Blessing Auto Repairs, Inc. v. PennDOT, 1704 C.D. 2016

Background

Blessing Auto Repairs held a DOT Certificate to perform vehicle safety inspections at its Philadelphia station.
DOT issued a Suspension Order dated/mailing date May 3, 2016, suspending the Certificate effective June 3, 2016; the Order stated appeals must be filed within 30 days of the mail date.
Blessing claimed it never received the mailed Suspension Order and first saw it when DOT’s officer Hawkins handed it to owner Marc Guerrier on June 3, 2016.
Blessing attempted to file an appeal at City Hall on June 3 but was told it was untimely; it retained counsel and ultimately filed a nunc pro tunc Petition on June 28, 2016, asserting administrative breakdown and diligence.
The trial court denied the nunc pro tunc appeal, finding Blessing failed to rebut the mailbox presumption of receipt and did not act with reasonable diligence after learning it needed to appeal.
On appeal, the Commonwealth Court affirmed, holding the certified mailed Suspension Order raised a presumption of receipt that Guerrier’s testimony did not rebut and Blessing’s 25‑day delay after actual knowledge was not reasonably diligent.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether nunc pro tunc relief should be granted based on alleged administrative breakdown (failure to receive mailed notice).	Blessing: DOT personally served the Order on June 3, so the 30‑day period should run from that date; in any event, Blessing never received the mailed Order.	DOT: Certified Suspension Order with a May 3 mail date raises a mailbox‑rule presumption of receipt; Blessing did not rebut it.	Court: Certified mail date created a rebuttable presumption of receipt; Guerrier’s denial alone did not rebut it — no administrative breakdown shown.
Whether Blessing proceeded with reasonable diligence after learning of the need to appeal.	Blessing: Upon learning June 3, Guerrier immediately attempted to file and retained counsel; delays were reasonable.	DOT: Once aware on June 3, Blessing had to act promptly; filing on June 28 (25 days later) was not diligent.	Court: 25‑day delay after actual knowledge was not reasonably diligent; nunc pro tunc relief denied.
Admissibility of testimony recounting what DOT’s officer told Blessing (hearsay).	Blessing: Guerrier should be allowed to testify about Hawkins’ statements to explain Blessing’s understanding of the deadline.	DOT: Such testimony is hearsay and should be excluded.	Court: Trial court properly sustained hearsay objections to statements offered for truth but allowed testimony about the effect of Hawkins’ statements on Guerrier’s understanding; no abuse of discretion.

Key Cases Cited

Fetherman v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 167 A.3d 846 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (30‑day appeal rule from DOT notice)
Williamson v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 129 A.3d 597 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (untimely appeals deprive trial court of jurisdiction)
Baum v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 949 A.2d 345 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (nunc pro tunc relief where fraud or administrative breakdown causes delay)
Grasse v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 606 A.2d 544 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992) (mailbox rule: proof of mailing raises presumption of receipt)
Warenczuk v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Traffic Safety, 636 A.2d 1225 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994) (certified notice bearing mail date can prove mailing)