Gifford v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing
172 A.3d 727
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2017Background
- In June 2013 Licensee (Vincent Gifford) committed an offense under 75 Pa. C.S. § 3733 (fleeing/eluding) and was convicted on January 10, 2014.
- The Delaware County Office of Judicial Support (OJS) did not report the conviction to PennDOT until August 8, 2016 (≈2 years, 7 months later); PennDOT mailed a one-year suspension notice on August 16, 2016, effective September 20, 2016.
- Licensee timely appealed; at a de novo hearing he did not dispute the conviction but testified he had no subsequent violations, had been employed since 2015 in a driving-intensive job, and would likely lose that job without a license.
- Licensee also testified he is primary driver for his young daughter who has a seizure condition requiring frequent, sometimes emergency, hospital trips; loss of his license would cause concrete family hardship.
- The trial court applied the Gingrich “extraordinary circumstances” exception (allowing consideration of delays caused by non‑PennDOT entities) and concluded the OJS delay, Licensee’s lack of subsequent violations, and demonstrated prejudice warranted vacating the suspension; PennDOT appealed.
- The Commonwealth Court affirmed, holding that under the particular facts (significant prejudice + no later violations) a 2‑year, 7‑month non‑PennDOT delay could be an “extraordinarily extended period of time” under Gingrich.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a license suspension based on a conviction reported after a long delay by a non‑PennDOT entity can be invalidated | Gingrich exception applies: the OJS delay (≈2y7m), combined with no subsequent violations and clear prejudice (job loss, child's medical needs), makes the suspension punitive rather than protective | Traditional rule controls: only delays attributable to PennDOT can invalidate a suspension; the delay here is not “extraordinarily extended” as in Gingrich | Court held Gingrich applies here; 2 years, 7 months can be “extraordinarily extended” when combined with significant prejudice and no later violations; affirmed reinstatement of license |
Key Cases Cited
- Gingrich v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 134 A.3d 528 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (recognizes narrow exception allowing courts to consider non‑PennDOT reporting delays when the delay is extraordinarily long, no further violations occurred, and prejudice results)
- Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Gombocz, 909 A.2d 798 (Pa. 2006) (articulates traditional two‑part test for delay challenges: delay attributable to PennDOT and resulting prejudice)
- Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Green, 546 A.2d 767 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988) (traditional rule limiting consideration to delays chargeable to PennDOT and rationale for that rule)
- Capizzi v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 141 A.3d 635 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (applied Gingrich where lengthy delay, no subsequent violations, and some prejudice warranted relief)
- Orloff v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 912 A.2d 918 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (loss of employment that requires a license constitutes cognizable prejudice)
- Currie v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 142 A.3d 186 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (refused Gingrich relief where nearly three‑year non‑PennDOT delay existed but licensee showed no meaningful prejudice due to an intervening suspension)