IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania :

Acting by Attorney General, :

Kathleen Kane, :

Plaintiff :

:

v. :

:

Golden Gate National Senior Care LLC; :

GGNSC Holdings LLC; GGNSC :

Administrative Services LLC; GGNSC :

Clinical Services LLC; GGNSC Equity :

Holdings LLC; GGNSC Harrisburg LP; :

GGNSC Harrisburg GP, LLC; GGNSC :

Camp Hill III LP; GGNSC Camp Hill :

III GP, LLC; GGNSC Clarion LP; :

GGNSC Clarion GP, LLC; GGNSC :

Gettysburg LP; GGNSC Gettysburg GP, :

LLC; GGNSC Altoona Hillview LP; :

GGNSC Altoona Hillview GP, LLC; :

GGNSC Lansdale LP; GGNSC :

Lansdale GP, LLC; GGNSC :

Monroeville LP; GGNSC Monroeville :

GP, LLC; GGNSC Mt. Lebanon LP; :

GGNSC Mt. Lebanon GP, LLC; :

GGNSC Phoenixville II LP; GGNSC :

Phoenixville II GP, LLC; GGNSC :

Philadelphia LP; GGNSC Philadelphia :

GP, LLC; GGNSC Wilkes-Barre II LP; :

GGNSC Wilkes-Barre II GP, LLC; :

GGNSC Tunkhannock LP; GGNSC :

Tunkhannock GP, LLC; GGNSC :

Erie Western Reserve LP; GGNSC :

Erie Western Reserve GP, LLC; :

GGNSC Pottsville LP; GGNSC :

Pottsville GP, LLC, : No. 336 M.D. 2015

Defendants : Argued: June 8, 2016

BEFORE: HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge

HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge

HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge

HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge

HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge

HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge
2

OPINION BY 

JUDGE COVEY FILED: March 22, 2017

Before this Court are Golden Gate National Senior Care, LLC, et al.’s

(Golden Gate) preliminary objections to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s

(Commonwealth) Amended Complaint and Petition for Injunctive Relief addressed to 

this Court’s original jurisdiction.

1

 

Golden Gate consists of a group of companies that manage and operate

36 skilled nursing facilities (Facilities) in Pennsylvania. GGNSC Holdings LLC, 

Golden Gate National Senior Care LLC, GGNSC Clinical Services LLC, and 

GGNSC Administrative Services LLC are described in the pleadings as parent 

entities (Parent Entities).

2

 On July 1, 2015, the Commonwealth, by the Office of 

Attorney General (OAG), filed a Complaint and Petition for Injunctive Relief 

(Original Complaint) addressed to this Court’s original jurisdiction against 14 of 

Golden Gate’s Pennsylvania Facilities. On August 6, 2015, Golden Gate filed 

preliminary objections to the Original Complaint setting forth ten objections. 

 

1 A related dispute was before this Court in GGNSC Clarion LP v. Kane, 131 A.3d 1062 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 2016) (GGNSC Clarion). In GGNSC Clarion, the petitioners and their affiliated entities 

are the owners and operators of long-term care facilities, including skilled nursing facilities, who 

sought declaratory relief contending that, among other things, the Commonwealth’s Office of 

Attorney General (OAG) lacked authority to investigate or pursue litigation concerning staffing 

levels at skilled nursing facilities since the Health Care Facilities Act, Act of July 19, 1979, P.L. 

130, as amended, 35 P.S. §§ 448.101-448.904b, vested exclusive jurisdiction in the Department of 

Health. On January 11, 2016, this Court sustained the OAG’s preliminary objections, granted the 

OAG’s motion to dismiss and dismissed petitioners’ amended petition for review. On December 

28, 2016, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed this Court’s decision. See GGNSC Clarion LP 

v. Kane (Pa. No. 6 MAP 2016, filed December 28, 2016).

2

 Parent Entity Defendants GGNSC Holdings LLC and Golden Gate National Senior Care 

LLC, indirectly own and operate the Facilities located in Pennsylvania. Parent Entity Defendant 

GGNSC Administrative Services LLC and Parent Entity Defendant GGNSC Clinical Services LLC 

exercise operational and management control over the Facilities. Defendant GGNSC Equity 

Holdings LLC is a general partner in three of the Facilities and holds a controlling ownership 

interest in the Facilities.
3

On September 8, 2015, the Commonwealth filed an Amended Complaint 

and Petition for Injunctive Relief (Amended Complaint), naming an additional 11 of 

Golden Gate’s Pennsylvania Facilities as defendants.3Therein, the Commonwealth

asserted the following three claims against Golden Gate: (1) Unfair Trade Practices 

and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL)4violations (seeking injunctive relief, 

restoration and civil penalties); (2) breach of contract (seeking damages); and (3) 

unjust enrichment (seeking disgorgement). The Commonwealth alleged that Golden 

Gate engaged in unfair and deceptive acts and practices towards Pennsylvania 

 

3 According to the Amended Complaint:

The [Facilities] located in Pennsylvania include Defendants Golden

LivingCenter - Blue Ridge Mountain (Harrisburg, PA); Golden 

LivingCenter - Camp Hill (Camp Hill, PA); Golden LivingCenter -

Clarion (Clarion, PA); Golden LivingCenter - Doylestown 

(Doylestown, PA); Golden LivingCenter - East Mountain (WilkesBarre, PA); Golden LivingCenter - Gettysburg (Gettysburg, PA); 

Golden LivingCenter - Hillview (Altoona, PA); Golden LivingCenter 

- Lancaster (Lancaster, PA); Golden LivingCenter – Lansdale

(Lansdale, PA); Golden LivingCenter - Mansion (Sunbury, PA); 

Golden LivingCenter - Monroeville (Monroeville, PA); Golden 

LivingCenter - Mt. Lebanon (Pittsburgh, PA); Golden LivingCenter -

Murrysville (Murrysville, PA); Golden LivingCenter – Phoenixville

(Phoenixville, PA); Golden LivingCenter - Reading (Reading, PA); 

Golden LivingCenter - Rosemont (Rosemont, PA); Golden 

LivingCenter - Scranton (Scranton, PA); Golden LivingCenter -

Shippenville (Shippenville, PA); Golden LivingCenter - Stenton 

(Philadelphia, PA); Golden LivingCenter - Summit (Wilkes Barre, 

PA); Golden LivingCenter – Tunkhannock (Tunkhannock, PA); 

Golden LivingCenter - Uniontown (Uniontown, PA); Golden 

LivingCenter - Western Reserve (Erie, PA); Golden LivingCenter -

West Shore (Camp Hill, PA); and Golden LivìngCenter - York 

Terrace (Pottsville, PA). . . .

Amended Complaint at 3, ¶ 2. Such Facilities “are licensed by the Department of Health and . . . 

are certified under the Medicare and Medicaid programs pursuant to Titles XVIII and XIX of the 

federal Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1395[-1395b-10], and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1396[-1396w-5], 

administered by the United States Department of Health and Human Services . . . through the 

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services . . . .” GGNSC Clarion, 131 A.3d at 1064 n.2. 

4 Act of December 17, 1968, P.L. 1224, as amended, 73 P.S. §§ 201-1–201-9.3.
4

consumers and the Commonwealth by: (1) making chain-wide misrepresentations in 

marketing materials; (2) making Facility-level misrepresentations in its marketing 

materials, resident assessments/care plans and billing statements, presenting 

misleading appearances during Commonwealth inspections, and creating false 

records; (3) making misleading statements about the level of care that would be 

provided to residents; and (4) failing to provide basic care. On October 8, 2015,

Golden Gate filed preliminary objections to the Amended Complaint, setting forth 

twelve objections (Preliminary Objections).

This Court’s review of preliminary objections is limited to the pleadings. 

Pa. State Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police v. Dep’t of Conservation & Natural Res., 

909 A.2d 413 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006), aff’d, 924 A.2d 1203 (Pa. 2007). 

[This Court is] required to accept as true the well-pled 

averments set forth in the . . . complaint, and all inferences 

reasonably deducible therefrom. Moreover, the [C]ourt 

need not accept as true conclusions of law, unwarranted 

inferences from facts, argumentative allegations, or 

expressions of opinion. In order to sustain preliminary 

objections, it must appear with certainty that the law will 

not permit recovery, and, where any doubt exists as to 

whether the preliminary objections should be sustained, the 

doubt must be resolved in favor of overruling the 

preliminary objections.

Id. at 415-16 (citations omitted).

I. Preliminary Objections 1 and 2

Golden Gate in its Preliminary Objection 1 alleges that the OAG lacks 

statutory authority to pursue this action because it effectively seeks to regulate skilled 

nursing facility staffing levels, an area within the Pennsylvania Department of 

Health’s (DOH) exclusive purview. In its Preliminary Objection 2, Golden Gate

avers that the Commonwealth is attempting to set new minimum staffing 
5

requirements by “completely bypass[ing] the regulatory procedures in place that 

govern how changes to laws and regulations are to be made, including the 

requirements of public notice and the opportunity for [Golden Gate] and other 

interested parties to be heard on any such changes.” Preliminary Objection 2 at 13, ¶

33.

On March 30, 2016, this Court issued an order, wherein it noted the 

parties’ agreement that Preliminary Objections 1 and 2 were resolved by this Court’s 

opinion in GGNSC Clarion LP v. Kane, 131 A.3d 1062 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (GGNSC 

Clarion), which dismissed a declaratory judgment action raising the same issues 

presented in Preliminary Objections 1 and 2. For the reasons explained therein, 

Preliminary Objections 1 and 2 are overruled.

II. UTPCPL - Preliminary Objections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10

Golden Gate’s Preliminary Objections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10 all pertain to

the alleged UTPCPL violations.

