Justia Pennsylvania Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Department of Public Welfare (DPW) and the Office of the Budget of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania appealed a Commonwealth Court order which granted summary judgment to Appellees the Pennsylvania Medical Society and its individual members, and the Hospital and Healthsystem Association of Pennsylvania and its individual members. The court declared that the Commonwealth had an obligation under the Health Care Provider Retention Law (the Abatement Law) to transfer monies to the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Fund (MCARE Fund) in an amount necessary to fund dollar for dollar, all abatements of annual assessments granted to health care providers for the years 2003-2007. Upon review of the Commonwealth Court record, the Supreme Court held that the Abatement Law gave the Secretary of the Budget the discretion, but not the obligation, to transfer monies into the MCARE Fund in an amount up to the total amount of abatements granted. Furthermore, the Court concluded that Apellees had no statutory entitlement to the funds held in abatement, nor a vested right to them. View "Pa. Medical Society v. Pennsylvania" on Justia Law

Defendant Andre Staton appealed the death sentence he received in 2006 in connection with the stabbing death of Beverly Yohn. Defendant was charged with a single count of criminal homicide, two counts of aggravated assault, and one count each of burglary, criminal trespass, receiving stolen property and theft by unlawful taking. Appellant testified at trial. He admitted that he stabbed Ms. Yohn, and caused her death, but denied that he had gone to the residence with the intent to harm her. On appeal, Defendant raised a single claim of error related to the penalty phase of his trial. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no error and affirmed Defendant's conviction and judgment of sentence. View "Pennsylvania v. Staton" on Justia Law

In this appeal by allowance, the Supreme Court considered whether the "separate disease" rule (also referred to as the "two-disease" rule) allows an individual to bring separate lawsuits for more than one malignant disease which allegedly resulted from the same asbestos exposure. The matter arose from Appellee Herbert Daley's 1989 diagnosis of pulmonary asbestosis and squamous-cell carcinoma in his right lung. He filed suit against several defendants seeking compensatory damages for work-related injuries and settled. In 2005, Appellee filed suit against US Supply, Duro-Dyne and A.W. Chesterson alleging that a late diagnosis of mesothelioma was caused by the same exposure that resulted in his lung cancer. The companies argued that Pennsylvania had not adopted the two-disease rule, and that his mesothelioma diagnosis was barred by a two-year statute of limitations. Upon review, the Court concluded that the rule did apply, and, accordingly, the Court affirmed an order of the Superior Court, which reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of U.S. Supply Co. and Duro-Dyne Corp. View "Daley v. A.W. Chesterton" on Justia Law

In this discretionary appeal, the Supreme Court considered whether 18 Pa.C.S.A. 4914, which prohibits a person from furnishing false identification to law enforcement authorities, requires proof that those law enforcement authorities first identify themselves to the person and advise the person that he was the subject of an official investigation for a violation of law. The record revealed that in 2009, Pittsburgh City Police officers were investigating an armed robbery. According to the victim, a young boy pointed a gun at him as he was standing at an intersection and robbed him of $10. The victim gave police a description of his assailant, and the police developed a list of individuals they knew matched the description. D.S. was one of those individuals. Plain clothes detectives then "went out actively looking for [D.S.] in essence to field contact him." The officers did not identify themselves as police officers, nor did they state their purpose for stopping D.S. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the evidence was insufficient to support D.S.'s adjudication of delinquency. The Court reversed the Superior Court's order that affirmed D.S.'s adjudication of delinquency. View "In the Interest of D.S." on Justia Law

This case raised the question of whether an uninsured driver who was injured in a motor vehicle accident with an insured driver, may sue the insured driver in tort for economic damages. "The question highlight[ed] a tension" in the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, (MVFRL), 75 Pa.C.S. 1701-1799, and Pennsylvania decisional precedent, as noted by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. On the one hand, Section 1714 of the MVFRL prohibits uninsured drivers from recovering first-party benefits, which include medical and income loss benefits. On the other, Section 1705 of the MVFRL deems uninsured drivers to have chosen the limited tort alternative, which permits recovery of damages for economic loss sustained in a motor vehicle accident as the consequence of the fault of another person. Loss is commonly understood as being comprised of damages for medical expenses and wage loss. "Thus, it may appear as though the MVFRL both prohibits and permits insurance recovery to uninsured drivers for this category of damages or loss." The Supreme Court answered the question posed by the Third Circuit in the negative: Section 1714 of the MVFRL does not preclude an uninsured motorist from recovering tort damages for economic loss from an alleged third-party tortfeasor under the torfeasor’s liability coverage. View "Corbin v. Khosla" on Justia Law

