§ 1519. Determination of incompetency.
(a) General rule.--The department, having cause to believe that a licensed driver or applicant may not
be physically or mentally qualified to be licensed, may require the applicant or driver
to undergo one or more of the examinations authorized under this subchapter in order
to determine the competency of the person to drive. The department may require the
person to be examined by a physician, a certified registered nurse practitioner, a
physician assistant or a licensed psychologist designated by the department or may
require the person to undergo an examination by a physician, a certified registered
nurse practitioner, a physician assistant or a licensed psychologist of the person's
choice. If the department designates the physician, a certified registered nurse practitioner,
a physician assistant or licensed psychologist, the licensed driver or applicant may,
in addition, cause a written report to be forwarded to the department by a physician,
a certified registered nurse practitioner, a physician assistant or a licensed psychologist
of the driver's or applicant's choice. Vision qualifications may be determined by
an optometrist or ophthalmologist. The department shall appoint one or more qualified
persons who shall consider all medical reports and testimony in order to determine
the competency of the driver or the applicant to drive.
(b) Confidentiality of reports and evidence.--Reports received by the department for the purpose of assisting the department in
determining whether a person is qualified to be licensed and reports of examinations
authorized under this subchapter are for the confidential use of the department and
may not be divulged to any person or used as evidence in any trial except that the
reports and statistics and evaluations used by the department in determining whether
a person should be required to be examined under this subchapter shall be admitted
in proceedings under section 1550 (relating to judicial review).
(c) Recall or suspension of operating privilege.--The department shall recall the operating privilege of any person whose incompetency
has been established under the provisions of this chapter. The recall shall be for
an indefinite period until satisfactory evidence is presented to the department in
accordance with regulations to establish that such person is competent to drive a
motor vehicle. The department shall suspend the operating privilege of any person
who refuses or fails to comply with the requirements of this section until that person
does comply and that person's competency to drive is established. Any person aggrieved
by recall or suspension of the operating privilege may appeal in the manner provided
in section 1550. The judicial review shall be limited to whether the person is competent
to drive in accordance with the provisions of the regulations promulgated under section
1517 (relating to Medical Advisory Board).
(Apr. 28, 1978, P.L.202, No.53, eff. 60 days; Oct. 7, 1996, P.L.688, No.118, eff.
9 months; July 15, 2004, P.L.698, No.76, eff. 60 days)
2004 Amendment. Section 2 of Act 76 provided that any regulations of the Department of Transportation
that are inconsistent with Act 76 are hereby abrogated to the extent of that inconsistency.
1996 Amendment. Section 2 of Act 118 provided that the Department of Transportation shall publish
in the Pennsylvania Bulletin guidelines for determining cause to initiate any of the
examinations under subsec. (a). The notice of guidelines for determining cause to
initiate examinations was published September 6, 1997, at 27 Pa.B. 4559.
Cross References. Section 1519 is referred to in sections 1518, 1550 of this title.
Notes of Decisions
Turk v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 983 A.2d 805 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2009).
· cites it 25× “Turk (Licensee) seeks review of an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County (trial court) directing the Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (DOT) to restore her driver’s license following a recall under 75 Pa.C.S. § 1519 (relating to…”
Turk v. Com., Dept. of Transp., 983 A.2d 805 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2009).
· cites it 25× “Turk (Licensee) seeks review of an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County (trial court) directing the Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (DOT) to restore her driver's license following a recall under 75 Pa.C.S. § 1519 (relating to…”
Com. Dept. of Transp. v. Clayton, 684 A.2d 1060 (Pa. 1996).
· cites it 4× “[1] On November 28, 1986, following receipt of the report, the Department notified Appellee that his operating privileges were being recalled pursuant to 75 Pa.C.S. § 1519(c) which provides that the Department shall recall the operating privileges of any person who has been…”
Mckelvy v. Com., Dept. of Transp., 814 A.2d 843 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2003).
· cites it 8× “In determining competency, 75 Pa.C.S. § 1519(a) permits Department to require a licensee to submit to examinations.”
Meter v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 41 A.3d 901 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2012).
· cites it 22× “Meter (Licensee) from a recall of his driver's license for incompetency pursuant to Sections 1519(a) and 1519(c) of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa.C.S. §§ 1519(a) and 1519(c). On July 25, 2010, Licensee was involved in an automobile collision resulting in the death of his passenger.”