5

 

 

5 Golden Gate’s Preliminary Objections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10 specify as follows:

 Preliminary Objection 4 – Demurrer - the Amended Complaint fails to state a 

claim under Sections 2(4)(v) or 201-2(4)(ix) of the UTPCPL (marketing 

materials).

 Preliminary Objection 5 – Demurrer - the Amended Complaint fails to state a 

claim under Section 2(4)(x) of the UTPCPL.

 Preliminary Objection 6 – Insufficient Specificity in the Complaint - the 

Amended Complaint fails to inform Golden Gate of any specific bases on which 

the Commonwealth is seeking recovery under Section 2(4)(xxi) of the UTPCPL 

(the catch-all provision).

 Preliminary Objection 7 – Demurrer - the Commonwealth failed to plead any 

potential fraud claim under Section 2(4)(xxi) of the UTPCPL with the required 

particularity.
6

Initially, we note that Section 3 of the UTPCPL states that “[u]nfair 

methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any 

trade or commerce as defined [in Section 2(4)(i)-(xxi) of the UTPCPL6] . . . are 

hereby declared unlawful.” 73 P.S. § 201-3. Section 2(4) of the UTPCPL provides, 

in relevant part:

‘Unfair methods of competition’ and ‘unfair or deceptive 

acts or practices’ mean any one or more of the following:

. . . .

(v) Representing that goods or services have sponsorship, 

approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits or 

quantities that they do not have or that a person has a 

sponsorship, approval, status, affiliation or connection that 

he does not have;

. . . . 

(ix) Advertising goods or services with intent not to sell 

them as advertised;

(x) Advertising goods or services with intent not to supply 

reasonably expectable public demand, unless the 

advertisement discloses a limitation of quantity;

. . . .

(xxi) Engaging in any other fraudulent or deceptive conduct 

which creates a likelihood of confusion or of 

misunderstanding.

 

 Preliminary Objection 8 – Insufficient Specificity in the Complaint - the 

Amended Complaint fails to set forth with sufficient specificity a claim for false 

advertising under the UTPCPL.

 Preliminary Objection 10 – Demurrer - the Commonwealth may not seek 

restitution or restoration under Section 4.1 of the UTPCPL, added by the Act of 

November 26, 1976, P.L. 1166, 73 P.S. § 201-4.1, because the Commonwealth is 

not a “person” as defined in the UTPCPL.

6

73 P.S. § 201-2(4)(i)-(xxi).
7

73 P.S. § 201-2(4). This Court has explained:

An act or a practice is deceptive or unfair if it has the 

‘capacity or tendency to deceive.’ Neither the intention to 

deceive nor actual deception must be proved; rather, it 

need only be shown that the acts and practices are 

capable of being interpreted in a misleading way. The 

test for the [C]ourt is to determine the overall 

impression arising from the totality of what is said, as 

well as what is reasonably implied, in the advertisement 

or solicitation. In consumer protection cases brought in the 

public interest by the Attorney General, where establishing 

a violation hinges upon the content of the solicitations 

themselves, summary judgment may be granted without the 

need for extrinsic evidence and even in the presence of 

extrinsic evidence offered by the defense. Moreover, we 

are cognizant of our [S]upreme [C]ourt’s directive that the 

UTPCPL is to be construed liberally to effectuate its 

objective of protecting consumers of this Commonwealth 

from fraud and unfair or deceptive business practices. 

Commonwealth v. Peoples Benefit Servs. Inc., 923 A.2d 1230, 1236 (Pa. Cmwlth. 

2007) (citations omitted; emphasis added) (Peoples Benefit II); see also Pa. Dep’t of 

Banking v. NCAS of Del., LLC, 995 A.2d 422 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010). Nonetheless, the 

UTPCPL does not apply to providers of medical services. See Walter v. Magee 

Womens Hosp. of UPMC Health Sys., 876 A.2d 400 (Pa. Super. 2005);

7

see also

Foflygen v. R. Zemel, M.D. (PC), 615 A.2d 1345 (Pa. Super. 1992). “Nursing homes 

are not one-dimensional business enterprises, but instead they are hybrid 

organizations, offering both medical and non-medical services.” Zaborowski v. Hosp. 

Care Ctr. of Hermitage, Inc., 60 Pa. D. & C.4th 474, 493 (C.P. Mercer 2002). Thus, 

courts have held that nursing homes are liable under the UTPCPL only for the nonmedical services they provide. Id.; see also GGNSC Clarion; Goda v. White Cliff 

 

7

In Walter, the Pennsylvania Superior Court found that the trial court had properly rejected 

a UTPCPL claim where “processing, review, and analysis of . . . Pap smear reports . . . [were] more 

akin to providing medical services than ‘consumer-oriented, non[-]medical activities of a healthcare 

administrator.’” Id. at 408.
8

Leasing P’ship, 62 Pa. D. & C.4th 476 (C.P. Mercer 2003);

8

Simmons v. Simpson 

House, Inc. (E.D. Pa. No. 15-06636, filed December 12, 2016).

A. Preliminary Objection 4 - Puffery

In Preliminary Objection 4, Golden Gate contends that the purported 

representations attributed to it in the Amended Complaint do not violate Sections 

2(4)(v) and 2(4)(ix) of the UTPCPL because they do not constitute false advertising

since they are puffery rather than material representations.

Courts have held that Sections 2(4)(v) and 2(4)(ix) of the UTPCPL are 

limited to false advertising claims. See Seldon v. Home Loan Servs., Inc., 647 F. 

Supp. 2d 451 (E.D. Pa. 2009).

9

 The United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals has 

explained: “Material representations must be contrasted with statements of 

subjective analysis or extrapolations, such as opinions, motives and intentions, 

or general statements of optimism, which constitute no more than puffery . . . .” 

EP Medsystems, Inc. v. Echocath, Inc., 235 F.3d 865, 872 (3d Cir. 2000) (emphasis 

added; quotation marks omitted). Puffery is not actionable as false advertising. See

Castrol, Inc. v. Pennzoil Co., 987 F.2d 939 (3d Cir. 1993).

Puffery is an exaggeration or overstatement expressed in 

broad, vague, and commendatory language. 

Such sales talk, or puffing, as it is commonly 

called, is considered to be offered and 

 

8

In Goda, a decedent’s husband brought an action against a skilled care nursing home, 

alleging, inter alia, violations of the UTPCPL. For purposes of determining the applicability of the 

UTPCPL, the trial court described “medical services” as “those evaluative, diagnostic, preventative, 

therapeutic and supervisory services that are customarily provided by or at the direction of a 

physician or health care worker in order to treat a patient.” Id. at 489. Applying that definition, the 

trial court reviewed each of the allegations to determine whether the alleged acts pertained to 

medical or non-medical services.

9 Although federal district court decisions are not binding, they may be cited as persuasive 

authority. Mannella ex rel. Mannella v. Port Auth. of Allegheny Cnty., 982 A.2d 130 (Pa. Cmwlth. 

2009). We find Seldon instructive. 
9

understood as an expression of the seller’s 

opinion only, which is to be discounted as such 

by the buyer[, and on which no reasonable 

person would rely]. The ‘puffing’ rule 

amounts to a seller’s privilege to lie his head 

off, so long as he says nothing specific.

W. Page Keeton, et al., Prosser and Keeton on the Law of 

Torts § 109, at 756-57 (5th ed. 1984).[10]Puffery is 

distinguishable from misdescriptions or false

representations of specific characteristics of a product. 

As such, it is not actionable.

Castrol, Inc., 987 F.2d at 945 (emphasis added). Claims that are not “specific and 

measurable by comparative research” are indicative of puffery. Id. at 946. Further:

The conclusion that advertising text can be clear enough 

that it simply cannot be challenged as misleading is also 

consistent with numerous cases holding that puffery can be 

so obviously exaggerated that even credulous consumers 

cannot be misled. See, e.g., Am. Italian Pasta[ Co. v. New 

World Pasta Co.], 371 F.3d [387,] 389-90, 392-93 [(8th Cir. 

2004)] (holding that puffery, including ‘exaggerated 

statements of bluster or boast upon which no reasonable 

consumer would rely’ are non-actionable statements under 

[Section] 43(a)(1)(B)) [of the Lanham Act11]; United States 

Healthcare[, Inc. v. Blue Cross of Greater Phila.], 898 F.2d 

[914,] 922 [(3d

. Cir. 1990)] (‘Mere puffing, advertising that 

is not deceptive for no one would rely on its exaggerated 

claims, is not actionable under [Section] 43(a) [of the 

Lanham Act].’ (internal quotation marks and citations 

omitted)); Marriott Corp. v. Ramada Inc., 826 F. Supp. 726, 

728 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) (dismissing false advertising claim 

because ad was an obvious parody and one that no 

‘reasonable person would be misled — even absent the 

disclaimer — into believing’); cf. Reilly v. Pinkus, 338 U.S. 

269 . . . (1949) (stating that puffery in advertisements goes 

 

10 Bracketed text in original Keeton quotation.

11 The Trademark Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051-1141n, is commonly referred to as the 

Lanham Act. In interpreting the UTPCPL, Pennsylvania Courts look to judicial decisions 

interpreting the Lanham Act for guidance. Commonwealth v. Monumental Props., Inc., 329 A.2d 

812 (Pa. 1974); see also Boehm v. Riversource Life Ins. Co., 117 A.3d 308 (Pa. Super. 2015).
10

too far if ‘credulous persons’ rely on it as a material 

representation of fact).

Pernod Ricard USA, LLC v. Bacardi U.S.A., Inc., 653 F.3d 241, 254 n.17 (3d Cir. 

2011).

