Eastern Pennsylvania Psychiatric Institute, Dept. of Public Welfare v. Russell

• Decision Date: 03 October 1983
• Citation: 77 Pa.Cmwlth. 390,465 A.2d 1313
• Parties: EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE, Petitioner, v. Portia RUSSELL, Respondent. EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE, Petitioner, v. Martha T. KRATKY, Respondent. EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE, Petitioner, v. Frederick NEWMAN, M.D., Respondent. EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE, Petitioner, v. Donald O. RUDIN, M.D., Respondent. EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE, Petitioner, v. David LEVITT, M.D., Respondent. EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE, Petitioner, v. Samuel M. PEACOCK, Jr., M.D., Respondent. EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE, Petitioner, v. Paul MUELLER, M.D., Respondent. EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE, Petitioner, v. Walter W. BAKER, Respondent. EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE, Petitioner, v. Joanne ANTANAVAGE, Respondent. EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE, Petitioner, v. Teofila ARTYMYSHYN, Respondent. EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE, Petitioner, v. Carolyn DUNLAP, Respondent. EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE, Petitioner, v. Roy L. JOSHLIN, Respondent. EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE, Petitioner, v. Alma E. LLOYD, Respondent. EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE, Petitioner, v. Hadassah FREIFELDER, Respondent. EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE, Petitioner, v. Irma KOSTYK, Respondent. EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE, Petitioner, v. Patricia S. LEWIS, Respondent. EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE, Pet
• Court: Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court

Page 1313

465 A.2d 1313

77 Pa.Cmwlth. 390

EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE, DEPARTMENT OF

PUBLIC WELFARE, Petitioner, v. Portia RUSSELL, Respondent.

EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE, DEPARTMENT OF

PUBLIC WELFARE, Petitioner, v. Martha T. KRATKY, Respondent.

EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE, DEPARTMENT OF

PUBLIC WELFARE, Petitioner, v. Frederick NEWMAN, M.D., Respondent.

EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE, DEPARTMENT OF

PUBLIC WELFARE, Petitioner, v. Donald O. RUDIN, M.D., Respondent.

EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE, DEPARTMENT OF

PUBLIC WELFARE, Petitioner, v. David LEVITT, M.D., Respondent.

EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE, DEPARTMENT OF

PUBLIC WELFARE, Petitioner, v. Samuel M. PEACOCK, Jr., M.D., Respondent.

EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE, DEPARTMENT OF

PUBLIC WELFARE, Petitioner, v. Paul MUELLER, M.D., Respondent.

EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE, DEPARTMENT OF

PUBLIC WELFARE, Petitioner, v. Walter W. BAKER, Respondent.

EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE, DEPARTMENT OF

PUBLIC WELFARE, Petitioner, v. Joanne ANTANAVAGE, Respondent.

EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE, DEPARTMENT OF

PUBLIC WELFARE, Petitioner, v. Teofila ARTYMYSHYN, Respondent.

EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE, DEPARTMENT OF

PUBLIC WELFARE, Petitioner, v. Carolyn DUNLAP, Respondent.

EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE, DEPARTMENT OF

PUBLIC WELFARE, Petitioner, v. Roy L. JOSHLIN, Respondent.

EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE, DEPARTMENT OF

PUBLIC WELFARE, Petitioner, v. Alma E. LLOYD, Respondent.

EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE, DEPARTMENT OF

PUBLIC WELFARE, Petitioner, v. Hadassah FREIFELDER, Respondent.

EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE, DEPARTMENT OF

PUBLIC WELFARE, Petitioner, v. Irma KOSTYK, Respondent.

EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE, DEPARTMENT OF

PUBLIC WELFARE, Petitioner, v. Patricia S. LEWIS, Respondent.

EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE, DEPARTMENT OF

PUBLIC WELFARE, Petitioner, v. Sarah W. PERRY, Respondent.

EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE, DEPARTMENT OF

PUBLIC WELFARE, Petitioner, v. Dolores J. SMITH, Respondent.

Portia RUSSELL et al., Petitioners, v. EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE, DEPARTMENT OF

PUBLIC WELFARE, Respondent.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued Feb. 2, 1983.

Decided Oct. 3, 1983.

James S. Marshall, Asst. Counsel, Harrisburg, for Eastern Pennsylvania Psychiatric Institute, Dept. of Public Welfare.

Michael I. Levin, Cleckner & Fearen, Harrisburg, for respondents in Nos. 2350 C.D.1981, 2351 C.D.1981, 2353 C.D.1981-2355 C.D.1981, 2357 C.D.1981-2367 C.D.1981 and 2436 C.D.1981.

Stephen W. Wilson, Murphy & Slota, Bryn Mawr, for respondents in Nos. 2350 C.D.1981, 2352 C.D.1981, and Frederick Newman.

Frederick Newman, M.D., pro se.

Donald O. Rudin, M.D., pro se.

David Levitt, M.D., pro se.

Samuel M. Peacock, Jr., M.D., pro se.

Paul H. Mueller, M.D., pro se.

Walter W. Baker, pro se.

Before CRUMLISH, President Judge, and MacPHAIL and DOYLE, JJ.

DOYLE, Judge.

The Department of Public Welfare (DPW) here appeals the decision and order of the Pennsylvania State Civil Service Commission (Commission) which sustained in part and overruled in part DPW's furlough of eighteen individual employees. Sixteen of the eighteen furloughed employees cross-appeal.

