Justia Pennsylvania Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2013, the Department of Health (DOH) announced that, pursuant to an extensive reorganization of public health services referenced in Governor Tom Corbett’s 2013-2014 budget, twenty-six State Health Centers would be closed and approximately twenty-six nurse consultants would be furloughed. In response, a lawsuit was filed in Commonwealth Court’s original jurisdiction by Appellants SEIU Healthcare Pennsylvania, an unincorporated labor organization, five nurses employed by the Centers and represented by SEIU, and five Pennsylvania state legislators (collectively referred to as “SEIU”), seeking injunctive and declaratory relief. Specifically, SEIU sought to prevent Appellees, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Governor Corbett, the DOH, and DOH Secretary, Michael Wolf, from closing the Centers and furloughing the nurse consultants. The Commonwealth Court denied the union's request. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court found no reasonable ground for the denial of injunctive relief, and, accordingly, reversed the order of the Commonwealth Court. View "SEIU Healthcare, et al v. Pennsylvania" on Justia Law

Appellant Terry Taylor was sentenced for driving under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance (DUI), without a “full assessment for alcohol and drug addiction,” which is required “prior to sentencing” by Section 3814(2) of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa.C.S. sec. 3814(2). His sentence was imposed without consideration of the drug or alcohol treatment recommendations that an Assessment may have provided. Appellant, argued that he was entitled to have his sentence vacated, to be assessed in compliance with Section 3814(2), and to be resentenced after consideration of any treatment recommendations. The Superior Court rejected this argument, and upheld his judgment of sentence. Because the Supreme Court agreed with Appellant that the presentence requirement of Section 3814(2) was a mandatory component of the sentencing scheme for DUI offenders, and that a sentence imposed contrary to these requirements cannot stand, the Court reversed and remanded for resentencing after compliance with Sections 3804, 3814, and 3815 of the Vehicle Code. View "Pennsylvania v. Taylor" on Justia Law

In the Highland Garden neighborhood of the City of Chester, during the evening O'Neil Blackwood suffered a fatal gunshot wound to his head during a burglary of his home by three assailants who intended to steal cash and drugs from Victim. The assailants also assaulted his wife, while their young children were upstairs in the home. Mrs. Blackwood identified defendant Shaatan Adams as one of the assailants, although his face was covered by a clear or flesh-toned mask. Moreover, at trial, one of Defendant’s co-conspirators testified against him in exchange for a reduction of charges. A neighbor also testified to overhearing Defendant and the other assailants preparing for the crime. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review to consider whether the right against self-incrimination, as protected by the United States and Pennsylvania constitutions, was implicated when a Commonwealth witness, such as an investigating detective, testified without adverse implication that the defendant refused to answer questions prior to arrest. As observed in the majority opinion in "Commonwealth v. Molina,"( __ A.3d __ (J-55-2013) (Pa. 2014) addressing the question of whether an arguably exploited reference to a defendant’s pre-arrest silence violated the defendant’s right against self-incrimination under the Pennsylvania Constitution), the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court's conclusion that defendant’s constitutional rights, in this case, were not violated by the detective’s testimony in this case. View "Pennsylvania v. Adams" on Justia Law

A jury convicted defendant Michael Molina of third degree murder and related crimes resulting from the savage beating of Melissa Snodgrass, apparently as a result of drug debts owed by Victim to Defendant. The victim told her mother, with whom she lived, that she was leaving the house to run some errands. When she did not return, the victim's mother reported her disappearance to the Missing Persons Unit of the Pittsburgh Police Department. Six months later, her decomposed remains were found under moldy clothing and other debris in the basement of a house in the Spring Garden section of Pittsburgh in which Michael Benintend, one of the prosecution’s primary witnesses, resided during the relevant time period. The issue this case presented for the Supreme Court's review centered on the Missing Persons Unit detective’s testimony and the prosecutor’s closing arguments regarding the early days of the investigation into the victim's disappearance. Following a lead that Defendant was holding the victim against her will, the Missing Persons Unit detective assigned to the case went to Defendant’s house two days after Victim’s disappearance. Pamela Deloe, another prosecution witness, answered the door and asserted that neither the victim nor Defendant were at the house. Accordingly, the detective left her card and asked that Defendant call her. Later that day, Defendant called the detective. The detective then inquired as to when Defendant had last seen the victim. He initially responded that he had not seen her for a year and a half, but then he immediately contradicted his statement, claiming instead that he had not seen her for three months. Subsequent to this contradiction, the detective testified that she asked him to come to the police station to speak to her and he refused. The Supreme Court granted review in this case to consider whether a defendant’s right against self-incrimination is violated when the prosecution utilizes a non-testifying defendant’s pre-arrest silence as substantive evidence of guilt. This was an issue of first impression, to which the United States Supreme Court had not definitively spoken. The Pennsylvania Court agreed with the Superior Court, as well as several sister courts, that the use of pre-arrest silence as substantive evidence of guilt violates a non-testifying defendant’s constitutional rights. The Pennsylvania affirmed the order of the Superior Court remanding for a new trial. However, given that the status of federal jurisprudence was uncertain, the Court based its holding in this case upon the right against self-incrimination set forth in Article I, Section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. View "Pennsylvania v. Molina" on Justia Law

