Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

EDNA LEWISON v. LOUIS P. VITTI (04/14/76)

decided: April 14, 1976.

EDNA LEWISON, MATTIE GILES, CORNELIA MOSLEY AND HELEN WALL, PLAINTIFFS
v.
LOUIS P. VITTI, COMMISSIONER OF PROFESSIONAL AND OCCUPATIONAL AFFAIRS, AND COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, C/O SECRETARY OF THE COMMONWEALTH, DEFENDANTS



Original jurisdiction in case of Edna Lewison, Mattie Giles, Cornelia Mosley and Helen Wall v. Louis P. Vitti, Commissioner of Professional and Occupational Affairs and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, c/o Secretary of the Commonwealth.

COUNSEL

Morton Krase, for plaintiffs.

Edward I. Steckel, Attorney General, with him Robert P. Kane, Attorney General, for defendants.

President Judge Bowman and Judges Crumlish, Jr., Kramer, Wilkinson, Jr., Mencer, Rogers and Blatt. Opinion by Judge Crumlish, Jr.

Author: Crumlish

[ 24 Pa. Commw. Page 332]

Plaintiffs*fn1 initiated this litigation in this Court by seeking a mandatory injunction against Louis P. Vitti, Commissioner of Professional and Occupational Affairs (Commissioner) directing him to issue licenses to Plaintiffs without examination pursuant to the Practical Nurse Law, 63 P.S. § 651 et seq.,*fn2 and the Professional Nursing Law, 63 P.S. § 211 et seq.*fn3 The complaint alleged that each of the Plaintiffs had successfully completed nursing courses and had presented her credentials to the Commissioner for review prior to licensure. The nature of the courses and credentials was not specified, nor were the

[ 24 Pa. Commw. Page 333]

    dates of attendance and completion of these courses averred.

Commissioner filed preliminary objections to the complaint contending, inter alia, that Plaintiffs had failed to plead the statutory prerequisites in the Practical Nurse Law and Professional Nursing Law, upon which they base their right to licensure without examination. Defendants also objected because a necessary party, the State Board of Nurse Examiners (Board), which reviews the qualifications of each applicant, has not been joined.

In a prior opinion disposing of these objections, we dismissed the complaint without prejudice, with leave to amend so that Plaintiffs could, with care, enumerate these defects in the pleading.

Presently before us is the amended complaint to which Commissioner (and Board*fn4) have again filed preliminary objections. Briefly stated, these reinstituted objections contend that Plaintiffs' amended complaint is deficient because it again fails to recite the conditions precedent to licensure, and as such, did not follow our order to amend "in a manner not inconsistent with the above opinion."

We agree and sustain Defendant's preliminary objections and dismiss the amended complaint.

In occupations requiring scientific or technical knowledge, applicants are often required to take and pass an examination as a prerequisite to engaging in such activities. There are, however, often statutory provisions which expressly exempt specified classes of persons from the necessity of taking the examination for the license. The Practical Nurse Law and the Professional Nursing Law are two ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.