Appellant, the mother of G.L.M., filed a complaint seeking support from Appellee, whom she believed to be G.L.M.'s biological father. Appellee responded with a motion to dismiss, relying upon Mother's intact marriage to H.M.M. at the time of G.L.M.'s birth as establishing a presumption of paternity and on H.M.M.'s assumption of parental responsibilities as implicating paternity by estoppel. The common pleas court granted Appellee's motion to dismiss the support action against Appellee, finding that the presumption of paternity was controlling and, alternatively, that H.M.M. should be regarded as G.L.M.’s father via paternity by estoppel. The court elaborated that under the presumption, a party who denied paternity of a child born during an intact marriage had the burden to show by clear and convincing evidence that the presumptive father lacked access to the mother or was incapable of procreation. Based on the hearing record, the common pleas court determined that H.M.M. had held himself out as G.L.M.'s father. The Supreme Court allowed this appeal to consider the application of the doctrine of paternity by estoppel in this case and more broadly, its continuing application as a common law principle. The Court held that paternity by estoppel continues to pertain in Pennsylvania, but it will apply only where it can be shown, on a developed record, that it is in the best interests of the involved child. The Court reversed the Superior Court and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "K.E.M. v. P.C.S." on Justia Law

Appellant Andre Jacobs was convicted and sentenced for attempted escape and conspiracy to commit escape. The Supreme Court accepted review to determine whether Appellant's sentences for these two inchoate crimes were illegal under 18 Pa.C.S. 906, which bars multiple "convictions" for inchoate crimes "for conduct designed to . . . culminate in the commission of the same crime." After careful review of the record, the Court concluded that under the facts of this case, the two inchoate crimes were intended to culminate in the commission of two different crimes, and therefore Appellant's sentence did not run afoul of Section 906.1. View "Pennsylvania v. Jacobs" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case concerned whether Section 514(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), preempted the breach of contract claim asserted by Appellees Lawrence J. Barnett, Christine Cookenback, James M. Defeo, and Madlin Laurent against Appellant SKF USA, Inc. under Pennsylvania law. Appellees were salaried, non-unionized, employees of SKF, working in its Philadelphia plant. The Company also employed hourly unionized employees at the plant. In 1991, SKF announced its decision to shut down the plant and terminate all workers. Over the course of the next year, the effect of the closing on employee retirement rights and benefits became a matter of discussion between Appellees and their supervisors. Appellees' retirement and pension rights were set forth in the an ERISA plan which SKF maintained and administered. Appellees became aware that, as a result of collectively bargaining the effects of plant closing, SKF agreed that any union worker with 20 years of service and 45 years of age, as of March 10, 1993, the date on which the collective bargaining agreement then in effect expired, would be entitled to receive an immediate and full pension (the creep provision). Two years after their employment with SKF was terminated, and prior to the submission of pension applications, Appellees commenced a breach of contract action against SKF alleging that throughout the course of their employment with the Company, they were employed under the same or better terms and conditions, including "pension eligibility," as SKF’s union workers. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court found that Appellees' claim was preempted, and accordingly reversed the Superior Court's order that affirmed the trial court's denial of summary judgment in favor of SKF. View "Barnett v. SKF USA, Inc." on Justia Law

In this discretionary appeal, the Supreme Court considered whether under Pennsylvania’s Juvenile Act, a juvenile court is required to enter on the record an adjudication of delinquency once it has determined the juvenile committed the acts alleged in the delinquency petition, or whether the court must make an additional finding that the juvenile is in need of treatment, supervision, or rehabilitation, prior to entering an adjudication of delinquency. In 2007, the Commonwealth filed a delinquency petition against M.W. alleging that he and another youth robbed an individual who had just left a local bar. At an adjudicatory hearing, the juvenile court found that M.W. committed robbery, conspiracy, and related charges. Later that same day, M.W. was adjudicated delinquent by another juvenile court judge on a separate delinquency theft petition, and M.W. was committed for treatment, rehabilitation, and supervision. After a hearing on the first petition, the trial court discharged the delinquency petition stemming from the robbery offense, noting that M.W. "will be adjudicated on the [theft] petition. He will still receive treatment and supervision." The Commonwealth filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. The Commonwealth then appealed to the Superior Court, where it argued that the juvenile court abused its discretion and violated the requirements of the Juvenile Act by failing to adjudicate M.W. delinquent once it found that M.W. had committed the acts alleged in the original delinquency petition. Upon review, the Court held that the Juvenile Act requires a juvenile court to find both: (1) that the juvenile has committed a delinquent act; and (2) that the juvenile is in need of treatment, supervision, or rehabilitation, before the juvenile court may enter an adjudication of delinquency. In this case, the Court reversed the decision of the Superior Court. View "Pennsylvania v. In the Interest of M.W." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted this appeal to consider whether a trial court could refuse to award contractual interest to the prevailing party in a contract dispute based on a finding of dilatory conduct by the prevailing party. Appellee Morgan's Tool & Supply (MTS) became delinquent on two accounts it had with TruServ, and after the parties were unable to agree on a payment plan to bring the accounts current, TruServ advised MTS by letter that it was terminating its Retail Member Agreement with MTS. TruServ filed a complaint against MTS alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The trial court concluded MTS had breached its agreement with TruServ by failing to pay for the merchandise it had ordered and received. The court awarded TruServ damages plus costs and counsel fees. The court concluded however that "the decision of whether to award prejudgment interest is at the discretion of the court," and declined to award interest on the basis that TruServ was dilatory in prosecuting its claim. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that a trial court may not refuse to award interest to the prevailing party when the right to interest has been expressly reserved under the terms of the contract. Thus, the Court remanded this matter to the trial court for recalculation of its award in favor of TruServ. View "Truserve Corp. v. Morgan's Tool & Supply" on Justia Law