1. Chain-wide Marketing Statements

In its Amended Complaint, the Commonwealth alleges that Golden 

Gate’s alleged “marketing materials [(Marketing Statements)]12 were deceptive and 

misleading, because they represented that Golden Gate’s [Facilities] would provide 

care that was not, in fact, provided a significant percentage of the time at many of 

[the Facilities] due to understaffing.” Amended Complaint at 23, ¶ 85.13 The

Commonwealth also avers that the Marketing Statements included significant 

omissions. However, the law dictates that if the Marketing Statements were “offered 

and understood as an expression of the seller’s opinion only, which is to be 

discounted as such by the buyer[, and on which no reasonable person would rely],” 

they are puffery, and may not form the basis for a UTPCPL action. Castrol, 987 F.2d 

at 945 (quoting W. Page Keeton, et al., supra at 756-57). “[T]he determination of 

whether an alleged misrepresentation ‘is a statement of fact’ or is instead ‘mere 

 

12 The Commonwealth alleges that:

Defendants marketed the Golden Living company and its skilled 

nursing facilities in Pennsylvania directly to Pennsylvania consumers, 

disseminating brochures, Web sites, videos, advertisements, and other 

information containing misrepresentations about the Basic Care

provided at these facilities. On information and belief, printed 

marketing materials were also distributed to hospitals and hospital 

staff that made referrals to nursing homes.

Amended Complaint at 21, ¶ 82.

13 The Commonwealth does not identify in its Amended Complaint specifically where these 

Marketing Statements appear or when they were made. Golden Gate does not explicitly admit 

making such Marketing Statements. Thus, hereinafter, we refer to the alleged Marketing 

Statements as Marketing Statements.
11

puffery’ is a legal question . . . .” Newcal Indus. v. Ikon Office Solution, 513 F.3d 

1038, 1053 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Cook, Perkiss, & Liehe v. N. Cal. Collection 

Serv., Inc., 911 F.2d 242, 245 (9th Cir. 1990)). Thus, we review those Golden Gate 

Marketing Statements the Commonwealth alleges violate the UTPCPL in that 

context.

Marketing Statement No. 1: “We have licensed nurses and nursing 

assistants available to provide nursing care and help with activities of daily living 

(ADLs). Whatever your needs are, we have the clinical staff to meet those needs.” 

Amended Complaint at 22, ¶ 83(a). This statement contains “subjective analysis or 

extrapolations, such as opinions, motives and intentions, or general statements of 

optimism,” EP Medsystems, 235 F.3d at 872, and is “expressed in broad, vague, and 

commendatory language.” Castrol, 987 F.2d at 945. It does not contain a “false 

representation[] of specific characteristics” of the services offered. Id. (emphasis 

added). The Commonwealth does not contend that Golden Gate does not have

licensed nurses and nursing assistants for the purpose of providing nursing care and 

helping with ADLs. Rather, it maintains that Golden Gate does not have sufficient 

staff to render care. However, Marketing Statement No. 1 makes no representation

that nurses will be immediately available to provide such assistance, or that it will be 

provided within a specific time frame. Thus, we conclude that Marketing Statement 

No. 1 is puffery.

Marketing Statement No. 2: “Snacks and beverages of various types and 

consistencies are available at any time from your nurse or nursing assistant.” 

Amended Complaint at 22, ¶ 83(b). This statement contains no more than “broad, 

vague, and commendatory language.” Castrol, 987 F.2d at 945. The Commonwealth 

does not assert in its Amended Complaint that snacks and beverages were not always 

available from staff, but rather, that there was insufficient staffing to timely respond 

to residents’ requests. Because Marketing Statement No. 2’s references to the 
12

availability of “snacks and beverages of various types” at “any time” are vague and 

broad, it is puffery. Marketing Statement No. 2 (emphasis added). 

Marketing Statement No. 3: “A container of fresh ice water is put right 

next to your bed every day, and your nursing assistant will be glad to refill or refresh 

it for you.” Amended Complaint at 22, ¶ 83(c). This Marketing Statement contains 

“subjective analysis or extrapolations, such as opinions, motives and intentions, or 

general statements of optimism,” EP Medsystems, 235 F.3d at 872 (emphasis 

added), and is “an exaggeration or overstatement expressed in broad, vague, and 

commendatory language.” Castrol, 987 F.2d at 945. Accordingly, Marketing 

Statement No. 3 is puffery.

Marketing Statement No. 4: “Clean linens are provided for you on a 

regular basis, so you do not need to bring your own.” Amended Complaint at 22, ¶ 

83(d). The term “regular basis” is “vague” and undefined. Id.; Castrol, 987 F.2d at 

945. The statement does not contain a “false representation[] of specific 

characteristics” of the services offered. Castrol, 987 F.2d at 945 (emphasis added). 

For these reasons, Marketing Statement No. 4 is puffery. 

Marketing Statement No. 5: 

Providing exceptional dining is important to us. Not only 

do we want to meet your nutritional needs, but we want to

exceed your expectations by offering a high level of service, 

delicious food and an overall pleasurable dining experience.

Dining in the LivingCenter is all about choice. With a 

variety of flavors, an attractive environment and plenty of 

pleasant conversation, we hope the experience will nourish 

both your body and your soul, so please join us. We have a 

seat reserved for you in our dining room!

Amended Complaint at 22, ¶ 83(e) (emphasis added). The Marketing Statement

primarily expresses Golden Gate’s priorities and intentions for residents, rather than 

makes specific objective representations about the quality of the dining experience. 
13

This Marketing Statement does not contain a “false representation[] of specific 

characteristics” of the services offered. Castrol, 987 F.2d at 945 (emphasis added). 

Instead, it encompasses “subjective analysis or extrapolations, such as opinions, 

motives and intentions, or general statements of optimism,” EP Medsystems, 235 

F.3d at 872 (emphasis added), and is “an exaggeration or overstatement expressed in 

broad, vague, and commendatory language.” Castrol, 987 F.2d at 945. Further, the

Commonwealth’s alleged misrepresentations relate to residents’ inability to make use 

of the dining facilities due to staffing shortages, rather than the quality of the dining 

experience. We do not interpret the statement “[w]e have a seat reserved for you in 

our dining room[,]” as a promise that residents will always be brought to the dining 

facilities. Amended Complaint at 22, ¶ 83(e). Accordingly, Marketing Statement 

No. 5 is puffery.

Marketing Statement No. 6: “[W]e believe that respecting your 

individuality and dignity is of utmost importance.” Amended Complaint at 23, ¶ 

84(a) (emphasis added). Based on the preface alone, “we believe,” it is clear that this 

statement contains “subjective analysis or extrapolations, such as opinions, motives 

and intentions, or general statements of optimism,” EP Medsystems, 235 F.3d at 

872 (emphasis added), and is “an exaggeration or overstatement expressed in broad, 

vague, and commendatory language.” Castrol, 987 F.2d at 945. The Marketing 

Statement communicated that it was “offered and understood as an expression of the 

seller’s opinion only, which is to be discounted as such by the buyer[, and on which 

no reasonable person would rely].” Id. at 945 (quoting W. Page Keeton, et al., supra

at 756-57). Therefore, Marketing Statement No. 6 is puffery.

Marketing Statement No. 7: “A restorative plan of care is developed to 

reflect the resident’s goals and is designed to improve wellness and function. The 

goal is to maintain optimal physical, mental and psychosocial functioning.” 

Amended Complaint at 23, ¶ 84(b). First, the Commonwealth makes no allegation 
14

that “restorative plan[s] of care” were not developed, or not reflective of resident’s

goals, but rather it alleges that the plans were incomplete or not properly followed or 

updated. Amended Complaint at 23, ¶ 84. Next, although the first sentence in the 

Marketing Statement is a specific representation that “a restorative plan of care is 

developed[,]” the descriptive words that follow – that the plan will “reflect the 

resident’s goals and is designed to improve wellness and function[,]” constitute

“subjective analysis or extrapolations, such as opinions, motives and intentions, or 

general statements of optimism.” EP Medsystems, 235 F.3d at 872 (emphasis 

added). Further, because there is no allegation the promise was not delivered it is not 

actionable. The second sentence in the Marketing Statement describing Golden 

Gate’s goal contains “subjective analysis or extrapolations, such as opinions, motives 

and intentions, or general statements of optimism,” EP Medsystems, 235 F.3d at 

872 (emphasis added). Accordingly, Marketing Statement No. 7 is puffery.

Marketing Statement No. 8: “We work with an interdisciplinary team to 

assess issues and nursing care that can enhance the resident’s psychological 

adaptation to a decrease in function, increase levels of performance in daily living 

activities, and prevent complications associated with inactivity.” Amended 

Complaint at 23, ¶ 84(c) (emphasis added). This statement contains “subjective 

analysis or extrapolations, such as opinions, motives and intentions, or general 

statements of optimism,” EP Medsystems, 235 F.3d at 872 (emphasis added). 

Further, because the Commonwealth has not alleged that Golden Gate does not “work 

with an interdisciplinary team to assess issues and nursing care,” Amended 

Complaint at 23, ¶ 84(c), the statement does not contain a “false representation[] of 

specific characteristics” of the services offered. Castrol, 987 F.2d at 945. Thus, 

Marketing Statement No. 8 is puffery.

Marketing Statement No. 9: “Our goal is to help you restore strength 

and confidence so you feel like yourself again and can get back to enjoying life the 
15

way you should. That’s The Golden Difference.” Amended Complaint at 23, ¶ 84(d)

(emphasis added). The statement primarily discusses Golden Gate’s priorities and 

intentions for residents. It contains “subjective analysis or extrapolations, such as 

opinions, motives and intentions, or general statements of optimism,” EP 

Medsystems, 235 F.3d at 872 (emphasis added), and is “an exaggeration or 

overstatement expressed in broad, vague, and commendatory language.” Castrol, 

987 F.2d at 945. For these reasons, we conclude Marketing Statement No. 9 is 

puffery. 

