Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County in case of Paul J. Kennedy v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety, No. 828 of 1978, G.D.
Ralph C. Warman, Warman & Warman, for appellant.
Harold H. Cramer, Assistant Attorney General, with him Ward T. Williams, Chief Counsel and Edward G. Biester, Jr., Attorney General, and Wayne H. Port, Buck, Margolis, Mahoney and George, for appellee.
Judges Rogers, Blatt and MacPhail, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge MacPhail.
[ 52 Pa. Commw. Page 620]
The Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County, after a trial de novo, affirmed the action of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (DOT), taken June 26, 1978, which suspended the Certificate of Appointment as a Motor Vehicle Inspection Station held by Paul J. Kennedy (Appellant). An appeal was filed to this Court. We affirm.
[ 52 Pa. Commw. Page 621]
This case arises from an inspection performed on May 2, 1978 by Bernard E. Springer, a certified inspection mechanic employed by the Appellant. The subject of this inspection, a 1972 Chevrolet coupe, was seen by a State Police Garage Inspector on May 8, 1978 and numerous defects, which should have been corrected prior to issuance of an inspection sticker, were noted. On May 15, 1978, DOT conducted a hearing, which Appellant attended, to determine whether the faulty inspection had occurred and whether the license of the mechanic and Appellant's certificate should be suspended. On June 26, 1978, DOT suspended Appellant's Certificate of Appointment and removed the Certificate from Appellant's garage.*fn1 The Appellant obtained a supersedeas on June 30, 1978 from the lower court and a de novo hearing was held on August 4, 1978.
Three issues are presented for our review: 1) whether the findings of the lower court are supported by substantial evidence; 2) whether the Appellant was deprived of due process prior to suspension of his Certificate; and 3) whether the suspension of Appellant's Certificate was contrary to the intent of the new Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C.S. § 4701 et seq.
Appellant argues that DOT failed to sustain its burden to prove that the inspection conducted on May 2, 1978 was faulty. Appellant contends that the defects could have been caused during the six days that elapsed between the inspection by Mr.
[ 52 Pa. Commw. Page 622]
Springer and the inspection by the State Garage Inspector.
Our scope of review in this case is limited to a determination of whether the lower court has committed an error of law or whether the findings of the lower court are based on substantial evidence. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic ...