Celeste Learning Center v. DHS
518 C.D. 2020
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Dec 20, 2021Background
- Celeste Learning Center (Allentown) underwent DHS inspections in Sept–Dec 2018 and Apr–May 2019 that identified multiple regulatory violations (mixed-age staffing ratios, child/adult hygiene, inadequate supervision).
- DHS revoked the Center’s regular certificate in Feb 2019, issued a provisional certificate (Jan 18–July 18, 2019), and later revoked that provisional certificate (notice dated June 21, 2019); the Center appealed the provisional-certificate revocation.
- At the administrative hearing DHS certification rep Matthew Spencer testified to ISR observations: two mixed-age/ratio breaches on May 2, 2019; a diapering/handwashing failure on Apr 24, 2019; and a school‑age child briefly unsupervised in the lobby on May 2, 2019. The Center admitted the violations and submitted plans of correction.
- The ALJ excluded evidence about corrective actions taken after the inspections and excluded hearsay statements from a parent; he credited Spencer’s testimony, found violations of the mixed-age, hygiene, and supervision regulations, and recommended denying the Center’s appeal.
- The DHS Chief ALJ adopted the recommendation; the Commonwealth Court affirmed, holding (1) substantial evidence supported the findings, (2) post‑violation corrective actions are irrelevant to whether violations occurred, (3) the parent’s out‑of‑court statement was properly excluded as hearsay, and (4) strict, daily compliance with DHS regulations is mandatory and revocation need not await an actual injury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ’s factual findings are supported by substantial evidence | Center: findings not supported | DHS: testimony and ISRs suffice; Center admitted violations | Held: substantial evidence supports violations (mixed‑age, hygiene, supervision) |
| Exclusion of evidence of corrective actions (plans of correction) | Center: ALJ erred by excluding evidence of implemented corrective measures | DHS: post‑inspection corrections irrelevant to whether violation occurred | Held: exclusion proper; subsequent fixes do not negate that violations occurred on inspection date |
| Exclusion of parent’s out‑of‑court statement (hearsay) | Center: parent’s explanation was relevant; agency rules are liberal on evidence | DHS: the statement was hearsay and objection was proper | Held: exclusion proper under Walker rule; objected‑to hearsay cannot support findings |
| Whether revocation requires demonstration that children were threatened or harmed | Center: revocation improper because no child was harmed | DHS: regulations are prophylactic; any violation can justify revocation | Held: revocation may be based on violations regardless of actual injury; strict compliance required |
Key Cases Cited
- K.C. Equities v. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 95 A.3d 918 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (agency may revoke license for even a single regulatory violation)
- Altagracia De Pena Family Day Care v. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 943 A.2d 353 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (post‑violation corrective action is irrelevant to whether the violation occurred)
- Gibbs v. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 947 A.2d 233 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (context for supervision failures but court evaluates violations case‑by‑case)
- Casey Ball Supports Coordination, LLC v. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 160 A.3d 278 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (strict compliance with DHS regulations is mandatory)
- Walker v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 367 A.2d 366 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1976) (administrative admissibility of hearsay—Walker rule)
- D’Alessandro v. Pa. State Police, 937 A.2d 404 (Pa. 2007) (agencies not bound by technical rules of evidence but limits apply)
- State Coll. Manor Ltd. v. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 498 A.2d 996 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985) (agency regulations have the force of law and courts defer to agency discretion)
- Pine Haven Residential Care Home v. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 512 A.2d 59 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986) (license revocation allowed for regulatory noncompliance)