question of federal law that is not resolved by reference to state law.” ... Rather, accrual of a § 1983 cause of action is “governed by federal rules conforming in general to common-law tort principles. Under those principles, it is the standard rule that accrual occurs when the plaintiff has a complete and present cause of action, that is, when the plaintiff can file suit and obtain relief.”....Generally, therefore, “[a] section 1983 cause of action accrues when the plaintiff knew or should have known of the injury upon which its action is based.”....

Under Pennsylvania law, the limitations period is computed from the time an action accrues....A cause of action accrues when the plaintiff could have first maintained the action to a successful conclusion, and therefore the statute of limitations begins to run as soon as the right to institute and maintain a suit arises....Generally, this right arises when the plaintiff’s injury is inflicted....

[T]he untimeliness of the [plaintiff's] claims is apparent from the face of the complaint....[Plaintiff] argues, however, that his claims are saved from the statute of limitations by the continuing violations doctrine. This doctrine is an “equitable exception to the timely filing requirement”....Under this doctrine, “when a defendant’s conduct is part of a continuing practice, an action is timely so long as the last act evidencing the continuing practice falls within the limitations period; in such an instance, the court will grant relief for the earlier related acts that would otherwise be time barred”....The doctrine is a narrow exception to the statute of limitations that is frequently invoked but rarely found.

“To establish that a claim falls within the continuing violations theory, the plaintiff must do two things. First, he must demonstrate that at least one act occurred within the filing period: The crucial question is whether any present violation exists. Next, the plaintiff must establish that the [alleged wrong] is more than the occurrence of isolated or sporadic acts”....

In examining this second step, “courts should consider at least three factors: (1) subject matter – whether the violations constitute the same type ..., tending to connect them in a continuing violation; (2) frequency – whether the acts are recurring or more in the nature of isolated incidents; and (3) degree of permanence – whether the act had a degree of permanence which should trigger the plaintiff’s awareness of and duty to assert his/her rights”....The third factor, permanence, is the most important....In considering this third factor, the court “must consider the policy rationale behind the statute of limitations. That is, the continuing violations doctrine should not provide a means for relieving plaintiffs from their duty to exercise reasonable diligence in pursuing their claims”....The burden is on the plaintiff to demonstrate that the continuing violations doctrine applies to toll the statute of limitations....

drivers license - refusal to take breath test - jurisidiction to arrest

Taylor v. Penn DOT - Commonwealth Court

http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/CWealth/out/1406CD07_5-15-08.pdf

In order to suspend a licensee’s operating privileges pursuant to 75 Pa.C.S. §1547(b), DOT has the burden of proving the following:

1) the licensee was arrested for violating Section 3802;
2) by a police officer who had reasonable grounds to believe that the license was operating a vehicle while in violation of Section 3802;
3) that the licensee was requested to submit to a chemical test;
4) that the licensee refused to do so; and
5) that the police officer fulfilled the duty imposed by 75 Pa.C.S. §1547(b)(2) by advising the licensee that his operating privileges would be suspended if he refused to submit to chemical testing…. Quick v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 915 A.2d 1268, 1270 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007).

In McKinley v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 576 Pa. 85, 838 A.2d 700 (2003), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected this Court’s determination that a person could be considered a police officer, even if he was acting outside of his jurisdiction, as long as he was an “officer in fact,” i.e., authorized with the power to arrest in another jurisdiction. Instead, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court determined that a police officer acting outside of his jurisdiction lacked the ability to act as a police officer and would not be treated as such. McKinley, 576 Pa. at 94, 838 A.2d at 706.

As the arresting officer did not have the authority to act as a police officer, DOT has failed to establish that Licensee was arrested by a police officer who had reasonable grounds to believe Licensee was DUI. Thus, we conclude that the trial court did not err in granting Licensee’s appeal from the suspension of his operating privilege. Accordingly, the order of the trial court is affirmed

Social Security - income - stepparent - deeming

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-10800.pdf

SUMMARY: We are changing the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) parent-to-child deeming rules so that we no longer will consider the income and resources of a stepparent when an eligible child resides in the household with a stepparent, but that child’s natural or adoptive parent has permanently left the household.