Because Golden Gate’s chain-wide Marketing Statements quoted in 

paragraphs 83 and 84 of the Amended Complaint are puffery and, thus, may not form 

the basis of a UTPCPL claim, Preliminary Objection 4 is sustained as it pertains to 

those Marketing Statements.

2. Facility-level Representations

In the Amended Complaint, the Commonwealth also alleges that Golden 

Gate’s individual Facilities “made deceptive, misleading, and unfair 

misrepresentations to the Commonwealth and to consumers regarding the care they 

provided in [M]arketing [Statements], resident assessments[,] care plans[] and bills, 

creating a likelihood of confusion and misunderstanding.” Amended Complaint at 

24, ¶ 88.

a. Marketing Statements

For the reasons discussed above, the Marketing Statements are puffery 

and do not support the Commonwealth’s UTPCPL claim.14

 

14 As previously explained, the UTPCPL does not apply to medical services; thus Marketing 

Statements 7, 8 and 9 would not form the basis for a UTPCPL claim. See Goda; see also GGNSC 

Clarion; Walter; Zaborowski.
16

b. Resident Assessments,

15 Care Plans and Bills

The Commonwealth, in its Amended Complaint, alleges violations of 

Sections 2(4)(v), 2(4)(ix), 2(4)(x), and 2(4)(xxi) of the UTPCPL, resulting from the 

Facilities’ failure to adhere to numerous patient-specific representations made in 

resident assessments and care plans. Rather than quote the specific wording therein, 

the Commonwealth describes numerous instances where care purportedly promised 

in resident care plans was not provided. See, e.g., Amended Complaint at 34, ¶ 120; 

35-37, ¶ 121; 41, ¶ 125; 48-52, ¶ 135; 68, ¶ 153; 73-76, ¶ 159; 88-91, ¶ 182; 93, ¶ 

185; 99-102, ¶ 192; 116-118, ¶ 208; 125, ¶ 214. The Commonwealth also alleges that 

it was billed for services that were not provided. 

 

15 The Amended Complaint alleges:

Under federal and state law, nursing homes are required to complete a 

resident assessment, known as a Minimum Data Set [(MDS)], for 

each resident within 14 days of his arrival at the facility. The MDS is 

an individualized, date-specific assessment of each resident’s needs; it 

must be updated each quarter while the resident is at the facility, or 

whenever a significant change in the resident’s health or capabilities 

is observed. Among other things, the MDS evaluates each resident’s 

functional capabilities to perform activities of daily living (‘ADLs’).

The MDS is based on actual observations of resident care provided 

over a seven-day period, not a prospective assessment of what care a 

resident will need. It describes the actual assistance the facility 

provided and will provide going forward, and that the resident 

received. The MDS reflects, for each ADL, whether the resident could 

complete the ADL independently, required assistance (supervision 

only, limited assistance, or extensive assistance), or was totally

dependent on staff. If the resident required assistance with a 

particular ADL, the MDS also reflects whether the resident needed 

set-up help only, the assistance of one staff member, or the assistance 

of two staff members.

Amended Complaint at 25-26, ¶ 92. Accordingly, our discussion of resident assessments includes 

MDS.
17

In Seldon, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 

Pennsylvania addressed a similar situation. There, the plaintiffs brought an action 

against a lender and a loan servicing company, alleging, inter alia, a claim for 

fraudulent and deceptive conduct pursuant to the UTPCPL. Specifically, after falling 

behind in their mortgage payments, the plaintiffs contacted the defendants and the 

parties reached an agreement on an alternative payment plan intended to bring the 

plaintiffs current on their mortgage. However, the plaintiffs alleged in their 

complaint that the defendants made material misrepresentations concerning the 

repayment plan. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss. The court addressed the 

relevant UTPCPL claims as follows:

[The p]laintiffs . . . allege violations of [Sections 2(4)(v) 

and (ix) [of the UTPCPL]. Section []2(4)(v) [of the 

UTPCPL] forbids ‘[r]epresenting that goods or services 

have . . . characteristics, . . . benefits or quantities that they 

do not have.’ Section []2(4)(ix) [of the UTPCPL]

prohibits ‘[a]dvertising goods or services with intent not to 

sell them as advertised.’ Pennsylvania state and federal 

courts have ruled that both of these subsections apply only 

to claims of false advertising. Karlsson v. [Fed. Deposit 

Ins. Corp.], 942 F. Supp. 1022, 1023 (E.D. Pa. 1996), aff’d,

107 F.3d 862 (3d Cir. 1997); Weinberg v. Sun Co., 740 

A.2d 1152, 1167 (Pa. Super. 1999), rev’d on other grounds,

. . . 777 A.2d 442 ([Pa.] 2001).[16] To set forth a claim for 

false advertising under these provisions of the UTPCPL, a 

plaintiff must allege: (1) ‘a defendant’s representation is 

false’; (2) ‘it actually deceives or has a tendency to 

deceive’; and (3) ‘the representation is likely to make a 

difference in the purchasing decision.’ Fay v. Erie Ins. 

Gr[p.], 723 A.2d 712, 714 (Pa. Super. 1999) (listing 

elements for violation of [Section] 2(4)(v)[ of the 

UTPCPL]); see Weinberg, 740 A.2d at 1167 (stating same 

elements apply to [Section] 2(4)(ix)) [of the UTPCPL].

Seldon, 647 F. Supp. 2d at 466 (emphasis added). 

 

16 See also Commonwealth v. Percudani, 844 A.2d 35 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004).
18

We note that a claim of false advertising, by its very nature, requires that 

a representation be advertised. Since the UTPCPL does not define “advertising,” we 

consider judicial interpretation of the term under the Lanham Act.17

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania 

explained:

‘The threshold matter in addressing an alleged false 

statement actionable . . . is whether the statement constitutes 

‘commercial advertising or promotion.’’ Premier Comp 

Solutions, LLC v. Penn Nat’l Ins. Co., No. Civ.A.07–1764, 

2012 WL 1038818, at *7 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 28, 2012) (quoting 

15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B)). In the absence of an express 

definition of ‘commercial advertising or promotion’ in the 

Lanham Act, courts have developed a four element test to 

define these terms in accordance with the Act’s language 

and congressional intent. Bracco Diagnostics, Inc. v. 

Amersham Health, Inc., 627 F. Supp. 2d 384, 455–56 (D.

N.J. 2009); Caldon, Inc. v. Advanced Measurement & 

Analysis Grp., Inc., 515 F. Supp. 2d 565, 578 (W.D. Pa.

2007). ‘Commercial advertising or promotion for purposes 

of the Lanham Act consists of (1) commercial speech; (2) 

by a defendant in commercial competition with [others in 

the market]; (3) designed to influence customers to buy the 

defendant’s products; (4) that is sufficiently disseminated 

to the relevant purchasing public to constitute 

advertising or promotion within the industry.’ Synygy, 

Inc. v. Scott-Levin, Inc., 51 F. Supp. 2d 570, 576 (E.D. Pa.

1999). Only after determining that the relevant 

statement constitutes commercial advertising or 

promotion does a court consider the remaining elements 

of a Lanham Act claim based on a false or misleading 

 

17 Section 1903(a) of the Statutory Construction Act of 1972 provides that when words in a 

statute are undefined, they must be accorded “their common and approved usage[.]” 1 Pa.C.S. § 

1903(a). “Where a court needs to define an undefined term, it may consult definitions in statutes, 

regulations or the dictionary for guidance, although such definitions are not controlling.” Adams 

Outdoor Adver., LP v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Smithfield Twp., 909 A.2d 469, 483 (Pa. Cmwlth. 

2006). Black’s Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009) defines “advertising” as “[t]he action of drawing the 

public’s attention to something to promote its sale.” Id. at 63. Further, according to MerriamWebster’s Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed. 2004), “advertising” is “the action of calling something to 

the attention of the public esp[ecially] by paid announcements.” Id. at 19.
19

representation of a product under 15 U.S.C. § 

1125(a)(1)(B). Premier Comp Solutions, 2012 WL 

1038818, at *7. While courts disagree about whether the 

Lanham Act reaches certain oral statements, it is wellsettled that the challenged statements, at the very least, 

must be ‘widely disseminated’ and ‘part of an organized 

campaign to penetrate the relevant market.’ Fashion 

Boutique v. Fendi USA, Inc., 314 F.3d 48, 56-57 (2d Cir.

2002). ‘Although advertising is generally understood to 

consist of widespread communication through print or 

broadcast media, ‘promotion’ may take other forms of 

publicity used in the relevant industry, such as displays at 

trade shows and sales presentations to buyers.’ Id. at 57.

Notably, it is well[-]established that ‘isolated statements 

to potential customers generally do not constitute 

sufficient dissemination to be defined as advertising

within the meaning of the Lanham Act’ and ‘private 

statements to competitors—without more—falls short of 

commercial advertising as defined in the Act.’ Pitney 

Bowes, Inc. v. ITS Mailing Sys. Inc., No. Civ.A.09–5024, 

2010 WL 1005146, at *5 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 17, 2010) 

(emphasis omitted) (citing Schmidt, Long & Assoc., Inc. v. 

Aetna U.S. Healthcare, Inc., No. Civ.A.00–3683, 2001 WL 

856946, at *11 (E.D. Pa. July 26, 2001) (‘Generally, 

isolated private statements are not sufficiently disseminated 

to constitute advertising.’)). Thus, ‘[p]roof of widespread 

dissemination within the relevant industry is a normal 

concomitant of meeting this requirement,’ and ‘isolated 

disparaging statements do not have redress under the 

Lanham Act.’ ConsulNet Computing, Inc. v. Moore, No. 

