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.

ROSEMARY MILL v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (07/23/82)

decided: July 23, 1982.

ROSEMARY MILL, PETITIONER
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION, RESPONDENT



Appeal from the Order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission in case of Rosemary Mill v. Pennsylvania Electric Company, No. Z-19071983.

COUNSEL

Joseph P. Green, Jr., for petitioner.

Velma A. Boozer, Assistant Counsel, with her Shirley Rae Don, Deputy Chief Counsel, and Joseph J. Malatesta, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.

President Judge Crumlish and Judges Blatt and Doyle, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Blatt. Judge Mencer did not participate in the decision in this case.

Author: Blatt

[ 67 Pa. Commw. Page 598]

The petitioner, Rosemary Mill, seeks review of a decision of the Public Utility Commission (PUC) which adopted the order of an administrative law

[ 67 Pa. Commw. Page 599]

    judge requiring her to make full payment of her monthly electric bills, plus $15 per month installments on past unpaid amounts. The order resulted after a hearing on her complaint that the Philadelphia Electric Company's threats to terminate electrical service to her residence*fn1 should be postponed under PUC regulations. 52 Pa. Code §§ 56.111-56.118. She alleges that a physician had certified that an occupant of her home suffered from a serious illness which would be aggravated by a cessation of service.*fn2

The administrative law judge found that the medical condition of the petitioner's son would be adversely affected by a termination of service, but he concluded that the tariff provisions of the Public Utility Code (Code), 66 Pa. C.S. §§ 1303 and 1304 required the petitioner to pay at least the amount of her monthly charges plus a portion of her arrearages, even though, as he recognized at the hearing, she would be unable to meet such a payment schedule during the winter months.*fn3

This case involves interpretations of both the Code and the PUC's regulations. Sections 1303 and 1304 of the Code provide in pertinent part:

§ 1303. Adherence to tariffs.

No public utility shall, directly or indirectly, by any device whatsoever, or in anywise, demand or receive from any person, corporation, municipal ...


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.