SEIU Healthcare Pennsylvania v. Commonwealth, 104 A.3d 495

Background

In 2013 the Pennsylvania Department of Health (DOH) announced a reorganization that would close 26 of 60 State Health Centers and furlough ~26 nurse consultants.
SEIU (labor org.), five nurses, and five state legislators sued in Commonwealth Court seeking a preliminary injunction to stop the closures and furloughs, alleging violation of 71 P.S. § 1403(c)(1) (part of Act 87).
Section 1403(c)(1) states, with limited exception for a now-expired pilot, that the DOH “shall operate those public State health centers and provide at a minimum those public health services in effect as of July 1, 1995,” and that the DOH shall not contract with private providers in a way that would eliminate centers or reduce services.
Commonwealth Court denied a TRO and later denied the preliminary injunction without detailed findings, concluding the statute did not bar the Executive Branch from changing how it provides services.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reviewed de novo whether SEIU showed a clear right to relief and satisfied the six prerequisites for a preliminary injunction, and found the statute unambiguous in requiring the DOH to operate the same number of centers and provide at least the 1995 level of services.
Supreme Court reversed the Commonwealth Court, held SEIU likely to succeed on the merits, found irreparable harm, and issued a preliminary injunction restoring the status quo (maintain number of centers and service level as of July 1, 1995). Justice Eakin dissented.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (SEIU)	Defendant's Argument (Executive Branch)	Held
Statutory scope of 71 P.S. § 1403(c)(1) — does it require maintaining number of centers and service levels as of 7/1/1995?	"Shall operate those public State health centers" and "provide at a minimum those public health services in effect as of July 1, 1995" is plain and mandatory; DOH must keep the same number of centers and minimum services unless legislature amends statute.	The provision only prevents privatization-related eliminations; it does not bar the DOH from reorganizing or changing number/locations/employees so long as services continue under a different delivery method.	Held for SEIU: statute is unambiguous and mandates operation of the centers and minimum services in effect on 7/1/1995; Executive cannot implement the closures without legislative change.
Likelihood of success / clear right to relief for preliminary injunction	SEIU likely to succeed because statutory text plainly prohibits reductions in number of centers or services.	Executive argues SEIU unlikely to prevail because statute forbids only privatization-driven eliminations and allows operational discretion.	Held for SEIU: clear right to relief; Commonwealth Court misread statute.
Irreparable harm requirement for preliminary injunction	Violation of a statutory mandate constitutes irreparable harm per precedent; closing centers and furloughs would irreparably injure public services.	No statutory violation (per Exec); alleged harm is policy/economic and compensable; injunction would harm budgetary interests.	Held for SEIU: statutory violation shown → irreparable harm established.
Public interest / balance of harms	Maintaining statutory minimum services and centers serves public interest; refusal causes greater injury.	Injunction would impede DOH’s ability to reorganize, produce greater harm to public health and fiscal stability.	Held for SEIU: maintaining status quo (1995 baseline) protects public interest; greater harm from refusing injunction.

Key Cases Cited

Summit Towne Centre, Inc. v. Shoe Show of Rocky Mount, Inc., 828 A.2d 995 (Pa. 2003) (standard of appellate review and prerequisites for preliminary injunction)
Warehime v. Warehime, 860 A.2d 41 (Pa. 2004) (enumeration of six prerequisites for preliminary injunction)
Fischer v. Dep’t of Public Welfare, 439 A.2d 1172 (Pa. 1982) (standard for establishing clear right to relief for injunctions)
Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission v. Israel, 52 A.2d 317 (Pa. 1947) (when legislature declares conduct unlawful, continuing it may be irreparable injury)
Commonwealth v. Coward, 414 A.2d 91 (Pa. 1980) (statutory violation supports finding of irreparable injury)
County of Allegheny v. Commonwealth, 490 A.2d 402 (Pa. 1985) (denial of preliminary injunction may be reversed for erroneous application of law)