A.H. Butler, IV v. PennDOT, Bureau of Driver Licensing
2533 C.D. 2015
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Nov 21, 2016Background
- During a 2014 audit, York County Clerk failed to report ~4,300 convictions (dating back to 2004) on DL-21 forms to PennDOT as required by law; reporting occurred late in 2014.
- PennDOT then issued license-suspension notices based on the late DL-21 submissions; affected individuals (Licensees) appealed their suspensions to the trial court under 75 Pa.C.S. § 1550(a).
- Licensees also filed a mandamus petition asking the Clerk to nullify or redate DL-21s and PennDOT to reject untimely notices; the Commonwealth Court dismissed the mandamus action as precluded because the statutory appeal was the appropriate remedy.
- The trial court, acknowledging the Clerk’s extraordinary delay and Licensees’ prejudice, nevertheless dismissed the appeals and reinstated suspensions, citing binding precedent that PennDOT cannot be faulted for delays outside its control.
- On appeal, the Commonwealth Court vacated the trial court’s order and remanded for factual development under a limited Gingrich exception permitting relief when (1) reporting delay is extraordinarily long, (2) licensee had a long clean period after conviction, and (3) licensee shows prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus was available to challenge late DL-21s | Licensees: Clerk should be ordered to amend or redate DL-21s; DOT should reject untimely forms | DOT: Mandamus is barred because §1550 provides the proper statutory remedy | Mandamus dismissed; statutory appeal is the exclusive/appropriate remedy |
| Whether suspensions issued after delayed reporting can be set aside | Licensees: Prejudice from delay + Gingrich exception warrants relief | DOT: Relief only if delay attributable to DOT; many delays here shorter and factual record lacks proof of prejudice | Commonwealth Court remanded for factual inquiry under Gingrich exception |
| Standard for applying Gingrich exception | Licensees: Gingrich creates workable exception for negligent clerks when prejudice shown | DOT: Gingrich is narrow; many here have less-than-extraordinary delays or subsequent violations | Court: Gingrich exception applies but is exceedingly factual; remand to determine if each licensee meets elements |
| Whether trial court properly dismissed appeals without factfinding | Licensees: Trial court should consider prejudice and equitable relief given systemic failure | Trial court/DOT: Precedent constrains courts; DOT not responsible for clerk delay | Court vacated trial court order and remanded for further proceedings to develop factual record |
Key Cases Cited
- Gingrich v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 134 A.3d 528 (Pa. 2016) (recognizes narrow exception permitting relief when reporting delay is extraordinary, followed by a long clean period and proved prejudice)
- Capizzi v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 141 A.3d 635 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (held lengthy delay plus lack of subsequent convictions and prejudice can render suspension punitive rather than safety-based)
- Rawson v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 99 A.3d 143 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (standard of review for trial court decisions in DOT suspension appeals)
- Bingnear v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (City of Chester), 960 A.2d 890 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (brief assertions are not evidence; facts must be in the trial record)
- Sch. Dist. of Pittsburgh v. Provident Charter Sch. for Children With Dyslexia, 134 A.3d 128 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (statements in appellate briefs are not part of the evidentiary record)