Justia Pennsylvania Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In a direct appeal, the issue before the Supreme Court in this case was the constitutionality of legislation mandating a one-time transfer of money from the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Fund to Pennsylvania's General Fund. The Commonwealth faced a budget impasse for the 2009-10 fiscal year that lasted approximately 100 days. An interim budget was passed, and impasse was resolved when the Governor approved a supplemental appropriations bill, as well as implementing legislation making amendments to Pennsylvania's Fiscal Code. One of Act provisions designed to balance the budget directed that $100 million be transferred from the MCARE Fund to the General Fund. Appellees sought a declaration that: (1) the transfer of $100 million from the MCARE Fund to the General Fund extinguished vested rights or constituted an illegal taking in violation of the due process guarantees contained the Commonwealth and federal constitutions; and (2) the transfer violated the Uniformity Clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Concerned that the Commonwealth might effectuate the transfer and dissipate the funds, Appellees filed an application for preliminary injunctive relief (a temporary restraining order). After review, the Supreme Court concluded that the October 2009 amendment to the Fiscal Code transferring $100 million from the MCARE Fund to the General Fund implicated the providers' due process rights, but that the question of whether the legislation was finally unconstitutional requires further factual development. Accordingly, the Court reversed the Commonwealth Court's order granting summary relief. View "Geisinger Health System, et al v. Pennsylvania" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether the superior court in this matter erred in determining that police officers, when seeking consent to administer a blood test for the presence of drugs or alcohol following a traffic accident, must tell the person that the results of the test could be used for criminal or prosecutorial purposes. To the extent the court held that an officer must inform a person that a positive result in a blood test may have criminal repercussions, and such failure renders any consent to the blood test invalid, the court erred. The Supreme Court held that the totality of the circumstances presented in this case supported the trial court’s conclusion that the suppression of blood test results was not warranted. View "Pennsylvania v. Smith" on Justia Law

In a direct appeal, appellant Michael Parrish appealed two death sentences he received after a jury found him guilty for the shooting deaths of his girlfriend Victoria Adams and their 19-month-old son Sidney. Based upon its thorough review of the record, the Supreme Court concluded the evidence was fully sufficient to sustain both of Appellant’s first-degree murder convictions and death sentences: Appellant confessed to killing both Victoria and Sidney, and, on the night of the incident, Appellant was witnessed at the crime scene with a gun; multiple individuals heard gunshots coming from Appellant’s apartment; Appellant fired his gun at Adams, Ahern, and Ramos; and a .357 Glock semi-automatic handgun was recovered during Appellant’s arrest that matched the thirteen .357 shell casings found at the crime scene. View "Pennsylvania v. Parrish" on Justia Law