These rules respond to a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, codified in Social Security Acquiescence Ruling (AR) 99– 1(2), and establish a uniform national policy. Also, we are making uniform the age [22] at which we consider someone to be a ‘‘child’’ in SSI program regulations and are making other minor clarifications to our rules.

The decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Florez on Behalf of Wallace v. Callahan, 156 F.3d 438 (2d Cir. 1998), held that 20 CFR 416.1101 creates a two-part test for determining whether a spouse, who lives with a child eligible for SSI, is an ineligible parent for deeming purposes under 20 CFR 416.1160: (1) The spouse must live with the natural or adoptive parent; and (2) the relationship must be as husband or wife, as further defined in 20 CFR 416.1806.

The rule adopts the court’s rationale and changes the SSI parent-to-child deeming rules so that SSA no longer will consider the income and resources of a stepparent when an eligible child resides in the household with a stepparent, but that child’s natural or adoptive parent has permanently left the household.

DATES: This final rule is effective on June 16, 2008.

UC - subpoenas - testimony material to outcome

Horton v. UCBR - May 12, 2008 - Commonwealth Court

http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/CWealth/out/1815CD07_7-21-08.pdf

Claimant was fired when he refused to obey a superior's order about processing incoming orders. Claimant alleged that the employer vice-president would testify about company policy and would establish good cause for his refusal to obey the order and requested that the referee issue a subpoena. The referee refused and found claimant guilty of willful misconduct.

The court reversed and remanded. "Whether the failure to issue a subpoena to allow the vice-president to testify was harmless error is determined by whether his testimony would have been material to the outcome of the case. Hussey Copper Ltd. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 718 A.2d 894 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998).

'Given that it was the vice-president not claimant's supervisor that terminated him and was in charge of the policy, the Referee’s failure to allow Claimant to subpoena the vice-president regarding the company policy on receiving merchandise, what the V.P. had told Claimant about that policy when he hired him, and whether he was required to follow the directives of the supervisor to ignore the policy was not harmless error because it took away his ability to establish “good cause” for not following the supervisor's directive. Because the V.P.'s testimony was material to deciding the case, it was not harmless error to refuse the subpoena

insurance - misrepresentation - void ab initio

Cummings v. American General Life Insurance Co. - ED Pa. - May 6, 2008

http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/08D0507P.pdf

Held: Misrepresentation about past drug use is a material representation that justifies insurer in declaring policy void ab initio. The policy contained a clause stating that applicant's information was true and that the insurer could reduce or deny a claim which the insurer had relied of, if it materially affected the company's acceptance of the risk.

Pennsylvania courts “have held that an insurance policy obtained by means of a material misrepresentation will, if challenged within the period of contestability, be declared void ab initio....Under Pennsylvania law an insurance policy is void for misrepresentation when the insurer establishes three elements: (1) that the representation was false; (2) that the insured knew that the representation was false when made or made it in bad faith; and (3) that the representation was material to the risk being insured.”

Courts applying Pennsylvania law have routinely held that misrepresentations regarding alcohol abuse are deemed to be made in bad faith as a matter of law and extended this holding to include misrepresentations regarding drug use. ... The Third Circuit Court of Appeals equates alcohol abuse and drug abuse in the same manner.

Under Pennsylvania law, a misrepresentation does not have to be related to the eventual claim for which benefits are sought in order to be “material” for legal purposes. A statement is material if it is relevant to the risk assumed, even if it is unrelated to the loss actually incurred.
Any “misrepresented fact is material if being disclosed to the insurer it would have caused it to refuse the risk altogether or to demand a higher premium.”

The undisputed facts here, together with long-standing governing law, lead to the conclusion that decedent's past drug use would have led the insurer to deny decedent's insurance coverage and, thus, is a material fact .

contracts - good faith and fair dealing

Pierce v. QVC, Inc. - ED Pa. - May 5, 2008

http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/08D0511P.pdf

Pennsylvania courts have adopted the general duty of good faith and fair dealing in the performance of a contract as found in the Restatement 2d, Contracts § 205, see, e.g., Somers v. Somers, 613 A.2d 1211, 1213 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1992), and the state UCC, 13 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1203, imposes a similar requirement.

