Naylor v. Commonwealth
54 A.3d 429
Pa. Commw. Ct.2012Background
- Petitioners allege the Department reduced SSP payments without proper rulemaking procedures.
- SSP are state supplements for low-income SSI recipients; reductions announced by bulletin.
- 55 Pa.Code § 299.37 states revisions will be published for codification in Appendix A.
- Department argues § 299.37 is valid and reductions fall under notice pursuant to existing regulation.
- Court must determine if § 299.37 is a valid binding regulation and if notice suffices.
- Court grants Department summary relief and dismisses petition, denying petitioners’ relief with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is § 299.37 a valid binding regulation? | Naylor argues § 299.37 circumvents rulemaking. | Department contends § 299.37 is valid, within power, properly promulgated. | Yes; § 299.37 is valid and binding. |
| Can SSP reductions be made by notice without new regulation? | Reductions require formal rulemaking; notice alone is inadequate. | Notice under § 299.37 suffices to announce reductions. | Yes; reductions may be announced by notice under § 299.37. |
| Did the Department need to comply with Commonwealth Documents Law, Regulatory Review Act, and Commonwealth Attorneys Act for the notice? | Notice violated mandatory procedural rules. | Not required; notice is authorized by § 299.37. | No additional compliance required for the notice. |
| Does the Code grant the Department authority to set SSP amounts without strict regulatory promulgation? | Code mandates formal rulemaking for changes. | Code grants consideration factors; § 299.37 provides mechanism. | Code allows establishment via mechanism authorized by § 299.37. |
Key Cases Cited
- Germantown Cab Co. v. Philadelphia Parking Auth., 993 A.2d 933 (Pa.Cmwlth.2010) (mandatory formal rulemaking generally required; limited exceptions exist)
- Northwestern Youth Servs., Inc. v. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 1 A.3d 988 (Pa.Cmwlth.2010) (binding vs. nonbinding agency pronouncements; binding norm factors)
- Burstein v. Prudential Property & Cas. Ins. Co., 570 Pa. 177, 809 A.2d 204 (Pa. 2002) (regulation reasonableness and deference to agency interpretations)
- Rohrbaugh v. Pa. Pub. Utility Comm’n, 556 Pa. 199, 727 A.2d 1080 (Pa. 1999) (regulatory validity framework: power, procedure, reasonableness)
- Popowsky v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 589 Pa. 605, 910 A.2d 38 (Pa. 2006) (statutory interpretation and regulatory authority considerations)
- Philadelphia Suburban Corp. v. Bd. of Finance and Revenue, 535 Pa. 298, 635 A.2d 116 (Pa. 1993) (interpretation of regulatory actions and deference to agency)