*2 Before ROBERTS, and NIX, LARSEN, FLAHERTY, HUTCHINSON, McDERMOTT JJ.
OPINION McDERMOTT, Justice. is an
This of a appeal Commonwealth Court order vacat- ing by of Public Department the Department
Welfare (“Department”) enjoining on the action him against pending from further direct brings merits this matter. now and we reverse.1 appeal D.O., participating was a Eisenberg, Irwin L. Appellee, Program in the Medical Assistance Pennsylvania provider On under Public Welfare Code.2 operating (“Program”) letter, means of September Department, in the Pro- from further suspended participation of his advising for a three gram period, year Depart- Unit of the Hearing appeal initiated (“Appeals Unit”).3 Appellee appropriate ment Unit, before the Appeals stipu- administrative proceedings be the merits of the case to concerning as to all issues lating not include any These issues did raised at the hearing. *3 of the challenge appellee Department’s constitutional in Program. from the participation suspend took how- suspension place, the on hearing appellee’s Before for relief with special filed an ever, application a challenge constitutional raising Court Commonwealth of action in As a result the action. Department’s Court, proceedings Ap- further no the record indicates that Unit were peals suspended merits has been held. on the hearing concluded that termination The Commonwealth was an Program adjudica- of appellee’s participation pursuant to the Judicial in this Court Code. 1. is vested Jurisdiction 142, 586, 2, 9, 1976, 723. July § No. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § of P.L. Act 177, 23, 2305.1, seq. 9, 1929, April 62 201 et P.L. No. P.S. § § 2. ofAct inadequate allegations on of docu- Appellee’s was based unnecessary Depart- billing medical services. for mentation read, 30, pertinent part, as September 1980 of ment’s letter follows: by requesting may Department’s a hear- decision You contest 1945, 4, June P.L. ing pursuant Law Act of to the Administrative 1388, as amended. 442, 2, 1388, 4, 1945, et 2 Pa.C.S.A. § § P.L. No. Act of June See appeal for from administrative seq. (setting the mechanism forth order). tion within the meaning Law,4 Administrative and, therefore, that entitled prior to his termination. The lower court viewed the application for as relief addressed to its special powers equitable enjoined the from further action against appel- lee. Commonwealth v. No. Eisenberg, (Com- 1473 C.D.1981 18, monwealth filed 1981)(mem. July opinion). In order, the Commonwealth challenging Court’s the De- raises two issues for our partment 1) review: whether the court below lacked the injunctive relief and grant 2) whether the Commonwealth Court concluding erred in appellee was entitled a pre-termination hearing under applicable law. agency
The Commonwealth Court’s order is an of equita- exercise ble jurisdiction imposes which an injunction on the Depart- Therefore, ment.5 the standards set forth Corp. Sameric Goss, of Market v. 448 Pa. Street (1972), must be met.6 28, 1978, April
4. Act
P.L.
No.
§
Pa.C.S.A.
et
seq.
relief,
Appellee attempts
to obviate the
for
standards
meet, by arguing
petition
which he fails to
that his
for review before
but,
prayer
Commonwealth Court was not a
for an
in-
stead, sought
prohibition,
legal remedy imposed
ofwrit
which is a
scope
when an administrative
acts outside
its authori-
ty.
Commission,
Borough
Utility
See
v.
of Akron Public
(1973),
grounds,
Pennsylva-
We are
Injunc-
have
satisfied by appellee.
not been
requirements
relief,
therefore,
granted by
should
have been
tive
initial
sought,
relief is
our
below. Where
court
whether
regarding
on the threshold question
focus should be
will not
That
appropriate.
equity
equity jurisdiction
an adequate statutorily
there is available
intervene where
law,
well established in
principle
is a
remedy at
prescribed
v. De-
Cannonsburg
Hospital
General
this Commonwealth.
DeLuca
Health,
68,
(1980);
of
492 Pa.
partment
Penn
(1975);
463 Pa.
345 A.2d
Co.,
Coal
v. Buckeye
370,
In had available appellee the instant case resorting he did not before fully pursue redress which available to statutory remedy One jurisdiction. equitable in the controversial Department’s was explained informed 1980. letter September letter of of before right appeal Hearing had a he Appel- of Public Welfare.7 of the Department Unit Appeals he remedy.8 Consequently, fully lee failed pursue shown; by damages compensable must be 1) harm not Immediate Failure greater impose harm 2) must result granted; if relief were than would occur 3) must relief be demonstrated A clear Goss, Corp. Market Street v. of See Sameric (1972). remedies, his Appellee, himself of in order to avail procedures in the Administrative set forth followed the should have Law, appeal (providing of adminis- 2 Pa.C.S.A. 501-08 §§ rulings). trative damages sought money in connection Appellee also could through brought an action Commonwealth contract with the with his under the Act amended, 193, 1, May No. as P.L. § jurisdiction seq., over which confers exclusive et Pa.C.S.A. 4651 § on the Board of involving contracts with matters Claims, Board of Claims. now the Arbitration pursuit Appellee the available administrative ceased seq., et filed an under 2 Pa.C.S.A. Unit time, raising, for the first a constitu- action Commonwealth suspend prior to Department’s power challenge of the tional hearing. *5 could not seek validly before the Commonwealth the imposition Deluca; of equitable jurisdiction. See Cannons burg General Hospital.