In 2009, following a joint investigation by the Pennsylvania Office of the Attorney General and the Centre County Drug Task Force into cocaine trafficking by appellee Gregory Palazzari, appellee was arrested and charged with multiple drug trafficking offenses under the Controlled Substances, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act (Drug Act). The Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section of the Attorney General’s Office petitioned the trial court for forfeiture of Appellee’s property located at 605 University Drive, State College pursuant to the Forfeiture Act, alleging that appellee had used the property for the storage and sale of cocaine, as well as a place to meet his drug supplier. In a discretionary appeal, the issue this case presented for the Supreme Court's review centered on the general applicability of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure to forfeiture proceedings brought pursuant to the Forfeiture Act, specifically, the availability of summary judgment pursuant to Rule 1035.2, Pa.R.C.P. in such proceedings. Although the trial court granted forfeiture of the property to the Commonwealth upon its motion for summary judgment, the Commonwealth Court reversed, broadly holding that the Rules of Civil Procedure generally and Rule 1035.2 in particular were inapplicable to forfeiture proceedings. The Commonwealth appealed. The Supreme Court concluded that the Rules of Civil Procedure applied to forfeiture proceedings where they do not conflict with the Forfeiture Act, and that there was no conflict between the entry of summary judgment pursuant to Rule 1035.2 and the Act. As such, the Court reversed and reinstated the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of the Commonwealth. View "Pennsylvania v. All That Certain Lot et al (Palazzari)" on Justia Law

Appellant Ashley Zauflik sustained severe and permanent injuries when a school bus owned by, and operated by an employee of, appellee Pennsbury School District accelerated out of control onto a sidewalk and struck twenty students. The issue this case presented for review did not concern liability - it was a challenge to the constitutionality of the $500,000 statutory limit available in tort from a local agency such as Pennsbury. The lower courts, consistently with governing Pennsylvania law denied the challenges to the damages cap. Finding no reversible reason, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts. View "Zauflik v. Pennsbury School District" on Justia Law

In 2007, neighbors reported a fire that had erupted at the home of the Terrence and Judith Tincher in Downingtown. The residence was the central unit of a two-story triplex purchased by the Tinchers in 2005. The fire was eventually extinguished and no one was harmed. Investigators concluded that a lightning strike near the home caused a small puncture in the corrugated stainless steel tubing (“CSST”) transporting natural gas to a fireplace located on the first floor of the residence. The CSST installed in the Tinchers’ home was manufactured and sold by Omega Flex as part of a gas transportations system marketed as the TracPipe System. The melting of the CSST caused by the lightning strike ignited the natural gas and fueled the fire estimated to have burned for over an hour. The fire caused significant damage to the Tinchers’ home and belongings. After the fire, the Tinchers reported the incident to their insurer, United Services Automobile Association (“USAA”). USAA compensated the Tinchers for their loss up to the limit of their policy and received an assignment of liability claims. The Tinchers suffered an additional out-of-pocket loss because a portion of their claimed loss exceeded the limits of the USAA policy. In January 2008, the Tinchers filed a complaint against Omega Flex; USAA prosecuted the claims in the name of the Tinchers to obtain reimbursement of the insurance proceeds payout, but the Tinchers retained an interest in the litigation to recover the losses exceeding their insurance coverage. The Tinchers asserted claims premised upon theories of strict liability, negligence, and breach of warranty, alleging that Omega Flex was liable for damages to their home caused by the placement on the market and sale of the TracPipe System. Omega Flex, Inc., appealed the Superior Court's decision to affirm the judgment on the verdict entered in favor of the Tinchers. After review, the Supreme Court reversed in part, and remanded the case with instructions: (1) "Azzarello v. Black Brothers Company," (391 A.2d 1020 (Pa. 1978)) was overruled; (2) a plaintiff pursuing a cause upon a theory of strict liability in tort must prove that the product is in a “defective condition”; (3) whether a product is in a defective condition is a question of fact ordinarily submitted for determination to the finder of fact; (4) to the extent relevant here, the Court declined to adopt the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability despite acknowledging that "certain principles contained in that Restatement has certainly informed [its] consideration of the proper approach to strict liability in Pennsylvania in the post-Azzarello paradigm." View "Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2009, intervenor-requestor James Schneller of Eastern Pennsylvania Citizens Against Gambling, sent an email to Catherine Stetler, a press aide in the Office of Communications and Legislative Affairs of the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board (“GCB”), requesting copies of communications between the GCB and several applicants for gaming licenses, as well as copies of the financial data that each applicant provided to the GCB. He also asked for permission to speak at the GCB’s next public hearing, and copied his request to the GCB’s Director of Media Relations and Chief Enforcement Counsel. It was undisputed that requestor did not make mention of any open-records officer in his written request. The press aide responded to the written request by return email, wherein she apologized for having been out of the office and attached a public comment sign-up form with instructions to return the completed form for permission to comment at the GCB’s public hearing on the following day. The aide did not otherwise respond to the request for records, and did not forward the request to the GCB’s open-records officer. The issue this case presented for the Supreme Court's review centered on the requirements for written Right-to-Know-Law (RTKL) requests for access to public records, the proper application of the provision which directs that all such requests “must be addressed to the open-records officer.” The Court held that in order to establish a valid RTKL request sufficient to trigger appellate rights from a nonresponse under the RTKL, the requestor must address his request to the respective open-records officer as mandated in Section 703. View "PA Gaming Control Brd. v. Office of Open Records" on Justia Law

