<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?><rss xmlns:atom='http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom' xmlns:openSearch='http://a9.com/-/spec/opensearchrss/1.0/' xmlns:georss='http://www.georss.org/georss' version='2.0'><channel><atom:id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12180398</atom:id><lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Dec 2009 20:45:57 +0000</lastBuildDate><title>PLAN Legal Update</title><description>Legal news and information from the Pennsylvania Legal Aid Network.</description><link>http://palegalservices.org/update/</link><managingEditor>noreply@blogger.com (PLAN Legal Updates)</managingEditor><generator>Blogger</generator><openSearch:totalResults>787</openSearch:totalResults><openSearch:startIndex>1</openSearch:startIndex><openSearch:itemsPerPage>25</openSearch:itemsPerPage><item><guid isPermaLink='false'>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12180398.post-2593773655140067619</guid><pubDate>Thu, 10 Dec 2009 14:35:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-12-10T09:36:57.109-05:00</atom:updated><title>admin. law - appeal - final adjudication</title><atom:summary type='text'>NHS Human Services v. DPW - December 8, 2009 -  Commonwealth Court  http://origin-www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Cwealth/out/347CD09_12-8-09.pdfIn holding a warning was not a final adjudiction under the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C.S. §§ 501-508, 701-704, the Court said that an "An adjudication is defined as 'Any final order, decree, decision, determination or ruling by an agency </atom:summary><link>http://palegalservices.org/update/2009/12/admin-law-appeal-final-adjudication.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Donald Marritz)</author></item><item><guid isPermaLink='false'>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12180398.post-6609190089446881618</guid><pubDate>Thu, 10 Dec 2009 14:33:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-12-10T09:34:13.378-05:00</atom:updated><title>UC - voluntary quit - racial discrimination</title><atom:summary type='text'>Atlas Machining and Welding v. UCBR - December 8, 2009 - Cmwlth. Court - unreported memorandum opinion http://origin-www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Cwealth/out/651CD09_12-8-09.pdf The court affirmed a Board decision finding that an African-American claimant had good cause to quit because of racial harassment, including racial slurs by a co-worker and foreman and several instances of his finding</atom:summary><link>http://palegalservices.org/update/2009/12/uc-voluntary-quit-racial-discrimination.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Donald Marritz)</author></item><item><guid isPermaLink='false'>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12180398.post-4461084758808954333</guid><pubDate>Sun, 06 Dec 2009 22:26:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-12-06T17:27:07.386-05:00</atom:updated><title>housing - code enforcement - illegal search - civil rights</title><atom:summary type='text'>Ciarlone v. City of Reading - ED Pa - November 18, 2009 http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/09d1382p.pdf Apartment owner and several tenants brought sec. 1983 action against city, code enforcement officer, et al. for unlawful inspection  of premises by forced actions -- including breaking into apartments with sledge hammer -- without any warrant or notice to owner or tenants. </atom:summary><link>http://palegalservices.org/update/2009/12/housing-code-enforcement-illegal-search.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Donald Marritz)</author></item><item><guid isPermaLink='false'>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12180398.post-5150754171010975693</guid><pubDate>Sun, 06 Dec 2009 22:23:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-12-06T17:24:33.671-05:00</atom:updated><title>consumer - natl. banks - gift card - state UDAP claims - no pre-emption</title><atom:summary type='text'>Mwantembe, et al. v. TD Bank, et al. - ED PA - November 17, 2009 http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/09d1375p.pdf Plaintiff brought class action on behalf of Pennsylvania residents who held or hold gift cards sold by the defendants, assert causes of action under Pennsylvania law for violations of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (“UTPCPL”), 73 P.S. §§ 201-2(3), </atom:summary><link>http://palegalservices.org/update/2009/12/consumer-natl-banks-gift-card-state.