Justia Pennsylvania Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant Ihor Malanchuk, a carpenter, fell from scaffolding at a residence where he was working and suffered injury. Initially, he brought a civil action against the owner of the premises, Ilya Sivchuk. Later, Appellant initiated a separate proceeding against another worker, Appellee Alex Tsimura. Sivchuk filed a motion requesting that the two actions be consolidated pursuant to Rule of Civil Procedure 213(a). After the completion of discovery, Appellee and Sivchuk pursued summary judgment. The common pleas court issued a single order granting Appellee’s motion in its entirety but awarding Sivchuk only partial relief. Accordingly, as against Sivchuk, the litigation ripened toward trial. Appellant filed a notice of appeal, proceeding under the Tsimura case caption, to challenge the summary relief Appellee had obtained. In an opinion per Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925, the common pleas court expressed its belief that this appeal was premature. The question presented for the Supreme Court's review centered on whether an order awarding summary judgment in one of two civil cases consolidated for purposes of discovery and trial was appealable immediately as of right. The Court "realize[d] that consolidation questions have generated a great deal of controversy at both the federal and state levels, as reflected in a persistent split of authority regarding whether, or to what extent, consolidation effects a merger of claims for purposes of immediate appealability and otherwise. [. . .] complete consolidation (or merger or fusion of actions) does not occur absent a complete identity of parties and claims; separate actions lacking such overlap retain their separate identities and require distinct judgments; these principles pertain equally to appealability determinations; and they continue to operate even in the face of an order purporting to consolidate the actions 'for all purposes.'" In this case, complete consolidation did not occur, the common pleas court’s order awarding summary judgment in favor of Appellee was a final one as to the Tsimura case. The matter was remanded for further proceedings. View "Malanchuk. v. Sivchuk" on Justia Law

Morrison Informatics, Inc. (the “Company”) filed a petition for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy relief in September 2009. In May 2011, the Company and two shareholders, who also were officers of the corporation, commenced a civil action in the court of common pleas against Members 1st Federal Credit Union, Mark Zampelli, and Scott Douglass. In the ensuing complaint, the Company and the Shareholders asserted that, beginning sometime after January 2005 and continuing into 2009, the Company’s finance manager, Zampelli, had colluded with a Credit Union relationships officer, Douglass, to embezzle Company funds. The complaint advanced claims against the Credit Union, Zampelli, and Douglass variously sounding in fraud, conversion, civil conspiracy, and negligence. The question this case presented for the Supreme Court's review concerned whether a federal bankruptcy trustee could be substituted as a plaintiff in a civil action previously commenced by the debtor in bankruptcy in a Pennsylvania state court, although the statutory limitations period expired prior to the attempted substitution. "Although we recognize that the interests of a debtor and a trustee may diverge in some respects, we find it most important that trustees’ interests are derivative, and accordingly, they generally cannot assert any greater rights as against defendants than debtors could have in the first instance." The Supreme Court departed from the Superior Court’s focus on the continued “existence” of the Company after the initiation of insolvency proceedings, and the Court rejected a strict rule foreclosing a relation-back approach to substitution of a bankruptcy trustee for a debtor. Instead, the Court held that relation back in favor of a federal bankruptcy trustee was appropriate, at least where the trustee has acted in a reasonably diligent fashion to secure his or her substitution, and there is no demonstrable prejudice to defendants. View "Morrison Info. v. Members 1st FCU" on Justia Law

At issue in this appeal was the validity of a workers’ compensation judge’s decision to reject opinion testimony from an independent medical witness presented by an employer and insurer, in the absence of any contrary evidence adduced by the claimant. In 2005, the appellant, Jeffrey Rhodes (“Claimant”) suffered injuries in a car accident, while in the course of his employment with the employer-appellee, IA Construction Corporation. In 2007, a workers’ compensation judge granted Rhodes' petition and awarded total disability benefits. Several years later, the employer filed a specialized notice under governing administrative regulations designed to initiate the impairment rating process. The Department of Labor and Industry’s Bureau of Workers’ Compensation (the “Bureau”), in turn, designated M. Bud Lateef, M.D., to conduct an IRE. Subsequently, based on the results of the ensuing examination, and given that the IRE had been requested outside the period associated with a rating accorded automatic effect, Employer filed a petition seeking to modify the workers’ compensation benefits payable to Claimant. The WCJ denied Employer’s modification petition, rejecting Dr. Lateef’s impairment rating opinion. In her estimation, Dr. Lateef’s assessment of cognition was an unduly limited one, since he performed only a cursory examination and otherwise relied upon only a limited range of medical records. In the circumstances, and particularly since Dr. Lateef specialized in physical medicine and pain management, not neurology, the WCJ indicated that she was unpersuaded by his opinion. On Employer’s appeal, the WCAB affirmed in a divided opinion. On further appeal, the Commonwealth Court reversed. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court allowed this appeal to address the issue, as framed by Claimant, of “[w]hether the Commonwealth Court overstepped its appellate function in making credibility judgments which is the sole function of the Workers’ Compensation Judge.” The Supreme Court held that the Commonwealth Court erred in its conclusions that the WCJ lacked authority to reject the uncontradicted testimony of the IRE physician. The case was reversed and remanded for reinstatement of the WCJ's adjudication, as affimed by the WCAB. View "IA Construction v. WCAB" on Justia Law

