Apache's Auto Clinic v. PennDOT, Bureau of Motor Vehicles
Apache's Auto Clinic v. PennDOT, Bureau of Motor Vehicles - 1172 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Jul 24, 2017Background
- Apache’s Auto Clinic (station owner) received two one-year suspensions and $2,500 fines each from the PA Dept. of Transportation for (1) furnishing inspection certificates without performing inspections and (2) fraudulent recordkeeping; suspensions were ordered to run consecutively.
- Department’s investigator (Jordan) performed a VID data analysis and identified recurring ‘‘fingerprint’’ anomalies (blank OBD VIN, identical PCMID, identical PIT counts, no EVAP/EGR) across many inspections suggesting use of a donor vehicle; she narrowed the donor to a 1996–1997 Honda.
- Department sent an on-site investigator, reviewed records (Exhibits C-2, C-3, C-4) and presented Jordan’s testimony at the trial-court hearing; Investigator Neville’s report raised no rebuttal to Jordan’s conclusions.
- Appellant’s employee, Charles Davis, admitted at trial that he used a 1997 Honda donor vehicle to complete inspections and used other inspectors’ credentials (including owner Corbin’s) without owner knowledge; Corbin testified he fired the inspectors and lacked prior knowledge.
- The trial court credited Davis’s admission and Corbin’s lack of knowledge, found Appellant liable under furnishing and fraudulent recordkeeping, modified the suspensions to run concurrently, and denied a nonsuit.
- On appeal, this Court affirmed the trial court’s findings as supported by substantial evidence but vacated and remanded for the trial court to obtain or develop a record showing whether the Department considered point assessment in lieu of suspension under 67 Pa. Code §177.602(b).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence / denial of nonsuit | Department failed to meet prima facie burden; expert opinion insufficient | Jordan’s VID analysis plus Davis’s admission suffice to prove violations by preponderance | Evidence sufficient; nonsuit properly denied; findings upheld |
| Liability for fraudulent recordkeeping vs lesser improper offenses | Appellant argued only lesser improper inspection/recordkeeping supported | Department argued conduct was deceitful and constituted fraud | Trial court correctly found fraudulent recordkeeping and furnishing; not limited to lesser offenses |
| Owner liability for employee misconduct | Corbin argued no knowledge and took remedial steps, so should avoid suspension or get points instead | Dept. argued owner strictly liable for acts within scope of employment | Owner strictly liable for employee acts; credited Corbin’s lack of knowledge for points consideration but not to avoid liability |
| Consideration of points instead of suspension | Appellant sought points because owner lacked knowledge | Dept. failed to show on record that it considered points under §177.602(b) | Remanded: Department must consider/record whether points were offered in lieu of suspension; trial court proceedings consistent with opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- Firestone Tire and Service Center v. Department of Transportation, 871 A.2d 863 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (preponderance standard for inspection violations; distinction between improper and fraudulent conduct)
- Milanovich v. Commonwealth, 445 A.2d 1337 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982) (expert opinion permissible where direct evidence of vehicle condition is unavailable)
- Tropek v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Motor Vehicles, 847 A.2d 208 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (Department need not present concrete proof; preponderance suffices)
- Reinhart v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 954 A.2d 761 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (trial court as factfinder; credibility determinations respected on review)
- Snyder v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Motor Vehicles, 970 A.2d 523 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (substantial evidence review standard)
- Midas Muffler Shop v. Department of Transportation, 529 A.2d 91 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987) (fraud involves declarations or artifices intended to mislead; distinguishes improper acts)
- Strickland v. Department of Transportation, 574 A.2d 110 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990) (owner liability for employee acts within scope of employment)
- McCarthy v. Department of Transportation, 7 A.3d 346 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (Department must consider point assessment and put consideration on the record)