Mohamed v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation
40 A.3d 1186
| Pa. | 2012Background
- Mohamed, a certified emission inspector, was accused by PennDOT of faulty inspections and improper recordkeeping after a May 2, 2007 audit at Keystone Auto Sales & Repairs.
- PennDOT suspended Mohamed’s emission inspector certification for two years (one year for each violation) to run consecutively, and notified him he could appeal to the court specified by statute.
- Mohamed did not appeal as directed; he petitioned for review in Commonwealth Court alleging jurisdiction under the Administrative Agency Law (AAL).
- Commonwealth Court treated the matter as an appeal under 42 Pa.C.S. § 763 and § 933, transferring the case to Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas.
- Majority held that 42 Pa.C.S. § 763 and § 933 do not vest Commonwealth Court with jurisdiction over Section 4726(c) appeals, reversing and remanding for an AAL-style hearing in the Commonwealth Court?
- This Court, exercising extraordinary jurisdiction, determined the Commonwealth Court erred in treating the 4726(c) appeal as within its subject-matter jurisdiction and remanded to the Commonwealth Court to conduct the administrative hearing consistent with the AAL.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 4726(c) appeals lie in common pleas court or Commonwealth Court | Mohamed argued 4726(c) is outside § 933’s list and falls under § 763, i.e., Commonwealth Court. | PennDOT argued practical symmetry and intent that common pleas hear mechanic appeals despite absence from § 933. | Commonwealth Court erred; jurisdiction should be in common pleas court for a de novo AAL-like hearing. |
| Whether the omission of 4726(c) from § 933(a)(1)(ii) is an inadvertent oversight justifying expansion by court | Language is plain; no need for canons of construction. | Omission was an oversight that the court could not fix; jurisdiction should be limited to listed categories. | Statutory text is unambiguous; omission should not be judicially supplied; remand for proper AAL hearing. |
| Whether the majority’s reliance on latent ambiguity/ symmetry is appropriate | The plain language should govern; no latent ambiguity. | Latent ambiguity exists; symmetry justifies reallocation of jurisdiction. | Rejected; majority correctly concluded no latent ambiguity requiring reallocation. |
| Whether the procedure creates an absurd or unconstitutional two-trial system | De novo hearing in common pleas followed by potential further review conflicts with Article V, §9. | Process serves efficiency and consistency for related suspensions. | Concurring opinions dispute absurdity; the majority’s result is not required to avoid absurdity. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth ex rel. Cartwright v. Cartwright, 350 Pa. 638, 40 A.2d 30 (Pa. 1944) (Pa. 1944) (limits on interpreting legislative language; courts should not add omissions.)
- Commonwealth v. Tarbert, 517 Pa. 277, 535 A.2d 1035 (Pa. 1987) (Pa. 1987) (strong warning against adding omitted terms; plain language governs.)
- Pennsylvania Turnpike Comm’n v. Sanders & Thomas, Inc., 461 Pa. 420, 336 A.2d 609 (Pa. 1975) (Pa. 1975) (statutory structure may permit non-symmetrical schemes without absurdity.)
- Snyder v. Dep’t of Transp., Pa.Cmwlth. 2009 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2009) (common practice of consolidating related appeals but not controlling here.)
- Mihadas v. Dep’t of Transp., Pa.Cmwlth. 1999 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1999) (recognizes direct Commonwealth Court review in some mechanics cases.)
- Oliver v. City of Pittsburgh, 11 A.3d 960, 971 (Pa. 2011) (Pa. 2011) (statutory construction principles; use of plain language when unambiguous.)