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Donald Marritz)</author></item><item><guid isPermaLink='false'>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12180398.post-5593410626991214186</guid><pubDate>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 15:27:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-12-04T10:36:17.434-05:00</atom:updated><title>UC - appeal - lack of jurisdiction</title><atom:summary type='text'> Pa. Turpike Commission v. UCBR - Cmwlth. Court - December 3, 2009 - unreported memorandum opinion http://origin-www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Cwealth/out/1104CD09_12-3-09.pdf The court upheld a UCBR decision that a UC Service Center did not have jurisdiction to issue an amended financial determination, finding claimant ineligible under sec. 1002(11) (policy-making services excluded from "</atom:summary><link>http://palegalservices.org/update/2009/12/uc-appeal-lack-of-jurisdiction.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Donald Marritz)</author></item><item><guid isPermaLink='false'>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12180398.post-8434417677162195989</guid><pubDate>Thu, 03 Dec 2009 15:50:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-12-03T10:53:11.570-05:00</atom:updated><title>admin. law - regulations - type, adoption, validity</title><atom:summary type='text'>Slippery Rock School District v. UCBR - Pennsylvania Supreme Court - November 30, 2009http://origin-www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Supreme/out/J-72-2009mo.pdf This case concerns the adoption by the Pennsylvania Dept. of Labor and Industry (DOLI) of a UC regulation concerning benefits for teachers and other educ. employees, who are disqualified from receiving benefits if they have a "reasonable </atom:summary><link>http://palegalservices.org/update/2009/12/admin-law-regulations-type-adoption.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Donald Marritz)</author></item><item><guid isPermaLink='false'>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12180398.post-6506742918653691607</guid><pubDate>Wed, 02 Dec 2009 16:47:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-12-02T11:47:53.332-05:00</atom:updated><title>contracts - student handbook</title><atom:summary type='text'>Tran v. State System of Higher Eduction - Cmwlth. Court - December 2, 2009http://origin-www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Cwealth/out/1912CD08_12-2-09.pdfNursing student at state university sued school for improperly dismissing her from the program, in violation of the terms set out in the student handbook.The court held that the handbook "does not constitute a bilateral contract by which the </atom:summary><link>http://palegalservices.org/update/2009/12/contracts-student-handbook_02.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Donald Marritz)</author></item><item><guid isPermaLink='false'>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12180398.post-2482014117230810367</guid><pubDate>Wed, 02 Dec 2009 15:59:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-12-02T11:48:41.076-05:00</atom:updated><title>execution - entireties property</title><atom:summary type='text'>State Farm v. Lincow - ED Pa. - December 1, 2009 (decision of magistrate judge)http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/09D1420P.pdfThe property at issue -- season tickets to the Philadelphia Eagles -- is not the sort that our clients are likely to have, but the principles involved are very important and relevant.The creditor got a judgment against husband and began execution on Eagles </atom:summary><link>http://palegalservices.org/update/2009/12/execution-entireties-property.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Donald Marritz)</author></item><item><guid isPermaLink='false'>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12180398.post-4711760384437055826</guid><pubDate>Tue, 01 Dec 2009 17:12:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-12-01T12:14:11.488-05:00</atom:updated><title>UC - reasonable assurance - economic equivalency</title><atom:summary type='text'>Slippery Rock School District v. UCBR - Pa. Supreme Court - November 30, 2009 http://origin-www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Supreme/out/J-72-2009mo.pdfFormer long-term substitute teacher who was offered only day-to-day position in the ensuing school year did not have "reasonable assurance" of continuing employment and was thus eligible for UC benefits when laid off from the long-term </atom:summary><link>http://palegalservices.org/update/2009/12/uc-reasonable-assurance-economic_4236.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Donald Marritz)</author></item><item><guid isPermaLink='false'>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12180398.post-3553303712439330578</guid><pubDate>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 21:37:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-11-30T16:37:40.603-05:00</atom:updated><title>consumer - arbitration clause</title><atom:summary type='text'>Kaneff v. Delaware Title Loan - 3d Cir. - November 24, 2009 http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/081007p.pdf This case involves a personal loan for $550 on which the plaintiff's car was collateral.  Over a 6-month period, plaintiff paid over $800 but still owed over more than $700 on this loan, on which the interest rate was 300%.  