UCC §1203 provides that “[e]very contract or duty within this title imposes an obligation of good faith in its performance or enforcement.” “Good faith” is defined by statute as “[h]onesty in fact in the conduct or transaction concerned.” 13 Pa. C.S. §1201. As Pennsylvania courts and the Third Circuit have explained, however, “[t]he obligation to act in good faith in the performance of contractual duties varies somewhat with the context.”

Noting the U.C.C. definition of good faith, the Restatement explains that “[g]ood faith performance or enforcement of a contract emphasizes faithfulness to an agreed common purpose and consistency with the justified expectations of the other party . . . .” Restatement 2d, Contracts § 205 Cmt. a.

As the Third Circuit has explained, with "rare exception, the courts use the UCC good faith requirements in aid and furtherance of the parties’ agreement, not to override the parties’ agreement for reasons of fairness, policy, or morality. Thus, courts generally utilize the good faith duty as an interpretive tool to determine the parties’ justifiable expectations, and do not enforce an independent duty divorced from the specific clauses of the contract."

The comment to 13 Pa. C.S. §1203 notes that “the doctrine of good faith merely directs a court towards interpreting contracts within the commercial context in which they are created, performed, and enforced, and does not create a separate duty of fairness and reasonableness which can be independently breached.”

In fact, the Third Circuit and this Court have recognized an independent duty of good faith under Pennsylvania law only in “limited situations,” such as a confidential or fiduciary relationship.
Courts should “utilize the good faith duty as an interpretive tool to determine the parties’ justifiable expectations” and not to “override the parties’ agreement for reasons of fairness, policy, or morality,” which "would be contrary to the meaning of the duty of good faith found in the Restatement and Pennsylvania’s U.C.C."

employment - "infamous crimes" - crimen falsi - Article II, sec. 7

Cmwlth. v. Griffin - Pennsylvania Supreme Court - May 6, 2008

http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Supreme/out/J-26-08mo.pdf

This quo warranto case concerns Article II, sec. 7, of the Pennsylvania Constitution, which provides that "[n]o person convicted of embezzlement of public moneys, bribery, perjury or other infamous crime shall be eligible to the General Assembly, or capable of holding any office of trust or profit in this Commonwealth."

The Court held that the respondent, a Philadelphia Municipal Court judge, who was convicted of two felonies in 1984 related to fraudulently procuring a credit card, was disqualified under Article II, sec. 7, from continuing to hold her office as judge.

infamous crimes -
In "the seminal decision of Commonwealth v. Shaver (Pa. 1842) after a thorough historical review, this Court ultimately described the category of infamous offenses as follows: The offences which disqualify a person to give evidence, when convicted of the same, are treason, felony, and every species of the crimen falsi--such as forgery, subornation of perjury, attaint of false verdict, and other offences of the like description, which involve the charge of falsehood and affect the public administration of justice."

The court here rejected respondent's claims that "the inclusion of all felonies and crimen falsi offenses within the constitutional classification...'appears to go too far' [and] that such crimes should only be considered as prohibiting the holding of public office if they undermine the administration of justice." The Court said that it "has consistently adhered to an interpretation in which felonies and crimen falsi offenses are distinct (albeit overlapping) categories, both of which contribute to the definition of infamous crimes.""

This also comports with the understanding of the term 'infamous' at common law. As one commentator has observed: [U]nder the early common law certain crimes were called “infamous” on account of the shameful status which resulted to the person convicted of one of them. Crimes which were regarded as infamous were treason, felonies, any offense tending to pervert the administration of justice, and such crimes as came within the general scope of the term “crimen falsi” of the Roman law, such as perjury, subornation of perjury, barratry, conspiracy, swindling, cheating, and other crimes of a kindred nature. M. C. Dransfield, Annotation, What is an Infamous Crime or One Involving Moral Turpitude Constituting Disqualification to Hold Public Office, 52 A.L.R.2d 1514, §2(a)

laches -
Laches bars relief when the plaintiff’s lack of due diligence in failing to timely institute an action results in prejudice to another. Because it is an affirmative defense, the burden of proof is on the defendant or respondent to demonstrate unreasonable delay and prejudice....Thus, “[t]he party asserting laches as a defense must present evidence demonstrating prejudice from a lapse of time . . . [such as] that a witness has died or become unavailable, that substantiating records were lost, or that the defendant has changed [her] position in anticipation the opposing party has waived his claims.” ...Furthermore, “[t]he question of laches is factual and is determined by examining the circumstances of each case.” ....[L]aches may be invoked in disciplinary proceedings for professional misconduct [although] it is less clear that it should ordinarily be deemed available relative to an Article II, Section 7 quo warranto action.