In this appeal, the issue raised for the Supreme Court's review was whether freight brokerage services were excepted from local business privilege taxation1 under the “public utility” exception found in Section 301.1(f)(2) of the Local Tax Enabling Act (“LTEA”), Act of December 31, 1965, P.L. 1257, as amended, 53 P.S. sec. 6924.301.1(f)(2). The Commonwealth Court concluded that S&H Transport was not excepted. The Supreme Court affirmed the Commonwealth Court’s decision because the Supreme Court concluded that the rates of the common motor carriers with whom S&H did business were not fixed and regulated by the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, and thus the entire exception was inapplicable. View "S & H Transport v. City of York" on Justia Law

Robert Anthony Flor petitioned for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel at his trial for homicide. After two years of proceedings in the PCRA court, the Commonwealth moved for the production of documents, requesting “access to the complete records” of trial counsel. This file included some 30,000 pages of documents pertaining to Flor’s conviction, sentence, and direct appeal, and filled twelve banker’s boxes. At a hearing on the Commonwealth’s motion, Flor’s PCRA counsel requested several weeks to review the file to allow removal of material protected by attorney-client privilege or constituting attorney work product. The PCRA court granted the Commonwealth’s motion and denied PCRA counsel’s request for time to conduct a privilege review. Flor appealed the discovery order. After review, the Supreme Court concluded that the PCRA court’s discovery order was immediately appealable, and that the PCRA court abused its discretion in affording wholesale discovery without conducting an issue-specific waiver analysis, as required by "Commonwealth v. Harris," (32 A.3d 243 (Pa. 2011)). Accordingly, the Court vacated the discovery order, and remanded for immediate inspection of the file. View "Pennsylvania v. Flor" on Justia Law

At issue in this case were the attorney's fees earned in a wrongful death civil litigation settlement, and two law firms' dispute over who was entitled to how much. Richard Eazor was killed and Lynn Sharp was injured in a single automobile accident in Clearfield County. Eazor’s estate and Sharp sued each other, with Sharp contending that Eazor drove the vehicle when the accident occurred and Eazor’s estate alleging that Sharp was the driver. Progressive Insurance Company, the liability carrier for Sharp, retained counsel to represent both parties as defendants in the respective actions, while Sentry Insurance, the carrier for Eazor, remained potentially liable for underinsured motorists’ coverage payable to the person deemed to be the passenger in the vehicle. Attorney William Weiler, Jr., entered his appearance on behalf of the Eazor estate. Later that year, Weiler became associated with the law firm of Meyer, Darragh, Buckler, Bebenek & Eck, P.L.L.C., (“Meyer Darragh”). Attorney Scott Millhouse of Meyer Darragh subsequently became primarily responsible for the case and drafted a proposed settlement agreement, which was sent to all counsel, but was never signed. Shortly thereafter, Weiler resigned from Meyer Darragh. Upon his departure, he agreed that Meyer Darragh would receive two-thirds of the attorney’s fees arising from the Eazor estate litigation, and that he would retain one-third of the fees. Weiler subsequently became affiliated with the law firm of Malone Middleman, P.C. (“Malone Middleman”). The Eazor estate decided to discharge Meyer Darragh and seek representation from Weiler and Malone Middleman. Malone Middleman took over the case and entered into a contingency fee agreement with the estate, providing that the firm would represent the estate in exchange for one-third of the proceeds of any settlement reached before suit was filed. The contingent fee agreement did not address the payment of attorney’s fees to Meyer Darragh. Further, Malone Middleman did not agree in writing or otherwise to protect the fee purportedly earned by Meyer Darragh. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted allocatur to examine the propriety of the Superior Court’s holding that a Meyer Darragh was entitled to breach of contract damages against Malone Middleman. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that under the specific facts presented here, any recovery that may have been due to Meyer Darragh would lie in quantum meruit, and not breach of contract. As such, the Court reversed and remanded. View "Meyer, Darragh, Buckler, Bebenek & Eck, P.L.L.C. v. Malone Middleman, P.C." on Justia Law

