Appeal from the Order of the Department of Public Welfare, in the case of Appeal of: Nepa's Mountain View Manor, Docket No. 34-87-013.
Robert G. Delgreco, Jr., Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C., for petitioner.
Howard Ulan, Assistant Counsel, for respondent.
Judges Barry and Smith, and Senior Judge Barbieri, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Senior Judge Barbieri.
[ 121 Pa. Commw. Page 533]
Emmett Nepa t/d/b/a Nepa's Mountain View Manor (Petitioner) appeals an order of the Department of Public Welfare (DPW) denying his appeal from the revocation of his license to operate a personal care home.
Petitioner operated a thirty bed personal care home in Connellsville, Pennsylvania, from October of 1985 through February of 1988. Many of the home's residents came from state mental institutions.
By letter dated March 4, 1987, DPW informed Petitioner that it was revoking his license to operate the home pursuant to Sections 1026(b)(4) and (5) of the Public
[ 121 Pa. Commw. Page 534]
Welfare Code (Code),*fn1 in light of charges by three former employees that Petitioner had abused residents. Petitioner appealed the revocation and a hearing was held in August of 1987, at which the three former employees testified.
Based on their testimony, the hearing examiner made findings concerning an incident between Petitioner, a seventy-four year old male resident, Albert M., and a female resident, Gertrude B. On November 24, 1986, Petitioner, in front of other residents and employees, grabbed Albert M. and unbuckled his belt causing his pants to fall. He then grabbed Gertrude B. and physically forced these two residents to kiss. Petitioner testified that this was to shame and humiliate Albert M. who had a history of masturbating in public.
The hearing examiner further found that on two occasions, Petitioner forced resident Elizabeth B. to remove toilet paper from the commode with her hand after she had urinated and defecated in it. Petitioner admitted this behavior but denied that there was fecal matter in the commode. He explained that this was his way of attempting to stop this resident's habit of filling the commode with toilet paper.
The hearing examiner specifically found that the testimony of three former employees was "far more credible than [Petitioner's]" and that the evidence supported their ...