Civ.A.04–3485, 2007 WL 2702446, at *11 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 

12, 2007) (quotations omitted).

Synthes, Inc. v. Emerge Med., Inc., 25 F. Supp. 3d 617, 716-17 (E.D. Pa. 2014)

(emphasis added).

Consistent with the above, the Seldon Court concluded:

Here, plaintiffs have presented no facts regarding 

defendants’ production of any false advertising. Instead,

plaintiffs allege that defendants misrepresented the 

benefits, fees, and amounts owed concerning the loan 

and misrepresented the scheduled monthly payments 

under the repayment plan. Because individual 
20

employees or agents of defendants made these 

representations, they do not qualify as advertising and 

cannot constitute a violation of the UTPCPL’s false 

advertising prohibition. See Thompson v. The Glenmede 

Trust Co., No. 04428, 2003 WL 1848011, at *1 (Pa. Ct. 

Com. Pl. Philadelphia County Feb. 18, 2003) (‘Individual 

representations made by [defendants] upon which 

[p]laintiffs allegedly relied do not constitute ‘advertising’ as 

intended by the UTPCPL.’). For plaintiffs’ claim under 

[Section] 2(4)(ix)[ of the UTPCPL], plaintiffs have also 

failed to allege that defendants intentionally engaged in 

false advertising. See Karlsson, 942 F. Supp. at 1023 

(noting that [Section] 2(4)(ix) [of the UTPCPL] requires 

element of intent). Because plaintiffs do not allege the 

elements of a false advertising claim under [Section 2(4)](v) 

or (ix) [of the UPTCPL], plaintiffs have failed to set forth a 

claim on which this court can grant relief.

Seldon, 647 F. Supp. 2d at 466 (emphasis added).

Similarly, in the instant matter, as described in the Amended Complaint,

resident care plan development involves assessment and representations made by the 

Facilities’ staff. Specifically, the resident and his or her 

‘care team’ will sit down together (called a ‘care 

coordination’ meeting), usually within 72 hours of 

admission, and review what the assessments say, including 

what you can do for yourself and what you may need 

assistance with. Your care team will consist of key 

members of our staff, like the nurses, social worker, 

dietitian, etc. In effect, the care plan you develop together 

becomes your personal ‘road map for success.’

Amended Complaint at 28-29, ¶ 96. Further, with respect to Sections 2(4)(v) and

2(4)(ix) of the UTPCPL, “[b]ecause individual employees or agents of defendants

allegedly made these representations, they do not qualify as advertising and cannot 

constitute a violation of the UTPCPL’s false advertising prohibition.” Seldon, 647 F.

Supp. 2d at 466. Moreover, representations made in resident care plan 

development are not likely to make a difference in the purchasing decision, since 

such representations are made after an individual is admitted and becomes a 
21

resident. Further, these “‘isolated statements to . . . [customers and] potential 

customers . . . do not constitute sufficient dissemination to be defined as 

advertising . . . .’” Synthes, Inc., 25 F. Supp. 3d at 717 (emphasis added) quoting 

Pitney Bowes, Inc. at 5. For the same reasons, resident assessments and alleged 

employee misrepresentations in billing do not qualify as advertising under those 

UTPCPL sections. Accordingly, Golden Gate’s Preliminary Objection 4 is 

sustained.

B. Preliminary Objections 5, 6, 7 and 8 – Insufficient Pleadings

Golden Gate further argues that, even if the alleged representations do

not constitute puffery, the Commonwealth failed to sufficiently plead facts to support

the alleged UTPCPL violations. It then sets forth separate arguments which comprise

Preliminary Objections 5, 6, 7 and 8.

1. Preliminary Objection 5

Golden Gate contends that the facts set forth in the Amended Complaint 

do not support a claim that it violated Section 2(4)(x) of the UTPCPL by advertising

goods or services while intending not to reasonably supply public demand. Although 

the aforementioned discussion in Seldon does not address Section 2(4)(x) of the 

UTPCPL, the language used therein - “[a]dvertising goods or services with intent not 

to . . . ” - is almost identical to that in Section 2(4)(ix) of the UTPCPL. 73 P.S. § 

201-2(4)(x) (emphasis added). Therefore, we similarly interpret Section 2(4)(x) of 

the UTPCPL to “apply only to claims of false advertising.” Seldon, 647 F. Supp. 2d 

at 466. For the reasons previously discussed herein, the Marketing Statements are 

puffery, and the representations made in resident care plans and bills do not constitute 

advertising. Because the alleged conduct is not false advertising, the Commonwealth 

failed to plead facts sufficient to support the alleged violation claim. Accordingly, 

Preliminary Objection 5 is sustained.
22

2. Preliminary Objection 6

Golden Gate also argues that the Amended Complaint fails to comply 

with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure which require specificity in 

pleadings. Specifically, Golden Gate contends that the Commonwealth failed to 

plead facts necessary to support its claim that Golden Gate violated Section 2(4)(xxi) 

of the UTPCPL. Further, Golden Gate asserts that “[the Commonwealth’s] Amended 

Complaint fails to set forth specific factual allegations regarding [Golden Gate’s] 

deviation from any particular resident’s care plan or [resident assessment], or a single 

instance when [Golden Gate] billed a resident or the Commonwealth for services that 

were not actually provided.” Preliminary Objections at 20, ¶ 63. Golden Gate claims 

that “the only factual support [the Commonwealth] provides for [its] conclusory 

allegations takes the form of vague, general and non-specific statements attributed to 

unnamed, former employees and other ‘Confidential Witness[es].’” Preliminary 

Objection 6 at 20, ¶ 62 (quoting Amended Complaint at 34-147, ¶¶ 119-239). 

We acknowledge:

[Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure] No. [(Rule)]

1019(a) provides that ‘[t]he material facts on which a cause 

of action or defense is based shall be stated in a concise and 

summary form.’ This rule requires a plaintiff to plead all 

the facts that must be proved in order to achieve recovery 

on the alleged cause of action. Moreover, the pleading must 

be sufficiently specific so that the defending party will 

know how to prepare his defense.

Commonwealth v. Peoples Benefit Servs. Inc., 895 A.2d 683, 689 n.10 (Pa. Cmwlth. 

2006) (Peoples Benefit I). “It may be granted that ‘the lower court has broad 

discretion in determining the amount of detail that must be averred since the standard 

of pleading set forth in Rule 1019(a) is incapable of precise measurement. GoodrichAmram § 1019(2)-10&11.’ United Refrigerator Co. v. Applebaum, 410 Pa. 210, 213, 
23

189 A.2d 253, 255 (1963).” Pike Cty. Hotels Corp. v. Kiefer, 396 A.2d 677, 681 (Pa. 

Super. 1978).

In the instant case, the Amended Complaint sets forth numerous 

examples of instances where Golden Gate allegedly failed to comply with resident 

care plans. See, e.g., Amended Complaint at 34, ¶ 120; 35-37, ¶ 121; 41, ¶ 125; 48-

52, ¶ 135; 68, ¶ 153; 73-76, ¶ 159; 88-91, ¶ 182; 93, ¶ 185; 99-102, ¶ 192; 116-118, ¶ 

208; 125, ¶ 214. However, there are no allegations specifically identifying any 

particular resident care plan or MDS from which the Facility deviated, or any 

allegation identifying any specific bill for services that were not provided. The 

Commonwealth asserts that “[t]here is no requirement in Pennsylvania law that the 

Commonwealth set forth specific deviations from any particular resident’s care plan 

or MDS, or that the Commonwealth identify in its complaint individual bills for 

services to individual residents that were not actually provided.” Commonwealth’s 

Answer to Preliminary Objections at 28. It further contends that this Court may 

“reasonably infer that the pervasive and significant omissions of care alleged . . . 

reflect deviations from care contemplated in residents’ MDS assessments and care 

plans[.]” Id. at 28-29. The Commonwealth asks this Court to make assumptions 

based on general allegations describing documents it has not provided. This, the 

Court is not prepared to do. 

Section 2(4)(xxi) of the UTPCPL prohibits “[e]ngaging in any . . .

fraudulent or deceptive conduct which creates a likelihood of confusion or of 

misunderstanding.” 73 P.S. § 201-2(4)(xxi). Golden Gate contends that while the 

Commonwealth in the Amended Complaint asserts that deceptive resident 

assessments and billing statements were submitted to it and/or the insurers, the 

Commonwealth failed to allege how documents not issued to consumers could 

deceive consumers. Golden Gate further maintains that the Amended Complaint does 

not reflect facts explaining how a consumer could be misled by a billing statement to 
24

believe that he received services or assistance that he had not in fact received, or how 

an un-itemized per diem charge could convey to a consumer that a particular service 

had been provided in the first place. 

Notably, Rule 1019(i) states: 

When any claim or defense is based upon a writing, the 

pleader shall attach a copy of the writing, or the material 

part thereof, but if the writing or copy is not accessible to 

the pleader, it is sufficient so to state, together with the 

reason, and to set forth the substance in writing.

Pa. R.C.P. No. 1019(i) (emphasis added).

The general allegations of wrongdoing pertaining to unidentified

Marketing Statements, resident care plans, billing statements and MDSs are not 

sufficiently specific to meet the pleading requirement, especially given that the 

documents were not attached to the Amended Complaint, and neither the patients nor 

the documents were sufficiently described to permit Golden Gate to prepare a 

defense.18 Accordingly, Preliminary Objection 6 is sustained.

19

 

 

18 The Commonwealth did not state in the Amended Complaint that the Marketing 

Statements, resident care plans, billing statements or MDSs were not accessible and the reason 

therefor in accordance with Rule 1019(i).

