Kollar v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing
7 A.3d 336
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2010Background
- DOT suspended Licensee's operating privileges for refusing chemical testing after a DUI arrest.
- Officer Polemitis detected the smell of alcohol at the scene; Licensee admitted consuming alcohol earlier; Licensee appeared intoxicated; no injuries observed.
- Officer Crawford read warnings about blood testing; Licensee remained silent and supposedly refused; the form documented refusal.
- Medical expert Guzardi testified Licensee's concussion and injuries could affect understanding of testing requests, with possible alcohol involvement uncertain.
- Trial court reversed DOT's suspension relying on Guzardi's testimony; DOT appealed arguing the refusal was not proven as knowing or conscious; burden-shifting framework discussed ties to Banner, Mondini, and Pappas.
- On appeal, the court found Guzardi's opinion equivocal and not sufficient to prove a non-knowing/refusal; however, the decision ultimately reinstates the DOT suspension.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the refusal knowing and conscious? | Kollar argues she lacked capacity due to injuries; medical expert says not knowing due to concussion. | DOT contends the medical opinion must rule out alcohol; Licensee failed to prove non-knowing refusal. | Yes; Licensee failed to prove non-knowing due to equivocal medical evidence |
| Must alcohol be ruled out as contributing factor to inability to refuse? | Licensee's injuries prevented understanding regardless of alcohol. | Doctor could not rule out alcohol; opinion insufficient to show non-knowing refusal. | Yes; lack of ruling out alcohol undermines non-knowing assertion |
| Is medical testimony alone sufficient to sustain non-knowing refusal without establishing DOT's initial burden? | Medical proof should suffice when uncontroverted by injuries. | DOT must first prove arrest, request to test, refusal, and warning; medical testimony alone cannot carry burden. | No; initial burden requires more than medical opinion, but here lack of competent evidence hampered result |
| Is Guzardi's equivocal opinion competent to preclude non-knowing finding? | Guzardi's expertise supports incapacity. | Equivocal opinion based on possibilities; cannot satisfy standard. | No; Guzardi's testimony deemed equivocal and insufficient to prove non-knowing refusal |
| Could Licensee have testified to clarify the circumstances of the refusal? | Licensee did not testify; testimony not necessary if medical proof sufficient. | Licensee could have testified but left unresolved; lack of testimony did not alter DOT burden. | No; record lacking competent evidence effective to sustain non-knowing finding |
Key Cases Cited
- Barbour v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 557 Pa. 189 (1999) (competent medical evidence required; need ruling out contributing factors to inability)
- Banner v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 558 Pa. 439 (1999) (initial burden to show DUI arrest, testing request, refusal, and warning)
- Mondini v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 875 A.2d 1192 (Pa.Cmwlth.2005) (establishes burden framework for testing refusals)
- Pappas v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 669 A.2d 504 (Pa.Cmwlth.1996) (licensee must prove refusal was not knowing or conscious)
- Zwibel v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 832 A.2d 599 (Pa.Cmwlth.2003) (requires ruling out alcohol as contributing factor)
- Dailey v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 722 A.2d 772 (Pa.Cmwlth.1999) (alcohol contribution considerations in incapacity determinations)
- DiGiovanni v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 717 A.2d 1125 (Pa.Cmwlth.1998) (balancing factors; cannot solely rely on injuries)
- Maletic v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 819 A.2d 640 (Pa.Cmwlth.2003) (medical proof standard for incapacity)
- Ostermeyer v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 703 A.2d 1075 (Pa.Cmwlth.1997) (severity of injuries can negate need for medical testimony)
- Campbell v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Pittsburgh Post Gazette), 954 A.2d 726 (Pa.Cmwlth.2008) (examines equivocal medical testimony)
- Hurley v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board, 789 A.2d 391 (Pa.Cmwlth.2001) (standard for evaluating medical opinions as a whole)