Larry Pitt & Associates, PC v. Butler
Decision Date | 30 October 2001 |
Citation | 785 A.2d 1092 |
Parties | LARRY PITT & ASSOCIATES, P.C. and Larry Pitt, Esquire, Petitioners, v. Johnny BUTLER, individually and in his capacity as Secretary to Department of Labor and Industry of the Commonwealth of Pa. and Richard Thompson, individually and in his capacity as Director of the Pennsylvania Bureau of Workers' Compensation, Respondents. |
Court | Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court |
Neil Kerzner, Philadelphia, for petitioners.
Linda S. Lloyd, Deputy Atty. Gen., Harrisburg, for respondents.
Before DOYLE, President Judge, COLINS, J., SMITH, J., PELLEGRINI, J., FRIEDMAN, J., KELLEY, J., and LEADBETTER, J.
Presently before this Court for disposition are the preliminary objections of Johnny Butler, Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry1, and Richard Thompson, Director of the Pennsylvania Bureau of Workers' Compensation2, (Commonwealth Respondents) to a petition for review in the nature of an action for declaratory judgment filed in our original jurisdiction by Larry Pitt & Associates, P.C. and Larry Pitt, Esq. (Petitioners) pursuant to the provisions of the Declaratory Judgments Act (DJA), 42 Pa. C.S. §§ 7531-7541.3
Petitioners provide legal services which include, inter alia, representing clients who are seeking compensation pursuant to the provisions of the Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Act (Act).4 In particular, Petitioners represented Dolfis Gaither, James Gibson, Kevin Cardwell, Julius Curry and Carmen Camacho (collectively, claimants) in proceedings before workers' compensation judges (WCJs) to obtain compensation under the Act pursuant to petitions for compromise and release. Petitioners had entered into contingency fee agreements with the claimants whereby Petitioners were to be paid 33 1/3% of the amounts recovered under the Act as payment for their legal services. Pursuant to Section 442 of the Act5, the contingency fee agreements were submitted to the WCJs for approval. However, the WCJs did not approve the contingency fee agreements as submitted. Rather, the WCJs either denied the fee agreements in their entirety and had the claimants amend the fee agreements to only provide for a payment of 20% of the amounts recovered, or approved the payment of 20% of the amounts recovered and directed that the remaining 13 1/3% be placed in escrow.
On November 27, 2000, Petitioners filed the instant petition for review. In the petition, Petitioners allege, inter alia:
Based on the foregoing, Petitioners assert the following claims for relief:
25. As [officers] of the Court and member[s] of the judicial branch, [Petitioners] ha[ve] been unconstitutionally subjected to the authority of the aforementioned officers of the executive branch, and legislative branch, all acting without proper authority.
As a result, Petitioners ask this Court to: (1) declare that Section 442 of the Act is unconstitutional as violative of Article 5, Section 10(c) of the Pennsylvania Constitution; (2) enjoin Commonwealth Respondents, their successors in office or interest, and their agents, employees and all other persons acting concert with them, from interfering with, regulating or restricting attorney fees in workers' compensation matters; and (3) direct Commonwealth Respondents, their successors in office or interest, and their agents, employees and all other persons acting in concert with them to immediately release and pay to Petitioners the full amount of the monies held in escrow as a result of the orders issued by the WCJs. Id. at pp. 8-9.
In response to the petition for review, Commonwealth Respondents filed preliminary objections with this Court on December 18, 2000. In the first preliminary objection, Commonwealth Respondents allege that the petition for review should be dismissed because Petitioners have failed to exhaust all administrative remedies. In the second preliminary objection, Commonwealth Respondents allege that the petition for review should be dismissed because Petitioners have failed to state a claim for which relief may be granted.
Initially, we note that in ruling on preliminary objections, we must accept as true all well pleaded material allegations in the petition for review, as well as all inferences reasonably deduced therefrom. Envirotest Partners v. Department of Transportation, 664 A.2d 208 (Pa. Cmwlth.1995). This Court need not accept as true conclusions of law, unwarranted inferences from facts, argumentative allegations, or expressions of opinion. Id. In order to sustain preliminary objections, it must appear with certainty that the law will not permit recovery, and any doubt should be resolved by a refusal to sustain them. Id.
The provisions of the DJA, 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 7531-7541, govern petitions for declaratory judgments. Ronald H. Clark, Inc. v. Township of Hamilton, 128 Pa. Cmwlth. 31, 562 A.2d 965 (1989). Declaratory judgments are not obtainable as a matter of right. Id. Rather, whether a court should exercise jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment proceeding is a matter of sound judicial discretion. Id. Thus, the granting of a petition for a declaratory judgment is a matter lying within the sound discretion of a court of original jurisdiction. Gulnac v. South Butler School District, 526 Pa. 483, 587 A.2d 699 (1991); Ruszin v. Department of Labor and Industry, 675 A.2d 366 (Pa.Cmwlth.1996).7
As stated above, Section 7533 of the DJA provides, in pertinent part, that 42 Pa.C.S. § 7533. Under Section 7533, constitutional challenges to a statute's validity, such as those raised in the instant matter, may be decided by declaratory judgment. See, e.g., Ruszin; Parker v. Department of Labor and Industry, 115 Pa.Cmwlth. 93, 540 A.2d 313 (1988), aff'd, 521 Pa. 531, 557 A.2d 1061 (1989).
However, Section 7541(c) of the DJA provides, in pertinent part, that "[r]elief shall not be available under this subchapter with respect to any ... [p]roceeding within the exclusive jurisdiction of a tribunal other than a court ..." 42 Pa.C.S. § 7541(c)(2). With respect to Section 7541(c)(2), this Court has stated:
To continue reading
Request your trial- O'neill v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd. (news Corp.. Ltd.)
-
Steamships v. Wayne Cnty. Children & Youth Servs.
...them relief through those procedures, rather than whether they can obtain relief on their preferred grounds. See Larry Pitt & Assoc., P.C. v. Butler, 785 A.2d 1092, 1099-1100 (Pa. Cmwlth. ...
- O'Neill v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd.
-
Mid City Towers v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd.
... ... Id. citing Capasso v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (RACS Associates, Inc.), 851 A.2d 997 (Pa. Cmwlth 2004).The WCJ did not "capriciously ... ...