A.A. Cobb v. PennDOT, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 2644 C.D. 2015

Background

Licensee Arnell Alan Cobb was arrested on August 10, 2015 for suspected DUI and refused a breath test after receiving the DL-26 (implied consent/O’Connell) warnings.
The Department suspended his noncommercial license for 18 months under 75 Pa. C.S. §1547(b)(1)(ii) because he had a prior Section 3802 conviction, and disqualified him from driving commercial vehicles for one year under §1613(d.1).
Licensee appealed the administrative suspension to the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas; the Department entered Licensee’s certified driving record and the parties stipulated the Department met its prima facie case for suspension under Martinovic.
Licensee offered Dr. Cathy L. Young, a board‑certified pulmonologist, who testified that Licensee has moderately severe obstructive lung disease and that a significant asthma exacerbation could prevent a sufficient breath sample—but she could not say Licensee was having an exacerbation on August 10, 2015 or exclude alcohol as a contributing factor.
The trial court found Dr. Young’s testimony equivocal, noted Licensee did not inform the arresting officer of any medical condition at the time of arrest, and concluded Licensee failed to prove he was physically incapable of completing the test or that his refusal was not knowing and voluntary.
The Commonwealth Court affirmed, reasoning the record lacked evidence that Licensee suffered an exacerbation at the time of testing or notified the officer, and thus Licensee was precluded from relying on the medical condition as a defense.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Licensee may avoid mandatory suspension by proving physical inability to complete breath test	Cobb: Dr. Young’s testimony shows he had obstructive lung disease and could not blow sufficiently, so refusal was not knowing/voluntary	DOT: Licensee failed to show he was having an exacerbation at the time or that he informed the officer; Department met statutory prima facie case	Held for DOT: Cobb failed to prove physical inability at time of test; suspension affirmed
Whether medical testimony was admissible/relevant absent notice to officer	Cobb: Expert medical evidence establishes nexus to inability to perform test	DOT: Under precedent, failure to notify officer of a non‑obvious medical condition precludes reliance on it as a defense	Held for DOT: Failure to notify precluded Cobb from using the condition as an affirmative defense
Whether expert testimony established requisite nexus between condition and inability at testing time	Cobb: Dr. Young’s opinion linked obstructive disease to possible inability to produce required breath	DOT: Expert was equivocal and could not state condition existed during the test or exclude alcohol’s role	Held for DOT: Expert’s testimony was equivocal and insufficient to establish nexus
Whether appellate court may reweigh credibility of witnesses	Cobb: Trial court erred in rejecting expert as credible	DOT: Credibility determinations are for trial court and are binding on review	Held for DOT: Appellate court defers to trial court credibility findings

Key Cases Cited

Martinovic v. Dep’t of Transp., 881 A.2d 30 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (sets burden elements DOT must prove under §1547)
Whistler v. Dep’t of Transp., 882 A.2d 537 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (duty to inform officer of non‑obvious medical conditions affecting testing)
Finney v. Dep’t of Transp., 721 A.2d 420 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (failure to notify officer precludes reliance on medical condition as defense)
Berman v. Dep’t of Transp., 842 A.2d 1025 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (purpose of notification is to permit alternative testing)
Hatalski v. Dep’t of Transp., 666 A.2d 386 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (preclusion rule where officer not notified)
Bridges v. Dep’t of Transp., 752 A.2d 456 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (exception where licensee did not know of condition affecting ability)
Marinaro v. Dep’t of Transp., 703 A.2d 1066 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (unequivocal medical testimony establishing nexus can avoid suspension)
Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Traffic Safety v. O’Connell, 555 A.2d 873 (Pa.) (requirements for admonishing arrestee that right to counsel does not apply before breath test)
Wright v. Dep’t of Transp., 596 A.2d 1241 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (appellate court may affirm on any basis in record)