“Where the time delay is grossly unreasonable, the defendant’s burden of proof may be proportionately eased and the ‘necessity for specifics regarding prejudice or injury becomes less crucial.’”

UCC - omnibus amendments - HB 1152, PN 1400

http://www.pabulletin.com/secure/data/vol38/38-18/820.html

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=PDF&sessYr=2007&sessInd=0&billBody=H&billTyp=B&billNbr=1152&pn=1400

Fair Housing Act - reasonable accommodations - HUD/DOJ Joint Statement

http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/disabilities/reasonable_modifications_mar08.pdf

The Department of Justice ("DOJ") and the Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") are jointly responsible for enforcing the federal Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601-3619, which prohibits discrimination in housing on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, familial status, and disability.

One type of disability discrimination prohibited by the Act is a refusal to permit, at the expense of the person with a disability, reasonable modifications of existing premises occupied or to be occupied by such person if such modifications may be necessary to afford such person full enjoyment of the premises.

HUD and DOJ frequently respond to complaints alleging that housing providers have violated the Act by refusing reasonable modifications to persons with disabilities.

This Statement provides technical assistance regarding the rights and obligations of persons with disabilities and housing providers under the Act relating to reasonable modifications.

bankruptcy - sanctions - Rule 9011 - misrepresentation - ownership of note

In re Nosek - Bankr. D. Mass. - April 25, 2008

https://ecf.mab.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/op.pl?jbr - Nosek decision 02-46025

or

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/LB_Nosek-Decision.pdf?mod=WSJBlog

In this individual bankruptcy case, the court sanctioned Ameriquest ($250,000), Wells Fargo ($250,000) and various attorneys ($25,000) and a firm ($100,000) under Bankruptcy Rule 9011 http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frbp/rules.htm#Rule9011 (Signing of Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions; Verification and Copies of Papers) for misrepresentations about the ownership of a note and mortgage.

holder/standing - The court expressed itself in the strongest language, e.g. - "As this Court has noted on more than one occasion, those parties who do not hold the note or mortgage and who do not service the mortgage do not have standing to pursue motions for relief or other actions arising from the mortgage obligation....The Court has had to expend time and resources, as have debtors already burdened in their attempts to pay their mortgages, because of the carelessness of those in the residential mortgage industry and the bombast this Court and others have encountered when calling them on their shortcomings."

intent - The court rejected the claim of lack of bad intent on the part of the attorneys, firms and creditors - "Virtually all of parties argue that there was no intent to mislead the Court. Because the standard to be applied is an objective one, the Court may quickly dispatch this argument. Intent is irrelevant. The argument that the assignment of the note and mortgage was a matter of public record and therefore the Debtor knew or should have known of Norwest’s identity is relevant but disingenuous, indeed even arrogant, since many of these same parties asserting this position allege they had no way of knowing about the assignment. They seek to bind the Debtor to one standard and themselves to a much lower one. Moreover the attorneys and law firms’ argument that notes and mortgages frequently change hands multiple times, often with written documentation executed later, which they offer as explanation as to why its reasonable for them to rely on the representations of their clients should provide little shelter when they insist that the Debtor should have known better than to take their pleadings literally. This Court will not countenance creditors and creditors’s attorneys holding themselves to a different and clearly lower standard than what they expect of the Debtor. It will not tolerate a lender’s or servicer’s disregard for the rules that govern litigation, including contested matters, in the federal courts. It is the creditor’s responsibility to keep a borrower and the Court informed as to who owns the note and mortgage and is servicing the loan, not the borrower’s or the Court’s responsibility to ferret out the truth." (emphasis added)

consumer - arbitration clause - unconscionability - waiver

Zimmer v. CooperNeff Advisors, Inc. - 3d Circuit - April 14, 2008

http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051119p.pdf

The employer/federal defendant sued plaintiff in state court seeking injunctive relief under 6 different legal theories, asking the court to enjoin Zimmer from disclosing or using a stock trading model he had developed.

