Appeals from the Orders of the Department of Public Welfare, in case of Appeal Of: Pine Haven Residential Care Home, File No. 18-84-10, dated January 21, 1985 and May 9, 1985.
Larry B. Maier, with him, E. Richard Young, Jr., for petitioner.
Howard Ulan, Assistant Counsel, with him, Myra Werrin Sacks, Assistant Counsel, and John Kane, Acting Chief Counsel, for respondent.
Judges Craig and Palladino, and Senior Judge Kalish, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Senior Judge Kalish.
Before this court are two petitions for review filed by Pine Haven Residential Home (Pine Haven). Pine Haven petitions for review of an order of the Director of the Office of Hearings and Appeals of the Department of Public Welfare (Department), which sustained the Department's revocation of Pine Haven's Personal Care Boarding Home license. Pine Haven also petitions for review of an order of the Executive Deputy Secretary, which modified the prior order by adding a provision barring Pine Haven from reapplying for a license. By this court's order, dated July 9, 1985, Pine Haven's two petitions for review were consolidated. We affirm the order of the Director of the Office of Hearings and
Appeals, and hold that the order of the Executive Deputy Secretary is null and void.
Upon a routinely scheduled inspection of Pine Haven, the Department found a number of deficiencies of the Personal Care Boarding Home regulations, and requested a plan of correction within fifteen days. Although no such plan was provided, the Department issued Pine Haven a thirty day provisional license to operate until such a plan of correction was provided. On June 25, 1984, upon failure to submit such a plan, Pine Haven was notified that its license to operate was revoked. On July 19, 1984, Pine Haven submitted a proposed plan of corrective action, and filed its appeal of the revocation with the Department.
Following a hearing, the Director of the Office of Hearings and Appeals adopted the hearing officer's recommendation and sustained the revocation of Pine Haven's license. Both Pine Haven and the Department requested reconsideration of that decision. The Executive Deputy Secretary of the Department granted the Department's request for reconsideration and ordered that Pine Haven be barred from reapplying for a license.
Pine Haven contends that the findings of the hearing officer are not supported by substantial evidence, and requests this court to reverse both orders, and reinstate its license. Pine Haven further contends that the Executive Deputy Secretary was without authority to modify the order of the Director of the Office of Hearings and Appeals, and that the Executive Deputy Secretary did not act on the requests for reconsideration in a timely fashion. Thus, Pine Haven requests, in the alternative, that the order of the Executive Deputy Secretary be stricken, and that the order of the Director of the Office of Hearings and Appeals be reinstated.
Our scope of review is governed by section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C.S. § 704. We must affirm an adjudication unless a necessary finding is not supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Borough of ...