S.D. v. DHS
1814 C.D. 2015
Pa. Commw. Ct.Aug 9, 2016Background
- In Feb. 2008 S.D. was listed as a perpetrator on Pennsylvania’s ChildLine registry; the Department mailed notice on May 5, 2008 denying her request to expunge and informing her she had 45 days to request a hearing in writing.
- S.D. did not submit a written appeal within 45 days; she later testified she called by telephone to appeal but could not recall details.
- Department witnesses testified ChildLine does not accept oral appeals and has no record of any phone appeal by S.D.
- S.D. sent a written request to expunge the listing on June 8, 2015 (well beyond the 45‑day deadline); the ALJ dismissed the appeal as untimely and denied nunc pro tunc relief.
- The Bureau of Hearings and Appeals adopted the ALJ’s recommendation; S.D. appealed to the Commonwealth Court, which affirmed on Aug. 9, 2016.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether S.D. filed a timely appeal | S.D. says she timely appealed by telephone within 45 days | Dept. says appeals must be filed in writing and postmarked within 45 days; telephone call is not a filing | Held: Appeal untimely—telephone call did not satisfy statutory/regulatory filing requirement |
| Whether nunc pro tunc relief is warranted | S.D. argues the May 5, 2008 letter (which included a phone number) misled her and caused a breakdown in administrative process | Dept. argues the letter unambiguously required a written appeal and phone number was only for questions; no procedural breakdown | Held: No nunc pro tunc relief—no breakdown; letter plainly required written, postmarked appeal |
| Whether Department’s procedures deprived S.D. of due process | S.D. implies notice was misleading causing deprivation | Dept. shows standard procedures were followed and notice was adequate | Held: No violation—notice was adequate and followed standard procedures |
| Availability of later remedies to challenge listing | S.D. sought to avoid limitation bar | Dept. notes statutory mechanisms exist for showing "good cause" to amend/expunge later | Held: Court affirmed denial of late hearing request but noted statute allows amendment/expungement upon good cause at any time |
Key Cases Cited
- J.C. v. Department of Public Welfare, 720 A.2d 193 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998) (standards for allowing nunc pro tunc appeals: fraud, administrative breakdown, or non‑negligent circumstances)
- G.M. v. Department of Public Welfare, 957 A.2d 377 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (scope of appellate review for agency adjudications)