Nevertheless, the Commonwealth equita- Court exercised ble jurisdiction and an imposed injunction before appellee utilized the available fully legal remedies. Appellee argues that this was he proper because had raised a constitutional due to process challenge the action Department’s suspend- ing a prior hearing. Administrative agencies, appel- lee are without argues, resolve such power constitutional questions. of Green Borough See Tree Board of Property Assessments, 459 Pa. (1974). Therefore, appellee concludes, equitable relief was proper since available remedies did not legal relief a due provide process violation.
If we were to argument, it a accept would be simple matter for avoid any litigant to of an rulings administra- tive merely its a by challenging on consti- authority tutional basis. It is in an effort precisely to avoid this problem, we that held that will not consistently equity intervene where statutorily prescribed at law is remedy available without a clear showing that was remedy inadequate.9 Appellee only question raises support constitutional in of his inadequacy argument. separate allegation There was no that the statutory remedy inadequate. enough. available Borough is This is In Assessments, Property of Green Tree v. Board of (1974), A.2d we held as follows: required equitable jurisdiction additional element to confer is statutorily prescribed or, remedy either the absence of a if such a exists, showing inadequacy then a of its under the circum- stances. 459 Pa. at A.2d at Appellee seeking Program yet reinstatement in the he does allege Appeals power not by Unit lacks lift his Furthermore, Department. appellee view the fact that strenuously against charges, asserts that he has valid defenses these why sought we are he left wonder before his seq. under 2 Pa.C.S.A. 101 et held. Assum- ing that the Unit had the to reinstate defenses, accepting appellee possessed the notion that valid we must advantage thwarting conclude that saw the administra- process by resorting equity tive matter, do not decide the merits of
In the instant we *6 to Rather we refuse argument. constitutional appellee’s available remedies allow intervene where equity a lack of exhausted and where there is not been of these remedies. The sufficient to the challenge adequacy weakened administrative should not be process by unpredict- of those circumstances able intrusions in the absence judicial prerequisites which this Court has indicated are necessary such interference. See Samerie. below, The court there- to exercise or fore, equitable jurisdiction was without power relief. impose we have answered in the the threshold negative
Because below had the as to whether the court question we need not address the jurisdiction, exercise equitable merits of second contention which appellant’s challenges 101 Commonwealth Court’s of interpretation Sections 504 of the Administrative Law. Agency
Moreover, be no if were our conclusion would different we decide, Court, that the as did Commonwealth equita- ble of that court were invoked. powers properly Assuming in the that the termination of Pro- appellee’s participation constituted an within gram adjudication meaning Law,10 of the Administrative we are Agency 504 Section to the conclude, Com- compelled contrary holding that no is re- hearing monwealth pre-termination quired. in a case the same issue: raising
As we stated recently Unit, disadvantage pursuing by legal remedy provided with the statute. Whatever accordance may choice, adequate appellee’s they for do not offer be reasons justification judicial process. interference with Agency provides fol- 10. Section 504 of the Administrative Law as lows: adjudication of a shall be valid as to No any party hearing reasonable notice of a unless he shall have been afforded testimony opportunity to be heard. All shall be record shall be stenographically complete full and recorded and a kept proceedings. of the 2 Pa.C.S.A. 504.
537
This due process
has
been met
a full administra-
tive hearing accorded to
before
appellees
Hearing
Appeals Unit of
Department].
[the
. . . Due Process does not
require
appellees [be]
afforded a pre-termination
Mathews v.
hearing.
Eldridge,
319,
U.S.
893,
S.Ct.
Commonwealth v. Forbes Health System, Pa. A.2d 486 (1980) (emphasis also, supplied). See Philadel- phia Twer, School District v. A.2d 227 (1982). The procedures provided the Administrative Law with the comport requirements due process. *7 the order of
Accordingly, the Commonwealth Court is reversed.
ROBERTS, J., files a concurring in which opinion LARSEN, FLAHERTY and HUTCHIN- SON, JJ., join.
FLAHERTY, J., files a concurring opinion which HUTCHINSON, J., joins.
ROBERTS, Justice, concurring.
The must be aside, set not because the Com- monwealth Court lacked jurisdiction, but because appellee has failed to demonstrate any constitutional or statutory infirmities with to the respect administrative remedies avail- able to contest his suspension. I concur in Accordingly, judgment only.
The of Mr. Justice opinion McDermott states the issue in this case to be “whether the court below lacked the power to grant relief.” At 514. The opinion concludes that, because the Department of Public Welfare provides procedure which through could ultimately have had lifted, his his failure to suspension exhaust available admin- istrative remedies precluded the Commonwealth Court from entertaining challenges of those validity remedies. interfere courts should not prematurely
Although
an un
or excuse
proceedings
with
ongoing
them,
see
General
justified
pursue
Canonsburg
failure
Health,
INSON, JJ., join this concurring opinion.
FLAHERTY, Justice, concurring.
I concur in the result McDermott, reached Mr. Justice and his it reasoning insofar as denies resort to equitable relief under the circumstance where appellee has remedies, exhausted available statutory which, at least instance, in the first were not shown to be inadequate suffered, wit, harm underlying termination of appellee’s participation Medical Assist- Pennsylvania Program. ance In a case, proper however, which due at stake and in process which there is an inadequacy the statutory would remedy, equity certainly jurisdic- tion to intervene.
HUTCHINSON, J., joins. A.2d DISTRICT, Appellant,
FAIRVIEW SCHOOL Pennsylvania, COMMONWEALTH of UNEMPLOYMENT REVIEW, Appellee, COMPENSATION BOARD OF Douglas Laymen, Decker, Huzinec, Winifred K. W. Dennis Byler Wildauer, Suzanne W. Richard Intervenors.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Argued Oct.
Decided Dec.