Appellant Laquanta Chapman shot and killed his sixteen-year-old neighbor in the basement of Appellant's home. Subsequently, with the assistance of his younger cousin, Bryan Bird, Appellant dismembered the victim’s body and disposed of the remains in the trash. Weeks later, law enforcement officers investigating the sale of illicit drugs from Appellant’s premises obtained a warrant to search them for evidence of drug activity. In the course of the ensuing search, police discovered an abundance of residual, physical evidence from the killing and dismemberment. Appellant was arrested and charged with murder and other crimes. The jury convicted Appellant of first-degree murder and other offenses and returned a death verdict in a separate penalty proceeding. Post-sentence motions were filed and denied, and this direct appeal followed. Appellant presented several claims of trial court error at the penalty stage, arguing primarily that the evidence offered by the Commonwealth in support of the sole aggravating circumstances pursued by the prosecution and found by the jury was insufficient. View "Pennsylvania v. Chapman" on Justia Law

In this appeal, the issue presented for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's review was whether the Superior Court properly applied the doctrine of estoppel by deed to conclude that an oil and gas lease between Appellee, Anadarko E. & P. Co., L.P. and Appellants, Leo and Sandra Shedden, covered the oil and gas rights to 100% of the property identified in the lease, notwithstanding the fact that, unbeknownst to them, Appellants owned only a one-half interest in the oil and gas rights to the property at the time the lease was executed, and, consequently, received a bonus payment only for the oil and gas rights they actually owned. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the Superior Court properly affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Anadarko based on estoppel by deed. View "Shedden v. Anadarko E&P Co." on Justia Law

In an interlocutory appeal, the issue this case presented for the Supreme Court's review centered on whether state legislators have standing to intervene in a challenge to the issuance of an executive order concerning direct care health workers. In early 2015, Governor Tom Wolf issued Executive Order 2015-05, “Participant-Directed Home Care Services,” which focused on individuals who received, and workers who provided, in-home medical and personal care. The Executive Order established, inter alia, an advisory group to ensure the quality of long-term personal assistance services to seniors and persons with disabilities, and a process by which workers who provide such care, and who were employed by the individuals they serve, could obtain a designated representative for discussions with the Secretary of Human Resources regarding various matters (namely wages, and health and retirement benefits). Petitioners filed suit arguing that Executive Order 2015-05 established organizational labor rights for domestic home care workers, but was issued without authorization and conflicted with existing Commonwealth labor laws, specifically the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Act, and the Public Employe Relations Act. The Commonwealth Court conducted a hearing on Petitioners’ request for a preliminary injunction, initially rejecting rejected Appellants’ attempt to directly intervene at the preliminary injunction stage. However, the court issued an order enjoining Governor Wolf from entering into any memorandum of understanding pursuant to Executive Order 2015-05 until disposition of the matter on the merits, establishing an expedited schedule for the filing of briefs on preliminary objections and cross-motions for summary relief, and listing the matter for en banc argument. Appellants' Application to Intervene was denied, giving rise to this appeal. After review, the Supreme Court concluded that in these circumstances, Appellants did not have standing to intervene because the legislators’ interests purportedly impacted by the executive order did not involve unique legislative prerogatives, but, rather, were interests common to the general citizenry which only remotely impact the legislators’ right to act as legislators. Thus, the Court affirmed the order of the Commonwealth Court denying the legislators’ request to intervene. View "Markham v. Wolfe" on Justia Law

In consolidated appeals, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reviewed challenges by petitioners SugarHouse HSP Gaming, LP (“SugarHouse”), then-present holder of a Category 2 slot machine license and operator of the Sugar House Casino in the City of Philadelphia, and Market East Associates (“Market East”), an unsuccessful applicant for that license. SugarHouse and Market East challenged the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board's (“Board”) grant of the last remaining Category 2 slot machine license for the City of Philadelphia to Stadium Casino, LLC (“Stadium”). Upon review of the parties' arguments on appeal, the Supreme Court determined additional information was required on the issue of whether Stadium was ineligible to apply for a Category 2 license. The Board was affirmed in part and vacated in part. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Sugarhouse HSP Gaming, LP v. Pa. G.C.Bd." on Justia Law