After a series of unfortunate events, including repossession, </atom:summary><link>http://palegalservices.org/update/2009/11/consumer-arbitration-clause.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Donald Marritz)</author></item><item><guid isPermaLink='false'>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12180398.post-7196062572509790930</guid><pubDate>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:17:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-11-24T12:17:34.214-05:00</atom:updated><title>PFA - "family/household member" - grandfather of plaintiff's child</title><atom:summary type='text'>Slusser v. DeBoer - Superior Court - November 23, 2009 http://origin-www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Superior/out/a26039_09.pdf PFA order properly granted PFA order to mother of defendant's grandchild.  Defendant was a "family or household member" under the Act. The court rejected grandfather's argument that his relationship to the mother of his grandchild does not fit within any of the </atom:summary><link>http://palegalservices.org/update/2009/11/pfa-familyhousehold-member-grandfather.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Donald Marritz)</author></item><item><guid isPermaLink='false'>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12180398.post-4721719831022364287</guid><pubDate>Tue, 17 Nov 2009 15:17:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-11-17T10:18:36.290-05:00</atom:updated><title>child abuse - dependency - appeal - aggrieved party</title><atom:summary type='text'>In the Interest of J.G., a minor - Superior Court - November 13, 2009http://origin-www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Cwealth/out/1948CD08_11-17-09.pdfCounty child welfare agency (CWA) was not an "aggrived party" under PRAP 501 and did not have standing to appeal a lower court decision holding that the subject child was dependent, but failing to specify that the child's parents had committed the </atom:summary><link>http://palegalservices.org/update/2009/11/child-abuse-dependency-appeal-aggrieved.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Donald Marritz)</author></item><item><guid isPermaLink='false'>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12180398.post-7030124958529179932</guid><pubDate>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 21:46:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-11-16T16:47:36.365-05:00</atom:updated><title>UC - referee performance - backlog</title><atom:summary type='text'>Horwitz v. Dept. of Labor and Industry - Cmwlth. Court - November 16, 2009 - unreported memorandum decisionhttp://origin-www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Cwealth/out/221CD09_11-16-09.pdfUC referee's challenge to his employee performance report (EPR) rejected, holding that there was no discrimination against him based on non-merit factors.The EPR essentially reflects the Department’s conclusion </atom:summary><link>http://palegalservices.org/update/2009/11/uc-referee-performance-backlog.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Donald Marritz)</author></item><item><guid isPermaLink='false'>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12180398.post-1031950548701690363</guid><pubDate>Fri, 13 Nov 2009 16:35:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-11-13T11:35:58.501-05:00</atom:updated><title>UC - voluntary quit - personal preference v. necessitous and compelling reason</title><atom:summary type='text'>Dopson v. UCBR - Cmwlth. Court - November 13, 2009http://origin-www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Cwealth/out/1129CD09_11-13-09.pdfClaimant requested an FMLA leave to go to South Carolina to help care for the young child of her son and daughter-in-law, who were finishing students teaching study for medical board tests, respectively.  The court held that "Claimant did not quit her job to rejoin a </atom:summary><link>http://palegalservices.org/update/2009/11/uc-voluntary-quit-personal-preference-v.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Donald Marritz)</author></item><item><guid isPermaLink='false'>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12180398.post-5798665266319311247</guid><pubDate>Fri, 13 Nov 2009 16:22:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-11-13T11:24:16.823-05:00</atom:updated><title>housing - disability - reasonable accommodation</title><atom:summary type='text'>Solivan v. Valley Housing Development Corp. - ED Pa. - November 9, 2009http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/09D1355P.pdfThis case involved a plaintiff-tenant's claims against a sec. 8 landlord for, inter alia, failure to reasonably accommodate her disability in the leasing of an apartment.  For the most part, the Court rejected the defendant's motion for summary judgment, as follows:</atom:summary><link>http://palegalservices.org/update/2009/11/housing-disability-reasonable.