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.

MAUREEN AMESBURY v. LUZERNE COUNTY INSTITUTION DISTRICT (12/08/76)

decided: December 8, 1976.

MAUREEN AMESBURY, APPELLANT
v.
LUZERNE COUNTY INSTITUTION DISTRICT, APPELLEE



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County in case of Maureen Amesbury v. Luzerne County Institution District, No. 9653 of 1975.

COUNSEL

Michael J. Eagen, Jr., with him John Walsh, and Rosser, McDonald, Marcus & Foley, for appellant.

Stephen A. Teller, for appellee.

Judges Mencer, Rogers and Blatt, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Mencer.

Author: Mencer

[ 27 Pa. Commw. Page 419]

Maureen Amesbury (Amesbury) was an employee of the Luzerne County Institution District (Institution District) at its Valley Crest Nursing Home. On October 7, 1975, Amesbury received a letter signed by the administrator of the nursing home, informing her that she was being dismissed from her employment by the Institution District, effective at 4:30 p.m. on October 7, 1975. The letter stated three reasons for the dismissal action but, since they are not encompassed by the issue raised in this appeal, we will not enumerate them here.

On October 21, 1975, at a regularly scheduled meeting of the Institution District, Amesbury requested that a hearing be held concerning her dismissal. On October 29, 1975, after consulting legal counsel, the Institution District refused to grant Amesbury the hearing she requested. Amesbury then filed a petition in the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County seeking the issuance of a rule to show cause why she should

[ 27 Pa. Commw. Page 420]

    not be reinstated to her position of employment. The rule was granted and made returnable on December 3, 1975. During the hearing held on the rule to show cause, it was stipulated by counsel of record that Amesbury did not have a contract of employment with the Institution District and that no grievance procedures existed, by agreement or otherwise, relative to the discharge of employees by the Institution District. The trial court discharged the rule to show cause and dismissed Amesbury's petition by order under date of December 31, 1975. This appeal followed and we affirm.

The issue raised below and again here can be stated simply: Is an employee of a county institution district entitled, by the provisions of the Local Agency Law,*fn1 to a hearing prior to dismissal from employment?

If here the dismissal of Amesbury by the Institution District was an adjudication, as that term is defined by Section 2 of the Local Agency Law, 53 P.S. § 11302, it is evident that Section 4 of the Local Agency Law, 53 P.S. § 11304, requires that Amesbury be afforded reasonable notice of a hearing and an opportunity to be heard before any adjudication as to her could be valid.*fn2

Section 2 of the Local Agency Law defines "adjudication" as follows:

'Adjudication' means any final order, decree, decision, determination or ruling by a local agency affecting personal or property rights, privileges, immunities ...


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.