Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Right to Know Act); Annenberg v. Commonwealth, 562 Pa. 570, 757 A.2d 333 (1998) (appointing a special master to make findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding whether a taxing statute violated the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution); Pa. State Ass'n of County Comm'rs v. Commonwealth, 545 Pa. 324, 681 A.2d 699 (1996) (appointing a special master to prepare recommendations to the Supreme Court regarding the implementation of the unified judicial system); Commonwealth v. Banks, 612 Pa. 56, 29 A.3d 1129 (2011) (appointing a trial court judge as a special master to make findings of fact and conclusions of law relating to a challenge to the competency of a defendant to be executed). See also In re City of Pittsburgh, 143 Pa.Cmwlth. 618, 600 A.2d 630, 632 (1991) (<HOLDING>). 4 . The grand jury presentment found 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that cjourts historically possess the inherent authority to appoint masters to assist them in performing their various functions (B) holding that the samaritan act does not immunize doctors from suit when they are performing their normal job functions (C) recognizing the qualified immunity from liability extended to a police officer in performing discretionary functions achieves this balance (D) holding that qualified immunity extends to government officials performing discretionary functions (E) holding that social workers are entitled to absolute immunity in performing quasiprosecutorial functions connected with the initiation and pursuit of child dependency proceedings
Output (English): holding that the samaritan act does not immunize doctors from suit when they are performing their normal job functions