Six months later, plaintiff/employee, a Harvard Ph.D. in economics, sued the former employer for copyright infringement and other matters concerning the model. Defendant answered the complaint on September 7 and asserted two counterclaims seeking declaratory judgments. In an amended answer, filed two weeks later, defendant asserted a right to arbitration and then filed a motion to compel.

There had been extensive job negotiations before Plaintiff Zimmer became employed at CooperNeff. The contract included a clause requiring plaintiff to submit any disputes about intellectual property to arbitration but allowed the employer to retain the right to bring any action "directly in a court of competent jurisdiction and [without the need] to arbitrate any such claims."

The district court found the arbitration clause unconscionable and that the defendant had waived its enforcement. The appellate court reversed on the unconscionability issue and remanded for further fact-finding about waiver.

unconscionability
Under Pennsylvania law, a party challenging an arbitration agreement has the burden to demonstrate that the agreement is both procedurally and substantively unconscionable. Salley v. Option One Mortgage Corp., 925 A.2d 115, 119-120 (Pa. 2007).

procedural unconscionability
Procedural unconscionability refers specifically to “the process by which an agreement is reached and the form of an agreement, including the use therein of fine print and convoluted or unclear language.” Harris v. Green Tree Fin. Corp., 183 F.3d 173, 181 (3d Cir. 1999). The trial court had found the agreement was procedurally unconscionable. The appellate court overruled, contrasting the case of Alexander v. Anthony International, 341 F.3d 256 (3d Cir. 2003), in which the workers were uneducated crane operators to whom the contract was offered on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. Here, plaintiff was very educated and bargained about the contract terms. Plaintiff "did not lack a meaningful choice in accepting the challenged arbitration provision."

substantive unconscionability
Even though the lack of procedural unconscionability decided the case, the court said that it was going to "take the occasion" to register its "concern about the District Court's holding on substantive unconscionability," which looks to whether the arbitration provision “unreasonably favors the party asserting it.” Salley, 925 A.2d 115 at 119.

The court noted that the Salley court had expressly abrogated the holding in Lytle v. Citifinancial Servs., Inc., 810 A.2d 643, 665 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2002), that “under Pennsylvania law, the reservation by [one party] of access to the courts for itself to the exclusion of [another] creates a presumption of unconscionability, which in the absence of ‘business realities’ that compel inclusion of such a provision in an arbitration provision, renders the arbitration provision unconscionable and unenforceable under Pennsylvania law." Rather, it held that "there is no presumption of unconscionability associated with an arbitration agreement merely on the basis that the agreement reserves judicial remedies associated with foreclosure” for lenders, to the exclusion of borrowers." Salley at 129.

Salley did not hold that an arbitration clause reserving remedies could never be unconscionable; rather, it held that there “is a facially apparent business justification for such an exception [in the context of mortgage lending], as the safeguards thereby preserved assure regularity and consistency for the benefit of both lender and borrower, and accordingly, there are sound pragmatic and policy reasons why foreclosure proceedings should be pursued in a court of law.” Salley at 128.

The instant court went on to say, however, that it did "not hold, and we believe the Pennsylvania Supreme Court did not hold, that unequal access to the courts can never be the basis for finding an arbitration agreement unconscionable. The conclusion in each case will depend on the circumstances."

waiver
The district court held that the company had waived its right to compel arbitration solely on the basis of its initiation and pursuit of judicial enforcement of its rights in state court. On appeal the court held, initially, that the waiver issue was a judicial question, not one for an arbitrator. Ehleiter v. Grapetree Stores, 482 F.3d 207, 221 (3d Cir. 2007).

