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.

AILACE CLARK v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (08/10/79)

decided: August 10, 1979.

AILACE CLARK, PETITIONER
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE, RESPONDENT



Appeal from the Order of the Department of Public Welfare in case of Appeal of Ailace Clark, dated July 17, 1978.

COUNSEL

Arlene F. Boop, for appellant.

Catherine Stewart, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Judges Blatt, DiSalle and MacPhail, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge MacPhail.

Author: Macphail

[ 45 Pa. Commw. Page 39]

This is an appeal from a decision of the Hearing and Appeals Unit of the Department of Public Welfare (DPW), denying Ailace Clark's (Appellant's) application for a grant under the Emergency Energy Assistance Program.

Unfortunately for the litigants and this Court, we cannot reach the merits of this case because we are compelled to remand it for the reason that the record is so deficient that it precludes appellate review. It is well settled that

[t]he crucial aspect on appeal is whether there is a complete and accurate record of the testimony taken so that the appellant is given a base upon which he may appeal, and also that the appellate court is given a sufficient record upon which to rule on the questions presented. (Emphasis added.)

Sharp's Convalescent Home v. Department of Public Welfare, 7 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 623, 628, 300 A.2d 909, 911 (1973). In that case, our Court also said that "[t]he agency takes the risk that an adequate record has been maintained." Id.

Counsel for DPW has done an admirable job of trying to supply information that would make at least

[ 45 Pa. Commw. Page 40]

    some sense out of an otherwise completely unintelligible record. However, after a consideration of that brief and counsel's argument, and after our own best efforts to decide the case on the few matters in the record which are intelligible, we are firmly convinced that we simply cannot do so without risk of prejudice to the Appellant. In an eight page record there are 19 different instances where answers by witnesses are either totally or partially "inaudible." Even worse, there are 47 instances in the same record where the person speaking is "unidentified." Perhaps the most glaring example of the insufficiency of the record is the hearing examiner's final statement,

[i]s there anything else to be argued by the appellant or the Department? O.K. the time is now approximately 3:10 p.m. and this record is now closed. It's closed subject to the five day extension [sic] which I granted the appellant's ...


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.