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.

RAY O. KLOTZ v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (09/13/83)

decided: September 13, 1983.

RAY O. KLOTZ, APPELLANT
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, APPELLEE



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation v. Ray O. Klotz, No. 81-C-1234.

COUNSEL

Wardell F. Steigerwalt, for appellant.

Charles Cramer, Deputy Chief Counsel, for appellee.

Judges Blatt, Craig and Doyle, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Doyle.

Author: Doyle

[ 77 Pa. Commw. Page 135]

Ray O. Klotz (Appellant) appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County which affirmed the recall of Appellant's operating privilege by the Department of Transportation (Department). We affirm.

On March 17, 1981, the Bureau of Traffic Safety notified the Appellant that his operating privilege was being recalled under Section 1519(c) of the Vehicle Code (Code), 75 Pa. C.S. ยง 1519(c), which provides that the Department shall recall the operating privilege of any person who has been established to be incompetent to drive.

The Department's recall was based on a medical report submitted in accordance with state law*fn1 by Appellant's treating physician informing the Department that Appellant had experienced "focal seizures" while undergoing treatment at the Sacred Heart Hospital in Allentown, Pennsylvania.

Appellant appealed the Department's action to the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas, and on May 29, 1981 a hearing de novo was held before the Honorable Maxwell E. Davison. On June 2, 1981

[ 77 Pa. Commw. Page 136]

Judge Davison dismissed the appeal. The appeal to this Court followed.

Our scope of review in cases where the trial court has heard the case de novo is to determine whether or not the findings of fact are supported by competent evidence and whether there has been an error of law. McKay v. Commonwealth, 52 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 24, 415 A.2d 910 (1980); Commonwealth v. Critchfield, 9 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 349, 305 A.2d 748 (1973).

Appellant first argues that the recall was invalid because the Department failed to follow the proper procedure. Appellant contends that the Department was not permitted to recall his license on the basis of the treating physician's report, but was required to obtain another physician's advice. The procedure that the Department is required to follow in such ...


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.