It went on, however, to reject the notion that litigation by itself constitute a waiver. It said that "prejudice [to the opposing party] is the touchstone for determining whether the right to arbitrate has been waived by litigation conduct" and cited a "nonexclusive list of factors" including the length and the breadth of the judicial action, and the assert of the arbitration right, and other factors tending to show that the party "too unfair advantage of the litigation process to the detriment of the other party" and availed itself of litigation procedures (discovery, etc.) not available in arbitration. It remanded on this issue for relevant fact-finding.

mortgage foreclosure - Philadelphia Residential Mortgage Foreclosure Diversion Pilot Program

Philadelphia has recently (April 2008) started a Residential Mortgage Foreclosure Diversion Pilot Program.

Under the program, homeowners faced with foreclosure will have the opportunity, after seeing a housing counselor, to take part in a "concilliation conference" in which the parties try to work out an affordable modification of the loan or an affordable payment arrangement.




Here is a link to the program regulations:

http://fjd.phila.gov/pdf/regs/2008/cpjgcr-2008-01.pdf

Here is a link to the court order and relevant forms (fillable PDF): http://fjd.phila.gov/pdf/regs/2008/2008-01-Order-Certification-Objection.pdf

UC- self-employment - employee v. independent contractor

CE Credits Online v. UCBR - Commonwealth Court - April 24, 2008

http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/CWealth/out/1269CD07_4-24-08.pdf

The claimant was held to be an independent contractor rather than an employee and thus ineligible for benefits under sec. 402(h) of the UC Law, 43 P.S. sec. 802(h).

The claimant, who had an M.S. in adult education, was an online moderator, for several online educational institutions, including the employer in this case. The court held that the "heart of the issue of 'control'" of a person's work involves control over both the means and result of the work. "Every job, whether performed by an employee or by an independent contractor, has parameters and expectations. 'Control' for purposes of Section 4(l)(2)(B) of the Law is not a matter of approving or directing the final work product so much as it is a matter of controlling the means of its accomplishment."

"Whether an individual performs services as an independent contractor or as an employee is governed by Section 4(l)(2)(B) of the Law. It states as follows:

'Services performed by an individual for wages shall be deemed to be employment subject to this act, unless and until it is shown to the satisfaction of the department that -- (a) such individual has been and will continue to be free from control or direction over the performance of such services both under his contract of service and in fact; and (b) as to such services such individual is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession or business. 43 P.S. §753(l)(2)(B) (emphasis added).

Thus, where the claimant’s services are performed free of the employer's control and the claimant’s services are the type performed in an independent trade or business, the claimant is not in an employment relationship. The employer asserting that the claimant is not eligible by reason of Section 4(l)(2)(B) of the Law bears the burden of proof. Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh v. UCBR, 596 A.2d 1209, 1211 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991)."

The Commonwealth Court "has identified a number of factors relevant to whether an employee is free of 'control' for purposes of Section 4(l)(2)(B). They include: whether there is a fixed rate of remuneration; whether taxes are withheld from the claimant’s pay; whether the employer supplies the tools necessary to carry out the services; whether the employer provides on-the-job training; and whether the employer holds regular meetings that the claimant was expected to attend. Pavalonis v. UCBR, 426 A.2d 215, 217 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981). No one factor is dispositive of the ultimate question of whether the putative employer “controls” the work to be done and the manner in which it is done." Only one factor - the fixed rate of remuneration - cut in the claimant's favor in this case.

The claimant only worked a few hours a week for the company, at times and a place (home) of his own choice, with his own equipment (a computer), and free of day-to-day supervision. In addition, there was a written contract stating the claimant was an independent contractor, and that he had the "sole right to control and direct the mean, manner and method by which the services required...will be performed." Claimant had a similar arrangement with several other companies. No taxes were deducted from his pay, and he got no job benefits (insurance, etc.).

mortage foreclosure - Pew Reports (2008)

The Pew Charitable Trusts has just published a report on the governmental response to the foreclosure crisis.

It has also issued a report about each state.

Here is the general report http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/uploadedFiles/PCS_DefaultingOnTheDream_Report_FINAL041508_01.pdf

Here is the report on Pennsylvania
http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewcenteronthestatesorg/Fact_Sheets/8013PCTS_StateFactSht_FINAL041508%20PA.pdf