good cause exception in Pennsylvania

2017Matusow, 702 A.2d at 1129; Setty, 722 A.2d at 1101 ; Samaras, 698 A.2d at 73 ; Clinger v. Tilley, 620 A.2d 529, 532 (Pa. Super. 1993).

2016To establish good cause, “‘[t]he aggrieved party must demonstrate that: (1) the petition for reactivation was timely filed; (2) a reasonable explanation exists for the docket inactivity; and (3) facts exist supporting a meritorious cause of action.’” Setty, 722 A.2d at 1101 (citation omitted); see Samaras, 698 A.2d at 73 .6 Notably, the good-cause test does not consider whether the party seeking reinstatement timely responded to a pre-termination notice.

2015Uhl, 637 A.2d at 1360 .

1999Shoemaker & Son Inc., 432 Pa. Super. 230, 234 , 637 A.2d 1358, 1360 (1994), and to preclude the use of such examination for improper purposes.

2016See Commonwealth v. Koehler, 614 Pa. 159 , 36 A.3d 121, 135 (2012) (affirming the denial of collateral relief where the PCRA court rejected a Brady claim based on the factual finding that no undisclosed deal existed between the Commonwealth witness and the prosecutor, and such factual finding was supported by the record).

2016See Commonwealth v. Koehler, 614 Pa. 159 , 36 A.3d 121, 135 (2012) (affirming the denial of collateral relief where the PCRA court rejected a Brady claim based on the factual finding that no undisclosed deal existed between the Commonwealth witness and the prosecutor, and such factual finding was supported by the record).

2018McKeesport Hospital v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 625 A.2d 112 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993).

2000While illness, here a broken toe, is a good cause defense to a charge of willful misconduct due to excessive absenteeism, see McKeesport Hospital, 625 A.2d at 114 , Claimant still failed to submit a timely medical leave request as required by Employer to receive an excused absence.

2002In Price , we permitted a typewritten reference by the same certifying scientist to satisfy the good cause exception to the hearsay rule that, “the report contain the signature of a known and responsible *443 member of its staff or some other mark of reliability.” Powell, 513 A.2d at 1144 .

1989In connection with the admissibility of laboratory records in parole revocation hearings, we stated in Powell v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 100 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 7 , 513 A.2d 1139 (1986), in order to be admissible under the good cause exception, the report should contain indicia of regularity and reliability.

2018Id. at 786 .

2016Appellant’s argument is misplaced, as the good cause exception requires the Commonwealth to establish that “the individual did not imbibe any alcohol or utilize a controlled substance between the time the individual was arrested and the time the sample was obtained.” 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(g)(2); see also Commonwealth v. Eichler, 133 A.3d 775, 786-87 (Pa. Super. 2016) (“The Commonwealth fulfilled section 3802(g)’s no- imbibing element by presenting the testimony of three officers during trial that Eichler did not drink alcohol between the time of his arrest and the time of his blood test.”).

2017Matusow, 702 A.2d at 1129; Setty, 722 A.2d at 1101 ; Samaras, 698 A.2d at 73 ; Clinger v. Tilley, 620 A.2d 529, 532 (Pa. Super. 1993).

2016To establish good cause, “‘[t]he aggrieved party must demonstrate that: (1) the petition for reactivation was timely filed; (2) a reasonable explanation exists for the docket inactivity; and (3) facts exist supporting a meritorious cause of action.’” Setty, 722 A.2d at 1101 (citation omitted); see Samaras, 698 A.2d at 73 .6 Notably, the good-cause test does not consider whether the party seeking reinstatement timely responded to a pre-termination notice.

2016Bd. of Review, 943 A.2d 1011, 1015 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (citation and quotation marks omitted)). “[W]hile illness is a good cause defense to a charge of willful misconduct due to excessive absenteeism, it is incumbent upon the claimant to establish that illness was indeed the cause of h[is] absenteeism, which is an affirmative fact.” McKeesport Hosp. v. Unemployment Comp.

2016Id. at 1015 ; see also Grieb v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 827 A.2d 422, 427 (Pa. 2003) (declining to graft a public safety exception upon the good cause analysis required under Section 402(e) of the Law); Navickas v. Unemployment Compensation Review Board, 787 A.2d 284, 288 (Pa. 2001) (rejecting the application of a higher standard of care for 11 health care workers in a determination of whether a claimant’s conduct amounts to willful misconduct under the Law).

