ALJ hearing (Pennsylvania) · Go Syfert
← Pennsylvania issues

ALJ hearing in Pennsylvania

6 Pennsylvania opinions name it 1 courts 2019–2026 3 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
W. McKelvey, PennLive, and The Patriot News v. Office of Attorney Generalgreen
pacommwct · 2017 · cited in 1 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024
2 sentences

2024In re Melamed, 287 A.2d at 499, n.15; McKelvey v. Off. of the Att’y Gen., 172 A.3d 122, 125 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016). 11 the request to names relevant to the 2005 ALJ hearing, was the most appropriate.

2024See id.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (6)

CaseCitedYears
G.H. v. Department of Public Welfare green
pacommwct · 2014
1 sentence

2026(Petitioners’ Brief (Br.) at 9.) The notices instructed Petitioners that they had 90 days from the date of mailing, or accordance with the Child Protective Services Law, 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 6301-6386.” In re S.H., 96 A.3d at 450 n.2. 3 A single investigation report naming both Petitioners appears to have been issued, but separate notices were issued and separate appeals were filed. 4 Counsel’s account was provided during the telephonic ALJ hearing and in the Petitioners’ Brief. 2 by October 13, 2021, to file the appeal forms, which were enclosed.

12026–2026
T.W. v. Department of Public Welfare neutral
pacommwct · 2012
1 sentence

2024Welfare, 38 A.3d 1067 , 1076 n.8 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012); see also Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa.C.S. § 704. 2 Services Law (CPSL)5 and relies on subsection (c.3) thereof, which provides a 45- day time limit for the filing of a decision by an ALJ or a hearing officer.

12024–2024
Bucks County Children & Youth Social Services Agency v. Department of Public Welfare green
pacommwct · 1992
1 sentence

2020In doing so, the ALJ stated that the standard for child abuse by omission is “whether a reasonable person in the position of the parent knew or should have known that acts of abuse were occurring and whether the parent failed to take steps to remove child from harm’s way.” ALJ Decision at 10 (citing Bucks County Children & Youth Social Services Agency v. Department of Public Welfare, 616 A.2d 170 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992)).

12020–2020
L.S. v. Department of Public Welfare green
pacommwct · 2003
1 sentence

2020The ALJ further 5 explained that CYS had “to present substantial evidence that [Stepmother] knew or should have known of the significant risk to [Child] and failed to take protective measures.” ALJ Decision at 10 (citing L.S. v. Department of Public Welfare, 828 A.2d 480 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003)).

12020–2020
Allegheny Cnty. Office of Children, Youth & Families v. Dep't of Human Servs. green
pacommwct · 2019
1 sentence

2019Allegheny County, 202 A.3d at 168 n.13. 23 consider whether, under Section 6304(d), Father used reasonable force, the ALJ’s analysis is not in accord with our previous rulings.

12019–2019
Colonial Park Care Center, LLC v. Department of Public Welfare green
pacommwct · 2015
2 sentences

2019Nor did Brenckman or Son present any evidence at the ALJ hearing “pertinent to the circumstances surrounding the transfer of assets during the look-back period.” Colonial Park Care Ctr., 123 A.3d at 1100 .

2019Nor did Brenckman or Son present any evidence at the ALJ hearing “pertinent to the circumstances surrounding the transfer of assets during the look-back period.” Colonial Park Care Ctr., 123 A.3d at 1100 .

12019–2019

Where else courts name it

KY 13 (1992–2025) CA 13 (2002–2022) OR 12 (1997–2023) NY 10 (1989–2015) MO 8 (1995–2025) IL 8 (2004–2020) MD 7 (2001–2017) NJ 7 (1987–2026) TX 7 (2003–2024) PA 6 (2019–2026) GA 6 (1988–2018) FL 6 (2004–2024) DC 5 (2003–2017) UT 5 (2012–2024) MS 4 (2016–2024) IN 4 (2012–2019) CO 4 (2006–2024) AZ 3 (2000–2022) NC 3 (2016–2021) MI 3 (2015–2021) WA 2 (1992–2025) KS 2 (2006–2020)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check