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Donald Marritz)</author></item><item><guid isPermaLink='false'>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12180398.post-2381628451742369154</guid><pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 15:07:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-11-11T10:11:47.646-05:00</atom:updated><title>disability - ALJ duty to a) order consultative exams and b) to develop the record</title><atom:summary type='text'>Poleck v. Astrue - ED Pa. - November 9, 2009http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/09D1349P.pdfThe Magistrate Judge found that the ALJ failed to fully articulate his reasons for denying plaintiff's claims regarding his alleged heart impairment and carpal tunnel syndrome and recommended that these claims be remanded for further consideration by the Commissioner. Plaintiff appealed, </atom:summary><link>http://palegalservices.org/update/2009/11/disability-alj-duty-to-order.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Donald Marritz)</author></item><item><guid isPermaLink='false'>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12180398.post-3102104941139592359</guid><pubDate>Thu, 05 Nov 2009 15:47:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-11-05T10:49:08.537-05:00</atom:updated><title>drivers license - refusal to take chemical test - location of request/refusal - silence</title><atom:summary type='text'>Deal v. PennDOT - Cmwtlh. Court - November 5, 2009 - unpublished memorandum opinionhttp://origin-www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Cwealth/out/344CD09_11-5-09.pdfsilence - In Broadbelt v. DOT, 903 A.2d 636 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006), our court determined that the licensee’s silence when asked to submit to chemical testing after having been read the DL-26 form, constituted a refusal in violation of Section</atom:summary><link>http://palegalservices.org/update/2009/11/drivers-license-refusal-to-take.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Donald Marritz)</author></item><item><guid isPermaLink='false'>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12180398.post-5811458302500187064</guid><pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2009 14:52:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-10-29T10:53:39.531-04:00</atom:updated><title>drivers license - refusal to take chemical test - knowing refusal - influence of prescr. drug and head injury</title><atom:summary type='text'>Sitoski v. PennDOT - Cmwlth. Court - October 29, 2009http://origin-www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Cwealth/out/431CD09_10-29-09.pdfIf a licensee takes a prescription drug, knowing its side effects, and then sustains a head injury in an accident, the licensee can establish an inability to make a knowing and conscious refusal by presenting expert medical testimony that the head injury played a </atom:summary><link>http://palegalservices.org/update/2009/10/drivers-license-refusal-to-take.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Donald Marritz)</author></item><item><guid isPermaLink='false'>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12180398.post-6475989534387126642</guid><pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2009 14:41:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-10-29T10:42:23.549-04:00</atom:updated><title>child abuse - expungement - founded report - finality of appeal</title><atom:summary type='text'>LC v. DPW - Cmwlth. Court - October 29, 2009http://origin-www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Cwealth/out/189CD09_10-29-09.pdfDPW was not required to wait until appellant's criminal appeals were finally resolved to list him as an abuser in a "founded" report.  Section 6303 of the Child Protective Services Law defines “founded report” as a child abuse report made pursuant to “any judicial </atom:summary><link>http://palegalservices.org/update/2009/10/child-abuse-expungement-founded-report.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Donald Marritz)</author></item><item><guid isPermaLink='false'>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12180398.post-871502716785931445</guid><pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2009 14:11:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-11-10T09:15:30.113-05:00</atom:updated><title>RESPA - anti-kickback provision - private right of action - no overcharge allegation requiredd</title><atom:summary type='text'>Alston et al. v. Countrywide Financial Corp. - 3d Cir. - October 28, 2009http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/084334p.pdfThis is a class action brought by homebuyers who sought to recover statutory treble damages pursuant to §8(d)(2) of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 (“RESPA”), 12 U.S.C. § 2607(d)(2).Plaintiffs alleged that their private mortgage insurance premiums were </atom:summary><link>http://palegalservices.org/update/2009/10/respa-ani-kickback-provision-private.