19 The Concurrence/Dissent maintains that the Majority has, sua sponte, raised the issue of 

the Commonwealth’s failure to attach the subject documents. Such is not the case. Golden Gate

explicitly raised the issue of the Commonwealth’s lack of specificity in its pleading in accordance 

with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Indeed, Golden Gate contends that the 

Commonwealth 

asserts that Golden Living made deceptive representations in three 

forms: (1) ‘care plans shared with residents that outlined the care that 

the Facilities promised to provide;’ (2) ‘billing statements that 

included a per diem charge leading recipients to believe that all 

services had been provided;’ and (3) . . . ‘MDSs’[] that were 

submitted to the Commonwealth on a quarterly basis (or more 

frequently) for each resident covered by Medicaid and monthly billing 

statements submitted for Medicaid payments’ which ‘created the 

impression that the Golden Living Facilities had provided, and would 

continue to provide, a level of care that was not provided.’ 
25

3. Preliminary Objection 7

Golden Gate asserts in Preliminary Objection 7 that “[t]o the extent [the

Commonwealth’s] Amended Complaint alleges a claim for fraud against [Golden

Gate under the UTPCPL’s catch[-]all provision (Section 2(4)(xxi) of the UTPCPL)], 

that claim should be dismissed pursuant to [Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure]

Nos. 1028(a)(4) and 1019(b) for failure to plead the claim with particularity.” 

Preliminary Objection 7 at 22, ¶ 71. 

Rule 1019(b) provides, in relevant part, that “[a]verments of fraud or

mistake shall be averred with particularity.” Pa.R.C.P. No. 1019(b). Rule 1028(a)(4)

permits a party to file preliminary objections on the basis of a pleading’s legal

insufficiency. Notwithstanding, in Commonwealth v. Percudani, 825 A.2d 743 (Pa.

Cmwlth. 2003), amended, 851 A.2d 987 (2004), this Court held that a claim under

Section 2(4)(xxi) of the UTPCPL is subject to a lesser standard than common law

fraud.

20

 As this Court later explained in Commonwealth v. Manson, 903 A.2d 69 (Pa.

Cmwlth. 2006):

Prior to the 1996 amendments to the [UTPCPL], [S]ection

2(4)(xxi) [of the UTPCPL] merely prohibited ‘fraudulent

 

Preliminary Objection 6 at 19-20, ¶ 61 (emphasis added) (quoting Amended Complaint at 157, ¶¶ 

267, 269). Accordingly, Golden Gate’s assertion that, “the only factual support [the 

Commonwealth] provides for [its] conclusory allegations takes the form of vague, general and nonspecific statements attributed to unnamed, former employees and other ‘Confidential Witness[es]’” 

expresses the very deficiency resulting from the Commonwealth’s failure to attach the documents. 

Preliminary Objection 6 at 20, ¶ 62 (quoting Amended Complaint at 34-147, ¶¶ 119-239). Further, 

the Concurrence/Dissent’s speculation that the Commonwealth might not have attached the 

documents based on privacy concerns is simply conjecture on its part. Nonetheless, it is clear that 

the Commonwealth gave no written explanation for its failure to so attach the documents, and thus 

it did not comply with Rule 1019(i).

20 “[T]o establish fraud, a plaintiff must prove: (1) the misrepresentation of a material fact; 

(2) scienter; (3) intention by the declarant to induce action; (4) justifiable reliance by the party 

defrauded upon the misrepresentation; and (5) damage to the party defrauded as a proximate result.” 

Commonwealth v. Manson, 903 A.2d 69, 74 n.5 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006).
26

conduct,’ and a plaintiff had to establish the elements of

common law fraud to prove a claim. [Percudani]. The

1996 amendments revised the provision to prohibit

‘fraudulent or deceptive conduct.’ Id.

Even after the 1996 amendments became effective, our

[S]uperior [C]ourt has continued to interpret [S]ection

2(4)(xxi) [of the UTPCPL] to require that a plaintiff

establish the elements of common law fraud to prove a

claim. Id. However, this court has rejected that

interpretation because: (1) the statute is to be liberally

construed to effectuate the legislative goal of consumer

protection; (2) the legislature’s addition of the words ‘or

deceptive’ signals a less restrictive interpretation; and (3)

maintaining the pre-1996 requirement would render the

words ‘or deceptive conduct’ redundant and superfluous,

contrary to the rules of statutory construction. Id.

The question, then, is not whether a company or corporate

officer engaged in conduct that was intended to deceive

consumers. Rather, the question is whether the company

or corporate officer engaged in conduct that might be

‘deceptive to the ordinary consumer.’ Id. at 746.

Manson, 903 A.2d at 74 (emphasis added; footnotes omitted); see also Peoples

Benefit I; Bennett v. A.T. Masterpiece Homes at Broadsprings, LLC, 40 A.3d 145 (Pa.

Super. 2012). 

The Commonwealth reaffirms in its brief that it is “proceeding under

[Section 2(4)(xxi) of the UTPCPL’s] ‘deceptive’ prong[.]” Commonwealth’s Br. at

22 n.7. Accordingly, because the Commonwealth was not required to meet the

particularity requirements for common law fraud claims, Preliminary Objection 7 is

overruled.

4. Preliminary Objection 8

Lastly, Golden Gate contends that although the Commonwealth alleges

in its Amended Complaint false advertising claims under Sections 2(4)(v) and

2(4)(ix) of the UTPCPL and that deceptive, misleading and unfair statements

appeared in the Marketing Statements to Pennsylvania consumers and hospital staff,
27

the Commonwealth failed to specify: (1) who was allegedly deceived by the

Marketing Statements; (2) the particular Marketing Statements in which each

allegedly deceptive statement appeared; (3) where those Marketing Statements were

allegedly disseminated; and, (4) when those Marketing Statements were allegedly

disseminated. According to Golden Gate, a false advertising claim under the

UTPCPL requires the Commonwealth to demonstrate that the false advertisement

actually deceived or had a tendency to deceive a substantial segment of its audience.

Having already determined that the Marketing Statements constitute puffery and are

not material misrepresentations, Golden Gate’s Preliminary Objection 8 is sustained.

C. Preliminary Objection 1021

 

21 The Concurrence/Dissent asserts that because the Majority dismisses the underlying 

substantive claims, “there is no need to decide whether the Commonwealth is a ‘person in interest 

entitled to restitution or restoration under Section 4.1 of the UTPCPL and, therefore, the question is 

moot and the discussion related thereto is merely dicta.” Concurring/Dissenting Op. at 3. The 

Concurrence/Dissent similarly objects to the Majority’s discussion of Preliminary Objection 12. 

However, “[p]reliminary objections are permissible in an original jurisdiction action, 

[Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure] 1516[(b)], and are to be made in accordance with the 

appropriate Rule of Civil Procedure. See Pa.R.A.P. 1517; see also Pa.R.C.P. [No.] 1028 

(Preliminary Objections).” Uniontown Newspapers, Inc. v. Roberts, 839 A.2d 185, 190 (2003), 

aff’d, 909 A.2d 804 (Pa. 2006). Rule 1028(c)(2) specifically requires, in pertinent part, that “[t]he 

court shall determine promptly all preliminary objections.” Pa.R.C.P. No. 1028(c)(2) (bold and 

italic emphasis added).

Moreover:

According to Black’s Law Dictionary, ‘dictum,’ is generally used as 

an abbreviated form of ‘obiter dictum,’ or ‘a remark by the way.’ To 

elaborate, it is described as[:]

[A]n observation or remark made by a judge in 

pronouncing an opinion upon a cause, concerning 

some rule, principle, or application of law, or the 

solution of a question suggested by the case at bar, but 

not necessarily involved in the case or essential to 

its determination. . . . Statements and comments in 
28

In Preliminary Objection 10, Golden Gate avers that the Commonwealth 

may not recover restoration under Section 4.1 of the UTPCPL. Under the UTPCPL, 

only a “person in interest” may seek restoration. 73 P.S. § 201-4.1. The UTPCPL 

defines “person” as “natural persons, corporations, trusts, partnerships, incorporated 

or unincorporated associations, and any other legal entities.” 73 P.S. § 201-2(2). 

According to Golden Gate, since the UTPCPL’s definition of “person” does not 

include the Commonwealth, it may not seek restoration on its own behalf. 

In support of its position, Golden Gate relies on Meyer v. Community 

College of Beaver County, 93 A.3d 806 (Pa. 2014) (Meyer II), wherein our Supreme

Court considered whether the UTPCPL “defines a ‘person’ subject to liability as 

including both private entities and political subdivision agencies.” Id. at 808. The 

Supreme Court therein explained:

Where the words of the statute at issue are not explicit, this 

Court may consider, inter alia, the following criteria: ‘[t]he 

circumstances under which it was enacted,’ ‘[t]he mischief 

to be remedied,’ ‘[t]he object to be attained,’ ‘[t]he former 

law, if any, including other statutes upon the same or 

similar subjects,’ and ‘[t]he consequences of a particular 

 

an opinion concerning some rule of law or legal 

proposition not necessarily involved nor essential to 

determination of the case in hand are obiter dicta, and 

lack the force of adjudication.

Black’s Law Dictionary 409 (5th ed. 1979). See also Stellwagon v. 

Pyle, . . . 133 A.2d 819 ([Pa.] 1957) (language in judicial opinion 

going beyond issue decided is considered dictum); O’Neill v. 

Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., . . . 26 A.2d 898 ([Pa.] 1942) (statement of 

court on an issue not raised is dictum).