The employees involved in these appeals ¹ formerly held positions on the research staff of the Eastern Pennsylvania Psychiatric Institute (EPPI), a state-owned facility created by statute to provide research, training, and service in the mental health field. ²

Anticipating a reduction in state funding for EPPI, DPW negotiated a contract with the Medical College of Pennsylvania (MCP) under which MCP would assume complete management of EPPI and continue the facility's present services. On August 14, 1980, DPW notified all state employees at EPPI that they would be furloughed on September 14, 1980, the effective date of the contract with MCP.

On September 12, 1980, the Commonwealth Court issued a preliminary injunction preventing DPW from proceeding on its contract with MCP. ³ In light of this development, DPW decided to continue operations at EPPI at a reduced level, rescinding the furloughs of some employees while keeping other furloughs, including those issued to employees of the research staff, in effect.

In December, 1980 the state legislature amended EPPI's enabling statute to provide clear authority for the private management of EPPI under contract. ⁴ Subsequently, the Commonwealth Court lifted its injunction and DPW entered into a new contract with MCP. Concurrent with the effective date of the contract, the remaining state employees at EPPI were furloughed on January 9, 1981.

Eighteen of the employees furloughed on September 14, 1980 filed timely appeals with the Pennsylvania State Civil Service Commission (Commission). After a consolidated hearing on March 26, 1981, the Commission held that DPW's September 14, 1980 furloughs were improper, and granted the employees back pay for this period. The Commission also held, however, that DPW properly furloughed all EPPI employees on January 9, 1981, and therefore denied employees' requests for reinstatement and for back-pay after this date. ⁵

DPW appeals from the Commission's decision that the furloughs of September 14, 1980 were improper, while sixteen of the eighteen furloughed employees ⁶ appeal from the Commission's decision that the furloughs were proper after January 9, 1981.

In reviewing a decision of the Civil Service Commission, this court is limited to a determination of whether or not the constitutional rights of the petitioner have been violated, an error of law has been committed or a necessary finding of fact was unsupported by substantial evidence. Vovakes v. Department of Transportation, 71 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 3, 453 A.2d 1072 (1982); Whipple v. Department of Public Welfare, 70 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 11, 452 A.2d 296 (1982).

Appeal of DPW

DPW contends that the evidence did not support the Commission's finding that the September 14, 1980 furlough was improper. The furlough of employees under Section 802 of the Civil Service Act ⁷ is proper only when a lack of work or a lack of funds has been shown to exist. ⁸ In concluding that DPW failed in their attempt to prove lack of funds, the Commission found that approximately $4.17 million in available funds remained in EPPI's budget at the time of the September 14, 1980 furlough. After a careful review of the record, we conclude that this finding of fact is supported by substantial evidence.

DPW directs our attention to the Commission's reference to a $600,000 research budget described by the Commission as "particularly damaging" to DPW's attempted proof of lack of funds. DPW contends that this $600,000 figure was not contained in a formal finding of fact nor substantiated by any evidence, and therefore was an improper basis on which to conclude that there was no lack of funds.

We note that our scope of review extends only to necessary findings of facts. Whether or not the $600,000 figure was included in a finding of fact or supported by the evidence is irrelevant in light of the finding that over $4 million in general funding was available. This latter finding, well supported by the evidence, was a proper basis on which to conclude that there existed ample funding at the time of the initial furlough. We need not consider the Commission's failure to include the additional $600,000 amount in its findings of fact, because such a finding was not necessary to support the Commission's conclusion of law. ⁹

Notwithstanding the availability of $4.17 million in funding, DPW contends that funding was inadequate to sustain full operations at EPPI for the remainder of the fiscal year. DPW was required to prove not merely that funding was inadequate, however, but also that a rational relationship existed between the lack of funding and the furloughs undertaken. Department of Transportation v. State Civil Service Commission, 10 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 310, 309 A.2d 445 (1973).

DPW contends its decision to furlough the research staff of EPPI was rationally related to EPPI's enabling act, under which EPPI's research function is secondary to its primary function of providing patient treatment. The act stated, in pertinent part:

The institute shall accept patients with mental, neurological and related disorders who present special problems in diagnosis and treatment, including those transferred by the department from other State Hospitals. It shall provide training and teaching to graduate and undergraduate students in the mental health field and shall conduct research into the causes, prevention, treatment and cure of mental, neurological and related disorder.[ ¹⁰

There is nothing in this language which establishes patient treatment as a "primary function"; rather, the language is clear that patient treatment, training, and research are to be considered as equally necessary functions of EPPI. Therefore, DPW's decision to furlough the entire research staff while retaining EPPI's other functions cannot be justified. The Commission was correct in concluding that DPW failed to show a rational relationship between the furlough of the research staff and the general lack of funding.

Employees' Appeal

Employees' first contention is that the contract between DPW and MCP is unconstitutional. This issue has been resolved by this court in Pennsylvania Association of State Mental Hospital Physicians v. Commonwealth, 63 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 307, 437 A.2d 1297 (1981). In Pennsylvania Association, we held that the contract between DPW and MCP did not violate Article III, Section 30 of the Pennsylvania Constitution because the contract provided for DPW's payment for services rendered by MCP, rather than for an unlawful appropriation.

Employees also contend that various procedural...