Bureau hearing in Pennsylvania

2007Finally, the Court agreed with the Bureau that its claim of privilege would be irreparably lost if review was postponed until final judgment, explaining there was “no effective means of reviewing after a final judgment an order requiring the production of putatively protected material.” Id. at 485 , 729 A.2d at 552 .

2007Finally, the Court agreed with the Bureau that its claim of privilege would be irreparably lost if review was postponed until final judgment, explaining there was “no effective means of reviewing after a final judgment an order requiring the production of putatively protected material.” Id. at 485 , 729 A.2d at 552 .

2022Id. at 198a-99a.

2016This Court rejected this identical argument in Kovler v. Bureau of Administrative Adjudication, 6 A.3d 1060 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010), where a motorist challenged a Bureau hearing examiner’s impartiality because he was a City employee.

2016This Court held that “[Bureau of Administrative Adjudication] hearing examiners are not constitutionally disqualified from presiding over parking violations based solely on their status as employees of the City.” Id. at 1064 n.6.

2015Diehl [v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board, (I.A.Construction), 607 Pa. 254 , 5 A.3d 230 (2010) ]. [Employer] did not submit any evidence establishing Claimant’s impairment rating.before the WCJ so as to satisfy the traditional administrative process., Therefore, the WCJ did not err in denying [Employer’s] Petitions and declining to automatically change Claimant’s benefits to partial. [Employer] nevertheless argues that it should be entitled to an automatic change in Claimant’s benefits because it requested the designation of an IRE physician -within the sixty[-]day window or alternatively t

2015Diehl [v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board, (I.A.Construction), 607 Pa. 254 , 5 A.3d 230 (2010) ]. [Employer] did not submit any evidence establishing Claimant’s impairment rating.before the WCJ so as to satisfy the traditional administrative process., Therefore, the WCJ did not err in denying [Employer’s] Petitions and declining to automatically change Claimant’s benefits to partial. [Employer] nevertheless argues that it should be entitled to an automatic change in Claimant’s benefits because it requested the designation of an IRE physician -within the sixty[-]day window or alternatively t

2011Accord J.W. v. Department of Public Welfare, 9 A.3d 270, 272-273 (Pa.Cmwlth.2010) ("presumption of Section 6381(d) does not apply in situations where a child was in the care of multiple persons during the period when the abuse occurred and it is not possible to determine which person actually abused the child.”); C.S. (matter remanded where the Bureau held no hearing on expungement petition, but instead relied upon prior dependency proceeding in family court that relied upon Section 6381(d) presumption, and where family court expressed uncertainty as to whether expungement petitioner had abuse

2011We acknowledge our opinion in J.B., In Re: D.T. v. Department of Welfare, 898 A.2d 1221 (Pa.Cmwlth.2006).

2002Id.

2002Id.

2000Lyness v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, State Board of Medicine, 529 Pa. 535 , 605 A.2d 1204 (1992). *808 Although this case must be remanded back to the Bureau with the instruction to conduct a de novo hearing, we do not see the need for the Bureau to require any further testimony.

2000Lyness v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, State Board of Medicine, 529 Pa. 535 , 605 A.2d 1204 (1992). *808 Although this case must be remanded back to the Bureau with the instruction to conduct a de novo hearing, we do not see the need for the Bureau to require any further testimony.

1994Additionally, consistent with the Supreme Court’s pronouncement in Cantina Gloria’s Lounge, Inc., our scope of review then becomes a determination of whether the court of common pleas committed an error of law or an abuse of discretion. 536 Pa. at -, 639 A.2d at 19 .

1992Gould , 77 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. at 558, 466 A.2d at 752 .

1988The Bureau then filed a motion for summary judgment, and on August 13, 1987, after a hearing, a three judge panel of Commonwealth Court denied the Bureau’s motion for summary judgment, dissolved the preliminary injunction, dismissed the complaint and granted summary judgment in favor of the Commonwealth, 530 A.2d 132 .