Helwig v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 99 A.3d 153 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2014).
· cites it 3× “The notice informed Licensee that her license would be recalled, effective July 26, 2013, pursuant to Section 1519(c) of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa.C.S. § 1519(c). The notice advised her that her license would remain recalled until she demonstrated her condition is well controlled.”
McKay v. Commonwealth, 415 A.2d 910 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1980).
· cites it 3× “Everything that happened between the date of the recall and the date of the de novo hearing would be irrelevant to a determination of the Appellant’s competency on the date of recall, although such facts may be relevant in a proceeding under the Department’s regulations to…”
Byler v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 883 A.2d 724 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2005).
· cites it 2× “Johns’ letter is so lacking in detail and supporting documentation that it should be accorded minimal weight, that he and Shick presented extensive testimony regarding his safe driving record and his temperate drinking habits and that the trial court credited that testimony, and…”
Ploof v. Commonwealth, 590 A.2d 1318 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1991).
· cites it 2× “” This letter provided the basis for the department’s suspension of Ploof’s driver’s license.”
Com., Dept. of Transp. v. Peck, 573 A.2d 645 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1990).
· cites it 2× “I would agree, but the remedy in such a situation falls under Section 1519 of the Code, 75 Pa.C.S. § 1519, [2] not under Section 1547.”
— 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1519(a) — 12 cases
Turk v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 983 A.2d 805 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2009).
“Turk (Licensee) seeks review of an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County (trial court) directing the Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (DOT) to restore her driver’s license following a recall under 75 Pa.C.S. § 1519 (relating to…”
Turk v. Com., Dept. of Transp., 983 A.2d 805 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2009).
“Turk (Licensee) seeks review of an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County (trial court) directing the Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (DOT) to restore her driver's license following a recall under 75 Pa.C.S. § 1519 (relating to…”
Meter v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 41 A.3d 901 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2012).
“Meter (Licensee) from a recall of his driver's license for incompetency pursuant to Sections 1519(a) and 1519(c) of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa.C.S. §§ 1519(a) and 1519(c). On July 25, 2010, Licensee was involved in an automobile collision resulting in the death of his passenger.”
Mckelvy v. Com., Dept. of Transp., 814 A.2d 843 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2003).
“In determining competency, 75 Pa.C.S. § 1519(a) permits Department to require a licensee to submit to examinations.”
McKay v. Commonwealth, 415 A.2d 910 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1980).
“Everything that happened between the date of the recall and the date of the de novo hearing would be irrelevant to a determination of the Appellant’s competency on the date of recall, although such facts may be relevant in a proceeding under the Department’s regulations to…”
— 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1519(b) — 11 cases
McKay v. Commonwealth, 415 A.2d 910 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1980).
“Everything that happened between the date of the recall and the date of the de novo hearing would be irrelevant to a determination of the Appellant’s competency on the date of recall, although such facts may be relevant in a proceeding under the Department’s regulations to…”
Ploof v. Commonwealth, 590 A.2d 1318 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1991).
“” This letter provided the basis for the department’s suspension of Ploof’s driver’s license.”
Mckelvy v. Com., Dept. of Transp., 814 A.2d 843 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2003).
“In determining competency, 75 Pa.C.S. § 1519(a) permits Department to require a licensee to submit to examinations.”
— 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1519(c) — 34 cases
Com. Dept. of Transp. v. Clayton, 684 A.2d 1060 (Pa. 1996).
“[1] On November 28, 1986, following receipt of the report, the Department notified Appellee that his operating privileges were being recalled pursuant to 75 Pa.C.S. § 1519(c) which provides that the Department shall recall the operating privileges of any person who has been…”
Turk v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 983 A.2d 805 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2009).
“Turk (Licensee) seeks review of an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County (trial court) directing the Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (DOT) to restore her driver’s license following a recall under 75 Pa.C.S. § 1519 (relating to…”
Helwig v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 99 A.3d 153 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2014).
“The notice informed Licensee that her license would be recalled, effective July 26, 2013, pursuant to Section 1519(c) of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa.C.S. § 1519(c). The notice advised her that her license would remain recalled until she demonstrated her condition is well controlled.”
Mckelvy v. Com., Dept. of Transp., 814 A.2d 843 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2003).
“In determining competency, 75 Pa.C.S. § 1519(a) permits Department to require a licensee to submit to examinations.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.