2026See id.

2024Accord Commonwealth v. Carson, 913 A.2d 220, 261 (Pa. 2006) (holding that a general request for PCRA discovery upon speculation that the requested materials will uncover exculpatory evidence is insufficient even to establish the more lenient good cause standard applicable in connection with the first, - 14 - J-S11006-24 counseled petition filed in death penalty cases).

2021Id.; accord Eliscar v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 157 C.D. 2017, filed Nov. 3, 2017), slip op. at 8 (observing that the claimant did not “employ[] any alternative form of communication, such as having another person call in on his behalf”).8 Indeed, the good cause inquiry involves much more than the simple fact of Claimant’s incarceration, and determines whether Claimant’s attempts to comply with the policy by having family members inform Employer of his incarceration were “justifiable and reasonable under the circumstances.” Docherty, 898 A.2d at 1208-09 .

2021See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Benvenisti-Zarom, 229 A.3d 14 (Pa. Super. 2020).

2020Commonwealth v. Starry, 196 A.3d 649, 659 (Pa. Super. 2018).

2017Matusow, 702 A.2d at 1129; Setty, 722 A.2d at 1101 ; Samaras, 698 A.2d at 73 ; Clinger v. Tilley, 620 A.2d 529, 532 (Pa. Super. 1993).

2016Bd. of Review, 647 A.2d 675, 680 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994) (holding that illness is a good cause defense to alleged willful misconduct due to excessive absenteeism).

2016Id. at 1015 ; see also Grieb v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 827 A.2d 422, 427 (Pa. 2003) (declining to graft a public safety exception upon the good cause analysis required under Section 402(e) of the Law); Navickas v. Unemployment Compensation Review Board, 787 A.2d 284, 288 (Pa. 2001) (rejecting the application of a higher standard of care for 11 health care workers in a determination of whether a claimant’s conduct amounts to willful misconduct under the Law).

2016Finally, Appellants argue the trial court erred in granting the Bureau’s Waiver Petition on September 10, 2013 because the Bureau did not satisfy the good cause requirement of Section 601(a)(3) of the Law and the Waiver Petition was defective on its face because it did not aver that the Bureau waited the 13 Our review in tax sale cases “is limited to determining whether the trial court abused its discretion, clearly erred as a matter of law or rendered a decision with a lack of supporting evidence.” Rice v. Compro Distributing, Inc., 901 A.2d 570, 574 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006). 11 requisite twenty-fi

2016Id. at 1015 ; see also Grieb v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 827 A.2d 422, 427 (Pa. 2003) (declining to graft a public safety exception upon the good cause analysis required under Section 402(e) of the Law); Navickas v. Unemployment Compensation Review Board, 787 A.2d 284, 288 (Pa. 2001) (rejecting the application of a higher standard of care for 11 health care workers in a determination of whether a claimant’s conduct amounts to willful misconduct under the Law).

2016Id. at 778.

2016Id. at 781.

2014See Commonwealth v. Collins, 598 Pa. 397 , 957 A.2d 237, 271-72 (2008) (discovery request based on mere speculation of potential exculpatory evidence was the same sort of generic plea for hypothetical evidence that we have rejected as falling far short of the “good cause” requirement); Commonwealth v. Bryant, 579 Pa. 119 , 855 A.2d 726, 750 (2004) (rejecting discovery request of petitioner who “merely speculate^] as to possible trial court errors, or potentially exculpatory evidence”); Com. v. Carson, 913 A.2d at 261 (rejecting “fishing expedition for possible exculpatory evidence”).

2014See Commonwealth v. Collins, 598 Pa. 397 , 957 A.2d 237, 271-72 (2008) (discovery request based on mere speculation of potential exculpatory evidence was the same sort of generic plea for hypothetical evidence that we have rejected as falling far short of the “good cause” requirement); Commonwealth v. Bryant, 579 Pa. 119 , 855 A.2d 726, 750 (2004) (rejecting discovery request of petitioner who “merely speculate^] as to possible trial court errors, or potentially exculpatory evidence”); Com. v. Carson, 913 A.2d at 261 (rejecting “fishing expedition for possible exculpatory evidence”).