Giffear v. Johns-Manville Corp., 632 A.2d 880, 884 n.6 (Pa. Super. 1993) (emphasis added), aff’d 

sub nom. Simmons v. Pacor, Inc., 674 A.2d 232 (Pa. 1996). Clearly, addressing and deciding a 

preliminary objection presented to the Court is not dicta.

In addition to the Majority addressing and resolving all the preliminary objections raised as 

directed by Rule 1028(c)(2), because the Commonwealth may choose to seek leave of Court to 

refile its Amended Complaint or bring similar complaints against other providers there is a 

likelihood that this or other similar matters may return to this Court. 
29

interpretation.’ 1 Pa.C.S.[] § 1921(c). In our view, 

although it is a close question, the aforementioned 

factors suggest that the legislature did not intend to 

define ‘person’ as including political subdivisions and 

their agencies.

First, at the time of the UTPCPL’s adoption, the common 

law provided both a doctrine of sovereign immunity, as well 

as a derivative interpretive presumption against depriving 

the state of sovereign rights or property, both of which 

arguably extended to political subdivision agencies. Given 

the extant ubiquity of these doctrines, we find it unlikely 

that the legislature would depart from them with such 

general language as ‘any other legal entities.’

Furthermore, . . . the legislature enacted the UTPCPL to 

account for the fundamental inequality between buyer and 

seller, and to protect consumers from exploitative 

merchants. The parties offer, and we discern, no evidence 

to suggest that, in enacting the UTPCPL, the General 

Assembly was concerned with and, thus, sought to 

eliminate unfair trade practices in the public sphere.

Finally, the consequences of adopting an interpretation of 

‘person’ to include political subdivision agencies strongly 

suggest to us that the General Assembly did not intend their 

inclusion. First, in the context of public enforcement 

actions, the UTPCPL provides that the Attorney General or 

a District Attorney may obtain, ‘on behalf of the 

Commonwealth,’ civil penalties in varying amounts, up to 

$5,000 per violation. [Section 8 of the UTPCPL,] 73 P.S. § 

201-8. Likewise, in the context of private actions, plaintiffs 

may recover treble damages in an amount up to three times 

the amount of their actual damages, as well as costs and 

attorney fees. See [Section 9.2 of the UTPCPL, added by 

the Act of November 24, 1976, P.L. 1166, as amended,] 73 

P.S. § 201-9.2. These damages, although designed, in part, 

for other more remedial purposes, do contain a deterrent, 

punitive element. See Schwartz v. Rockey, . . . 932 A.2d 

885, 898 ([Pa.] 2007) (noting the treble damage provisions 

are ‘a hybrid,’ with both punitive and remedial aspects) 

(internal quotations and citations omitted). Although the 

legislature certainly has the authority to impose punitive 

sanctions and damages upon its political subdivisions, the 

proceeds of which would go to its own treasury, we are of 
30

the opinion that it would not take such an uncharted course 

without making a clearer statement, particularly given our 

longstanding precedent that governmental agencies are 

ordinarily immune from common[]law punitive damages. 

Moreover, under certain circumstances, the Attorney 

General may seek the ‘dissolution, suspension or forfeiture 

of the franchise or right to do business’ of a ‘person’ who 

violates a court’s injunction against an unfair or deceptive 

practice, as well as the appointment of a receiver to manage 

the party’s affairs. See [Section 9 of the UTPCPL,] 73 P.S. 

§ 201-9. In our view, it is incongruous that the General 

Assembly would adopt a provision effectively authorizing 

the Attorney General, with court approval, to eliminate 

political subdivisions.

In sum, we hold the UTPCPL is ambiguous as to whether 

political subdivision agencies constitute ‘persons.’ 

However, based on our consideration of the law prior to the 

UTPCPL’s enactment, the UTPCPL’s purpose, and the 

consequences of a holding that it applies to such agencies, 

we conclude the legislature did not intend for the 

definition of ‘person’ to include political subdivision 

agencies. 

Meyer II, 93 A.3d at 814-15 (citations omitted; emphasis added). 

Although, in Meyer II, the issue was whether a political subdivision 

agency can be a person liable under the UTPCPL, Golden Gate argues that the

Supreme Court’s pronouncement also precludes the Commonwealth from being a 

“person in interest,” entitled to seek restoration under the UTPCPL. 73 P.S. § 201-

4.1 (emphasis added). When presented with the issue of giving “person” different 

meanings in various sections of the statute, both this Court’s majority and (now)

President Judge Leavitt’s dissenting opinion in Meyer v. Community College of 

Beaver County, 30 A.3d 587 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (Meyer I), rev’d, Meyer II,

concluded that the term “person” must have a consistent meaning throughout the 

UTPCPL.22

 

22 In her dissenting opinion, (now) President Judge Leavitt stated:
31

On the same date the Supreme Court issued the Meyer II decision, it 

decided Commonwealth v. TAP Pharmaceutical Products, 94 A.3d 350 (Pa. 2014). 

 

I agree with the majority that if the Commonwealth or a local agency 

is a person for purposes of being a plaintiff under the [UTPCPL], then 

it follows that either must also be a ‘person’ for purposes of being a 

defendant. Stated otherwise, the word ‘person’ must have one 

meaning for all purposes of the statute.

Meyer I, 30 A.3d at 604 (Leavitt, J., dissenting).

The Concurrence/Dissent essentially argues that the word “person” should be interpreted 

differently under different sections of the UTPCPL. It asserts that the reasoning in Meyer II is 

inapplicable to the instant matter since “no liability will be imposed upon a government entity; 

instead, the Commonwealth is seeking restitution and restoration from Golden Gate, a merchant, for 

money the Commonwealth paid as a result of the alleged deception.” Concurring/Dissenting Op. at 

4. However:

It is axiomatic that in determining legislative intent, all sections of a 

statute must be read together and in conjunction with each other, and 

construed with reference to the entire statute. When the meaning of 

a word or phrase is clear when used in one section, it will be 

construed to mean the same thing in another section of the same 

statute. A conflict between various statutes or parts thereof is to be 

avoided and, if possible, the apparently conflicting provisions must be 

construed together with the more specific provisions prevailing over 

the general ones.

Housing Authority of County of Chester v. Pennsylvania State Civil Service Comm’n, 730 A.2d 935, 

945-46 (Pa. 1999) (citations omitted; emphasis added). Accordingly, the Court may not interpret 

the word “person” to exclude the Commonwealth under the liability provisions of the UTPCPL and 

then interpret it to include the Commonwealth under the restoration provision of the same statute. 

Notably, the Supreme Court in Meyer II did not limit its definition of the word “person” to a 

particular section of the UTPCPL, and, in fact, the Court’s language implies broad application of 

the definition:

the UTPCPL is ambiguous as to whether political subdivision 

agencies constitute ‘persons.’ However, based on our consideration 

of the law prior to the UTPCPL’s enactment, the UTPCPL’s 

purpose, and the consequences of a holding that it applies to such 

agencies, we conclude the legislature did not intend for the 

definition of ‘person’ to include political subdivision agencies. 

Meyer II, 93 A.3d at 815 (emphasis added). 
32

In TAP, the Commonwealth challenged pharmaceutical companies’ prescription drug 

pricing claiming that the defendant companies engaged in deceptive practices. 

Among the claims advanced by the Commonwealth were multiple UTPCPL 

violations. This Court ultimately found that one of the TAP defendants violated the 

UTPCPL and, inter alia, awarded restoration under Section 4.1 of the UTPCPL. On 

review, the Supreme Court vacated this Court’s order and remanded the matter 

because the Commonwealth had not properly accounted for prescription drug rebates. 

The Supreme Court did not address whether the Commonwealth was entitled to 

restoration under the UTPCPL as a “person in interest.” 73 P.S. § 201-4.1. 

Therefore, there is no binding Pennsylvania authority directly addressing whether the 

Commonwealth is a “person” in interest entitled to restoration under the UTPCPL. 

However, the United States District Court for the Southern District of 

New York addressed this very issue in In re: Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) 

Products Liability Litigation, (S.D.N.Y. Master File No. 1:00-1898, MDL 1358 

(SAS), M21-88, filed July 2, 2015), 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88035, 2015 WL 

4092326. Therein, the District Court considered a similar Commonwealth argument,

reviewed the relevant case law, and explained:

The Commonwealth’s entitlement to restoration under the 

UTPCPL turns on whether it qualifies as a ‘person’ under 

the restoration provision of the statute. The Pennsylvania 

courts have not provided a clear answer to this question. In 

Commonwealth v. TAP Pharmaceutical Products, [36 A.3d 

1112 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011), vacated and remanded, 94 A.3d 

350 (Pa. 2014),] the trial court analyzed the term ‘person’

and concluded that the Commonwealth was a public entity 

entitled to restoration under the statute. This decision was 

later vacated and remanded by the Pennsylvania Supreme 

Court because the Commonwealth failed at trial to provide 

a rational accounting of the relevant state agency’s 

damages. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court did not, in 

remanding TAP, address the Commonwealth’s entitlement 

to restoration as a ‘person’ under the statute.
33

The very day that it remanded TAP, the Pennsylvania 

Supreme Court issued a decision in [Meyer II], holding that 

‘political subdivision agencies’ do not constitute ‘persons’ 

under the UTPCPL. In Meyer [II], the court confronted the 

definition of ‘person’ under the UTPCPL in a slightly 

different context: whether a public entity was a ‘person’ 

that could be sued under the statute, not whether a public 

entity was a ‘person’ entitled to restoration. Context aside, 

the statutory provision the Meyer [II] court interpreted —

which defines ‘person’ under the UTPCPL — was the same 

one at issue in TAP.

