M. Wei v. SCSC (Dept. of Health)
1902 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Sep 1, 2017Background
- Ming Wei, a former epidemiologist/data manager at the Pennsylvania Department of Health, was discharged in 2007 for insubordination and unsatisfactory work performance for failing to complete a backlog HARS (HIV/AIDS) data conversion assignment.
- The State Civil Service Commission dismissed Wei’s appeal in 2008 after a hearing that credited Department testimony that Wei had responsibility for and failed to complete the conversion task.
- Wei appealed to this Court (Wei I), which affirmed the Commission’s findings and denial of various procedural claims (including interpreter request). He later filed federal and state suits; portions remain unresolved but are separate from these administrative proceedings.
- Wei filed a motion to reopen the Commission’s administrative record based on alleged newly discovered evidence in December 2014; the Commission denied the motion and this Court affirmed (Wei II).
- Wei filed a second motion to reopen in September 2016 asserting additional documents and “admissions” from his federal case; the Commission denied it as containing no evidence unavailable at the time of his prior motion and deemed it frivolous. Wei appealed and also sought sanctions; the Court affirmed the Commission and denied sanctions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Commission abused discretion in denying Wei’s second motion to reopen based on newly discovered evidence | Wei: new documents and federal-case interrogatory responses contradict Department testimony and were unavailable earlier, so record should be reopened | Commission/Department: evidence was available or not newly discovered; rules do not permit reopening after adjudication except for truly new, undiscoverable evidence | Denied — no abuse of discretion; documents were available earlier or are newly created post-hearing, so they do not justify reopening |
| Whether GRAPP and Civil Service Act permit reopening after adjudication | Wei: procedural rules and federal admissions justify reopening | Commission: GRAPP permits reopening for additional evidence only before adjudication; no statutory basis to reopen after final order | Held for Commission — reopening after adjudication is not authorized absent material change of fact or law occurring after hearing |
| Whether Department fraudulently concealed documents from Wei | Wei: Department concealed emails/meeting minutes and quashed a subpoena, preventing discovery | Department: Wei had access to or participated in many communications; Wei failed to show concealment or unavailability | Held for Department — Wei did not show fraud or that evidence was unavailable at hearing; claims are relitigation of prior rulings |
| Whether sanctions against Department are warranted for alleged false statements | Wei: Department falsified statements and mischaracterized facts, warranting sanctions | Department: appellate proceedings governed by Pa. R.A.P.; Wei’s allegations do not meet sanctions standards | Denied — no legal basis or sufficient showing for sanctions |
Key Cases Cited
- Fritz v. Department of Transportation, 468 A.2d 538 (Pa. 1983) (agency reopening standard; discretion reviewed for abuse)
- Shoemaker v. State Employes’ Retirement Board, 688 A.2d 751 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) (reopening requires material change or evidence not discoverable before hearing)
- Commonwealth, Department of Justice v. State Civil Service Commission, 319 A.2d 692 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1974) (GRAPP limits reopening to pre-adjudication requests)
- Wei v. State Civil Service Commission (Department of Health), 961 A.2d 254 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (affirming Commission’s 2008 adjudication and evidentiary findings)
- Seltzer v. Department of Education, 782 A.2d 48 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001) (procedural error without demonstrated prejudice does not warrant disturbing agency adjudication)