Appellant, a six-year-old boy diagnosed with an autism-spectrum disorder, was receiving applied behavior analysis (“ABA”), a type of autism-related service, in his home. ABA was covered by his family’s insurance policy with Appellee Independence Blue Cross. Appellant’s family requested that Blue Cross cover similar ABA services to be provided at Appellant’s elementary school in 2009. The insurer denied the request, pointing to a place-of-service exclusion in the policy which specified that no services would be covered if the care was provided at certain types of locations, including schools. This decision was unsuccessfully appealed internally. The dispute was then submitted to an independent external review agency appointed by the Pennsylvania Department of Insurance. In December 2009, that agency upheld the denial based on the policy’s place-of-service exclusion. Meanwhile, the General Assembly passed Act 62 of 2008, which, inter alia, required that health insurance policies provide coverage for the treatment of autism spectrum disorders. In 2010, Appellant filed suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief in the form of a ruling that the policy’s place-of-service exclusion is null and void under Act 62, as well as an order directing the insurer to cover Appellant’s medically necessary treatments. Blue Cross filed responsive pleadings and Appellant requested judgment on the pleadings. The court ultimately rejected the argument that the policy’s place-of-service exclusion was a general exclusion as contemplated by Section 764h(c). Thus, it held that, under Section 764h(a), Blue Cross was required to provide coverage for school-based ABA services during the relevant time period. The common pleas court ordered the insurer to “take action consistent with this decision.” On appeal, the Superior Court, sua sponte, questioned whether the common pleas court should have entertained the appeal under Act 62. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court allowed review to consider whether individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders have the right to judicial review of a denial of insurance coverage, considering the language of Act 62. "Here, we are faced with a situation in which a litigant sought a declaration of his rights under a legislative enactment, a task over which the common pleas court could have exercised jurisdiction, pursuant to the Declaratory Judgments Act, in response to the correct form of pleading. Furthermore, the complaint’s asserted basis for jurisdiction was deficient only because of the confusion created by an apparent drafting mistake by our General Assembly. Neither the court nor the defendant Insurer realized that anything was amiss in this regard and, if they had, Appellant could presumably have made any necessary formal corrections. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the common pleas court was permitted to reach the substantive claim forwarded in Appellant’s pleadings. It follows that the intermediate court should not have reversed the order of that court by sua sponte pointing to the language of Section 764h(k)(2) as a bar to Appellant’s ability to seek relief in a judicial forum, without first evaluating whether the common pleas court’s assessment of the substantive question could be justified on some other basis." View "Burke v. Independence Blue Cross" on Justia Law

Appellees Henry Daniels and Kevin Pelzer participated in a plan to kidnap and hold for ransom sixteen-year-old Alexander Porter. Appellees kidnapped the victim, bound and gagged him, and placed him in the trunk of his car. Ultimately, they determined to kill the victim. In all, the victim was held in the trunk for twenty-four hours. According to appellees' police statements and Daniels's trial testimony, appellees were unable to determine whether the youth was dead when they went to dispose of his body. Pelzer shot Porter four times in the back of the neck to remove all doubt. The jury found both appellees guilty of first-degree murder and other offenses. These cross-appeals were a continuation of their first collateral challenges to their convictions under the Post-Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA"). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court vacated the PCRA court's March 25, 2003 order, which had granted appellees a new trial. The Court reviewed three claims of trial counsel ineffectiveness, denied relief on all three claims, and remanded the case to the PCRA court for the preparation of an opinion addressing the remainder of appellees' claims. On remand, the PCRA judge retired, a new judge ordered a new penalty proceeding for each appellee, while denying guilt phase relief. The Commonwealth appealed that order, while appellees, in separate cross-appeals, sought review of additional issues upon which the PCRA court denied relief. Upon careful consideration of the record below, the Supreme Court affirmed the order of the PCRA court as it related to Kevin Pelzer, but reversed the order as it related to Henry Daniels. Thus, Pelzer was denied guilt phase relief, but the award of a new penalty phase hearing to him was affirmed, and Daniels's PCRA petition was dismissed in its entirety. View "Pennsylvania v. Daniels" on Justia Law