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Donald Marritz)</author></item><item><guid isPermaLink='false'>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12180398.post-1182106100423252934</guid><pubDate>Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:31:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-10-28T11:31:33.739-04:00</atom:updated><title>UC - appeal - statement of objections - PRAP 1513(d) - Deal, et al.</title><atom:summary type='text'>http://origin-www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Cwealth/out/1170CD08_10-28-09.pdf - unreportedAnother appeal quashed because the claimant's "general statement of objections to the Board's order in the petition for review fails to fairly embrace the issues raised in his brief filed by his attorney," following Deal v. UCBR, 878 A.2d 131 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) and Maher v. UCBR (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 1843 C.D</atom:summary><link>http://palegalservices.org/update/2009/10/uc-appeal-statement-of-objections-prap_28.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Donald Marritz)</author></item><item><guid isPermaLink='false'>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12180398.post-565049243479033668</guid><pubDate>Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:29:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-10-28T11:30:24.352-04:00</atom:updated><title>UC- vol. quit - follow-the-spouse - necessity</title><atom:summary type='text'>http://origin-www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Cwealth/out/652CD09_10-28-09.pdf - unreportedBenefits denied in follow-the-spouse case where spouse took new job in South Carolina to improve his career, and not as a matter of necessity. "It wasn't relocate or else."“[I]n a following the spouse case the reason for the spouse’s relocation must be beyond the spouse’s control and not a matter of </atom:summary><link>http://palegalservices.org/update/2009/10/uc-vol-quit-follow-spouse-necessity.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Donald Marritz)</author></item><item><guid isPermaLink='false'>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12180398.post-7240251772981714353</guid><pubDate>Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:45:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-10-28T09:46:45.796-04:00</atom:updated><title>Social Security Number - prohibition against disclosure - F.R. Civ. Pa. 5.2(a)</title><atom:summary type='text'>Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 5.2(a) (Privacy Protections for Filings Made with the Court) states that any court filing "may include only" the last 4 digits of a person's social security number and just the year of a person's birth.A federal district court in Minnesota  (Engeseth v. County of Isanti) recently sanctioned an attorney $5,000 for including the full social security numbers of 179 </atom:summary><link>http://palegalservices.org/update/2009/10/social-security-number-prohibition.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Donald Marritz)</author></item><item><guid isPermaLink='false'>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12180398.post-443680272184910393</guid><pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2009 14:41:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-10-27T10:42:41.406-04:00</atom:updated><title>UC - appeal - statement of objections - PRAP 1513(d) - Deal v. UCBR</title><atom:summary type='text'>Maher v. UCBR - Cmwlth. Court -http://origin-www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Cwealth/out/1843CD08_10-27-09.pdfPro se attorney claimant appealed an adverse UCBR decision to Commonwealth Court by a Petition for Review which listed the following “Objections to the  Determination:  6. The determination of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review is not supported by substantial evidence. 7. The </atom:summary><link>http://palegalservices.org/update/2009/10/uc-appeal-statement-of-objections-prap.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Donald Marritz)</author></item><item><guid isPermaLink='false'>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12180398.post-4485045775899923129</guid><pubDate>Fri, 23 Oct 2009 20:17:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-10-23T16:18:12.512-04:00</atom:updated><title>debt collection - "communications" - automated telephone calls</title><atom:summary type='text'>Inman v. NCO Financial Systems - ED Pa. - October 21, 2009http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/09D1288P.pdfDefendant debt collector's automated messages left on Plaintiff's answering machine consituted "communications" under the Fair Debt Collection Pracctices Act, 15 USC sec. 1692a(2).  The court relied heavily on the decison in Foti v. NCO Financial Systems, 424 F.Supp. 2d 643 (SDNY </atom:summary><link>http://palegalservices.org/update/2009/10/debt-collection-communications.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Donald Marritz)</author></item></channel></rss>