Appellee Pamela Vukman appealed a superior court order that affirmed the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas. That order granted appellees motion to set aside judgment and sheriff's sale, and dismissed appellant Beneficial Consumer Discount Company's praecipe without prejudice. Beneficial moved to foreclose appellee for being in default of her mortgage. The parties agreed to a settlement whereby Beneficial received judgment for the accelerated amount due on the mortgage as long as appellee made regular payments. Appellee eventually defaulted according to the terms of the settlement; Beneficial filed for a writ of execution. The property was sold at a sheriff's sale, and Beneficial was the successful bidder. Appellee then moved to set aside the sale, arguing Beneficial failed to comply with the requirements under the Homeowner's Emergency Mortgage Act. The court concluded that Beneficial did not follow the Act's requirements, and as a result, it id not have jurisdiction. Therefore the court set aside the sale and dismissed Beneficial's original complaint. Beneficial appealed; the superior court affirmed. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the Act's notice requirement did not implicate subject matter jurisdiction of the trial court, it reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Beneficial Consumer Discount Company v. Vukman" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted review to determine whether the admission of accuracy and calibration certificates for breath test machines without testimony from the individual who performed the testing and prepared the certificates violated appellant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. Under the circumstances of this case, the Court held that appellant's Sixth Amendment right was not violated, and affirmed the order of the Superior Court. View "Commonwealth v. Dyarman" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted certiorari to determined the standard and scope of review that applies when a court reviews a final determination of the Office of Open Records (OOR) under the Right-to-Know Law (RTKL). Appellee, an employee of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, requested access to records from the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency (PEMA). PEMA determined that disclosure of identities on the requested documents was critical information that revealed gaps, vulnerabilities and emergency response capabilities in the Commonwealth, and that disclosure would be reasonably likely to jeopardize or threaten public safety or preparedness or public protection activities, and redacted portions. Appellee appealed, and an OOR appeals officer, without holding a hearing, but after requesting and receiving memoranda of law from Appellee and PEMA, issued a final written determination that redaction of the information was proper. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the Commonwealth Court correctly held that its standard of review was de novo and that its scope of review is broad or plenary when it hears appeals from determinations made by appeals officers under the RTKL. View "Bowling v. Office of Open Records" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case centered on the statutory interpretation concerning Section 413(a) of the Workers' Compensation Act, specifically whether the claimant/appellant should have been permitted to proceed on a post-500-week petition for reinstatement of total disability benefits where he filed that petition within three years of his most recent payment of compensation, a payment which was made pursuant to a post-500-week supplemental agreement, notwithstanding a prior suspension of payments due to his return to work without a loss in earning capacity. Resolving the question, involved first determining whether expiration of the 500-week period set forth within the Act operated as a bar to the assertion of total disability claims by employees who have experienced a suspension of benefits. Also affecting the Court's decision was the effect of payments made pursuant to supplemental agreements upon an otherwise expired workers' compensation claim. The Commonwealth Court below affirmed the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board's ("WCAB") reversal of a Workers' Compensation Judge's ("WCJ") decision granting appellant's reinstatement and penalty petitions. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that appellant's reinstatement petition was not timely filed. Accordingly, it affirmed the Commonwealth Court. View "Cozzone, Aplt v. WCAB (Pa Municipal/E. Goshen Twp)" on Justia Law

Mother and Appellant/Cross-Appellee Lisa Kinney Lindstrom sought a ruling as to the number of "occurrences" for which the MCARE Fund is liable based on allegations that her physician failed to diagnose discrete in utero infections suffered by her twins, which caused severe injuries to both children. The Commonwealth Court granted summary judgment in favor of the MCARE Fund, holding that the physician's failure to diagnose Mother's infection constituted the single cause of the children's injuries, and, therefore, there was a single occurrence, limiting MCARE coverage to the statutory limit of one payment of $1 million. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Commonwealth Court erred by granting summary judgment because there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the children's injuries arose from the physician's failure to diagnose a single infection, or whether the children's injuries resulted from the physician's failure to diagnose multiple infections from different organisms that infected each child in utero at different times. View "Kinney-Lindstrom v. MCARE Fund" on Justia Law

This case involved petitions for the termination of parental rights to five siblings. The Supreme Court took the opportunity to discuss how trial courts should weigh the existence of "pathological" emotional bonds between parents and children. The Court concluded that trial courts must determine whether the trauma caused by breaking those bonds are outweighed by the benefit of moving the children to a permanent home. After exhaustive review and consideration, the Court concluded in this case that severing the parental bond served the best interests of the children at issue here, and reversed the lower courts' decisions denying petitions for termination of parental rights. View "In Re: T.S.M, T.R.M., T.J.M., T.A.M., and N.D.M." on Justia Law

Petitioners claimed that Article V, Section 16(b) of the state charter was unconstitutional. They argued that section 16(b) deprived them of their inherent right to be free of age-based discrimination, particularly because the section mandates that jurists retire the year they turn 70 years old. In prior decisions, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court concluded that Article V, Section 16(b) was not so irrational as to be considered unconstitutional. The Court denied petitioners' application for relief and dismissed the case with prejudice. View "Friedman v. Corbett" on Justia Law