Appeal from the Insurance Commissioner in the matter of In Re: Workmen's Compensation Insurance Rate Filing of the Pennsylvania Compensation Rating Bureau in case of Bureau Proposal No. C-251.
William S. Clarke, Heher and Clarke, for petitioner.
David T. Kluz, Assistant Attorney General, with him Paul Adams and James R. Farley, Assistant Attorneys General, and Harvey Bartle, III, Acting Attorney General, for respondent.
Robert L. Pratter, with him Barbara Adams, Duane, Morris and Heckscher, for intervenor.
President Judge Crumlish and Judges Wilkinson, Jr., Mencer, Rogers, Craig, MacPhail and Palladino. Judges Blatt and Williams, Jr. did not participate. Opinion by Judge MacPhail. This decision was reached prior to the expiration of the term of office of Judge Wilkinson.
[ 58 Pa. Commw. Page 110]
This appeal is before us under the provisions of 42 Pa. C.S. § 763 relating to direct appeals from government agencies. In such appeals it is obligatory upon the appellant to include in its petition reference to the order or other determination sought to be reviewed. Pa. R.A.P. 1513. In the instant case, the Appellant's petition contains the following allegation:
To date, the Respondent has either (i) failed to act on Petitioner's Petition (to reinstate Intervenor Status and to Intervene), or (ii) denied the Petition. (Parenthetical language added.)
The record before us consists of an exchange of correspondence among counsel for Appellant, counsel for the Insurance Department (Department) and counsel for the Pennsylvania Compensation Rating Bureau (Bureau), an excerpt from proceedings before a
[ 58 Pa. Commw. Page 111]
Department examiner and an order of the Insurance Commissioner removing the Appellant as an intervenor in proceedings identified as Docket No. R79-7-5.
We will reconstruct as best we can the proceedings up to this point from the briefs and oral arguments of counsel and the limited record.
At issue is a proposed new classification of risks for the establishment of premium rates for workmen's compensation insurance under the provisions of Section 654 of the Insurance Company Law of 1921 (Law), Act of May 17, 1921, P.L. 682, as amended, 40 P.S. § 814. Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of refractory brick. It also "finishes" refractory brick. Early in 1979, the Bureau proposed that employers who finish refractory products be placed in a new classification 515.*fn1 This proceeding was identified by the Department as Rate Filing Proposal C-248 (hereinafter referred to as C-248). Apparently, Appellant filed an application with the Department to intervene in those proceedings. A hearing was convened with ...