M.O. Matthew v. SCSC (Dept. of Health)
1563 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Sep 6, 2017Background
- Marina Matthew served as Director of the Bureau of Health Statistics & Research (BHSR) (non‑civil‑service) and later as WIC Bureau Director (civil‑service); she approved numerous VitalChek work orders for DAVE software enhancements in 2013–2014.
- VitalChek provided standard maintenance under a DELL contract and was a pre‑qualified ITQ vendor for enhancements; enhancements beyond those contracts required a separate purchase order from BIT.
- BIT testimony and documentary evidence showed no purchase orders or effective contract covered the specific enhancements Matthew approved; Matthew instructed VitalChek to proceed and to invoice after a Proposed Contract was in effect.
- Department investigators found Matthew approved ~47 work orders totaling $557,252 without a contract/purchase order, attempted alternate payments (purchase card, invoice splitting), and delayed invoicing at her request.
- Department suspended and then removed Matthew for unsatisfactory performance and procurement policy violations; the State Civil Service Commission sustained removal and this Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Matthew's Argument | Department's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dept. proved Matthew authorized vendor work without a contract | Matthew: contracts (DELL/ITQ) existed and covered VitalChek; Commission lacked substantial evidence | Dept.: neither DELL nor ITQ covered these specific enhancements; no purchase orders existed and Matthew told VitalChek to proceed | Held: Substantial evidence supports that Matthew authorized work without a contract |
| Whether Matthew’s actions violated procurement rules / contract requirements | Matthew: did not knowingly violate policy; relied on project manager/standard practices | Dept.: she knew purchase orders were required, attempted workarounds (card, invoice delays), and instructed vendor to wait to bill | Held: Violations established; procurement policy breached |
| Whether Matthew was responsible for procurement oversight | Matthew: relied on third‑party project manager (Caruso) and BIT; she merely signed work orders | Dept.: BHSR (and Matthew) managed enhancements and payment process; BIT was excluded | Held: Matthew was responsible; record shows she controlled approvals and payment decisions |
| Whether Commission erred by not making findings about Caruso’s role | Matthew: lack of specific findings about Caruso undermines decision | Dept.: Caruso was a contractor with no authority to obligate funds; Commission not required to resolve every subsidiary fact | Held: No reversible error; Caruso’s contractor status and limits are in record and do not alter outcome |
| Whether Commission failed to consider Matthew’s 24‑year work history | Matthew: long, exemplary record should mitigate removal | Dept.: prior record considered but outweighed by scope/duration of misconduct | Held: Prior good record was considered by decisionmakers; removal was justified given magnitude of lapse |
| Whether removal from civil‑service job was improper for acts in non‑civil‑service role | Matthew: misconduct occurred in a non‑civil post and cannot justify removal from lower civil post | Dept.: fitness and competence are merit‑related; misconduct in prior role can render employee unfit | Held: Permissible — misconduct in non‑civil position that demonstrates unfitness supports removal from civil‑service position |
| Whether Commission’s adjudication was arbitrary and capricious | Matthew: decision ignores evidence and is capricious | Dept.: findings are supported by substantial evidence and proper discretion was exercised | Held: Not arbitrary or capricious; deference to Commission upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Perry v. State Civil Serv. Comm’n, 38 A.3d 942 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (Commission is sole fact‑finder; appellate review limited)
- Szablowski v. State Civil Serv. Comm’n, 111 A.3d 256 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (just cause is largely department discretion)
- Wei v. State Civil Serv. Comm’n, 961 A.2d 254 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (just cause must be merit‑related and rationally connected to competence)
- Woods v. State Civil Serv. Comm’n, 912 A.2d 803 (Pa. 2006) (interpretive guidance on just‑cause standard)
- Manson v. State Civil Serv. Comm’n, 4 A.3d 1106 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (cause must be personal to employee and render them unfit)
- Kiskadden v. Pa. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., 149 A.3d 380 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (findings need not address every allegation; review for substantial evidence)