The Commonwealth urges the Court to ascribe different 

meanings to the word ‘person’ across different sections of 

the UTPCPL, arguing principally that the Commonwealth’s 

broad enforcement power under the statute militates in 

favor of an expansive definition of ‘person’ in the context 

of recovering damages, and a narrower definition of 

‘person’ in deciding whether to hold a public entity liable

under the statute. For additional support, the 

Commonwealth juxtaposes [S]ection 4 of the [UTPCPL], 

which permits the Attorney General to ‘bring an action in 

the name of the Commonwealth’ to restrain violations of 

the statute, with the restoration provision — [S]ection 4.1 

[of the UTPCPL] — which gives the court discretion to 

direct that defendants ‘restore any person in interest’

whenever a court ‘issues a permanent injunction . . . as 

authorized in [S]ection 4 [of the UTPCPL].’ [73 P.S. §§

201-4, 4.1 (emphasis added)]. Reading these contiguous 

provisions of the statute together and accounting for its 

overall purpose of ‘policing the marketplace and remedying 

unfair and deceptive conduct,’ the Commonwealth 

concludes that restoration must be available to it as a 

remedy under the statute.

This is a fair interpretation — and perhaps a more appealing 

one from a policy perspective — but still remains at odds 

with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s pronouncement in 

Meyer [II]. Further, as defendants point out, counting the 

Commonwealth as a ‘person in interest’ would stretch the 

statutory definition beyond its plain meaning. It is even 

more troubling to give ‘person’ different meanings in 

different sections of the same statute, especially after the

Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently defined the term 

without explicitly limiting its meaning. After considering 
34

various statutory interpretation arguments, the Meyer [II]

Court excluded the Commonwealth and its agencies as 

‘persons’ under the UTPCPL and gave no indication that 

the result would or should be different in the enforcement 

context. A contrary ruling in this case would appear to defy 

Meyer [II] and do violence to the UTPCPL’s statutory 

scheme. 

MTBE, Slip Op. at 19-22, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88035 at 21-23, 2015 WL 4092326 

at 5-6 (emphasis added; footnotes omitted). Accordingly, the District Court 

concluded that the Commonwealth was prohibited from seeking restoration under the

UTPCPL. We find the District Court’s analysis compelling and, for the reasons 

stated therein, similarly conclude that the Commonwealth may not seek restoration 

under the UTPCPL in this case.

23

 Thus, Golden Gate’s Preliminary Objection 10 is 

sustained.

III. Breach of Contract – Preliminary Objection 924

Golden Gate argues that the Commonwealth’s common law contract

claim should be stricken from the Amended Complaint and dismissed with prejudice

because the Department of Human Services’25 (DHS) Nursing Facility Provider

 

23 Notably, the District Court acknowledged its difficulty reconciling the TAP and Meyer II

decisions:

[T]his issue is an important one that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court 

should squarely address. Only adding to the confusion of the conflict 

in authorities is the [C]ourt’s decision to remand TAP on unrelated 

grounds on the same day it issued Meyer [II], without any mention in 

TAP of the overlapping issue at the heart of Meyer [II]. The upshot is 

two rulings, issued on the same day, that may contradict each other.

MTBE, Slip. Op. at 22, 2015 U.S. Dist. Lexis 88035 at 23, 2015 WL 4092326 at 6 (footnote 

omitted).

24 Preliminary Objection 9 – Demurrer - the Amended Complaint fails to state a viable 

breach of contract claim.

25 Effective November 24, 2014, the Department of Public Welfare was officially renamed 

the Department of Human Services.
35

Agreements (Provider Agreements) are not contracts, as the Provider Agreements do

not require any consideration to be paid to providers. Further, DHS has taken the

position that Provider Agreements “represent nothing more than enrollment forms”

and are “not contractual in character.” Dep’t of Pub. Welfare v. Presbyterian Med.

Ctr. of Oakmont, 877 A.2d 419, 427 (Pa. 2005). The Commonwealth states in its

brief that, after considering Golden Gate’s arguments and authority, it would, with

Golden Gate’s concurrence, agree to withdraw its breach of contract claim (Count II). 

Under the circumstances, the Court considers Count II of the Commonwealth’s

Amended Complaint withdrawn and, thus, Preliminary Objection 9 is moot.

IV. Unjust Enrichment - Preliminary Objections 3 and 1126

Golden Gate asserts in Preliminary Objection 3 that because the General

Assembly has provided a statutory remedy, the Commonwealth’s common law cause

of action for unjust enrichment must be dismissed. The unjust enrichment claim

allegedly arises from the Facilities’ “submi[ssion of] billings to the Pennsylvania

Medical Assistance [(MA)] Program.” Amended Complaint at 160, ¶ 279.

Unjust enrichment is an equitable doctrine. See Am. & Foreign Ins. Co. 

v. Jerry’s Sport Ctr., Inc., 2 A.3d 526 (Pa. 2010). It “is the retention of a benefit 

conferred by another, without offering compensation, in circumstances where 

compensation is reasonably expected, for which the beneficiary must make 

restitution. An action based on unjust enrichment is an action which sounds in quasi-

 

26 Preliminary Objection 3 – Demurrer - the common law breach of contract and unjust 

enrichment claims are barred by Section 1504 of the Statutory Construction Act of 1972, 1 Pa. C.S. 

§ 1504. 

Preliminary Objection 11 – Demurrer - if this Court finds that a contract existed between 

Golden Gate and the Commonwealth, the unjust enrichment claim should be stricken. Having 

accepted the Commonwealth’s withdrawal of its breach of contract claim, we do not address Golden 

Gate’s Preliminary Objection 11.
36

contract or contract implied in law.” Id. at 531 n.7 (citation omitted). Our Supreme 

Court has

consistently held that where a statutory remedy is provided,

the procedure prescribed therein must be strictly pursued to

the exclusion of other methods of redress. Interstate

Traveller Serv[s.], Inc. v. [] Dep[’t] of Env[tl.] Res[.], . . .

406 A.2d 1020 ([Pa.] 1979); [] Dept. of Env[tl.] Res[.] v.

Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp., . . . 375 A.2d 320 ([Pa.]

1977); Erie Human Relations Comm[’n] ex rel. Dunson v.

Erie Ins[.] Exch[.], . . . 348 A.2d 742 ([Pa.] 1975); Borough

of Green Tree v. B[d.] of Prop[.] Assessments, . . . 328 A.2d

819 ([Pa.] 1974); Colteryahn Sanitary Dairy v. Milk

Control Comm[’n], . . . 1 A.2d 775 ([Pa.] 1938); Ermine v.

Frankel, . . . 185 A. 269 ([Pa.] 1936); Bowman v. Gum, Inc.,

. . . 184 A. 258 ([Pa.] 1936); White v. Old York R[d.]

Country Club, . . . 178 A. 3 ([Pa.] 1935); Taylor v. Moore, .

. . 154 A. 799 ([Pa.] 1931); Moore v. Taylor, . . . 23 A. 768

([Pa.] 1892).

This theory is also embodied in our Statutory Construction

Act [of 197227] which states:

In all cases where a remedy is provided or a

duty is enjoined or anything is directed to be

done by any statute, the directions of the

statute shall be strictly pursued, and no penalty

shall be inflicted, or anything done agreeably

to the common law, in such cases, further than

shall be necessary for carrying such statute

into effect.

1 Pa.C.S. § 1504 (emphasis added).

Jackson v. Centennial Sch. Dist., 501 A.2d 218, 220 (Pa. 1985); see also White v.

Conestoga Title Ins. Co., 53 A.3d 720 (Pa. 2012). “[B]ut, where the legislature

explicitly reveals in a statute that it does not intend for such exclusivity, a statutory

procedure for dispute resolution does not preempt common law claims.” Id. at 733. 

Further:

 

27 1 Pa. C.S. §§ 1501-1991.
37

When the Legislature has seen fit to enact a pervasive

regulatory scheme and to establish a governmental agency

possessing expertise and broad regulatory and remedial

powers to administer that statutory scheme, a court should

be reluctant to interfere in those matters and disputes which

were intended by the Legislature to be considered, at least

initially, by the administrative agency. Full utilization of

the expertise derived from the development of various

administrative bodies would be frustrated by indiscriminate

judicial intrusions into matters within the various agencies’

respective domains.

Feingold v. Bell of Pa., 383 A.2d 791, 793 (Pa. 1977).

We therefore review relevant statutory and regulatory provisions to

determine whether the Legislature has provided a statutory remedy to address the

alleged overpayment for provider services and, further, whether it “enact[ed] a

pervasive regulatory scheme and . . . establish[ed] a governmental agency possessing

expertise and broad regulatory and remedial powers to administer [it.]” Id. 

Section 206 of the Human Services Code (Code)28 describes:

[DHS] shall have the power:

(1) Whenever the General Assembly shall have

appropriated money to [DHS] for public welfare purposes,

to purchase necessary services for individuals entitled to

such services at rates not exceeding those charged the

general public or actual cost; such services may be

purchased directly from agencies or institutions

conforming to minimum standards established by [DHS]

or by law or [DHS] may reimburse local public agencies

which purchase such services from such agencies or

institutions. Except for day care services, this clause shall

not be interpreted to include the direct provision by [DHS]

of services to dependent or neglected children.

(2) To establish rules and regulations not inconsistent

with law prescribing minimum standards of plant,

equipment, service, administration and care and

 

28 Act of June 13, 1967, P.L. 31, as amended, 62 P.S. §§ 101-1503. Effective December 28, 

2015, the Public Welfare Code was renamed the Human Services Code. See 62 P.S. § 101.
38

treatment for agencies and institutions furnishing

service to individuals paid for, in whole or in part, by

money appropriated to [DHS] by the General Assembly,

and when not otherwise established by law, fixing per

diem or other rates for services furnished by such

agencies or institutions.

62 P.S. § 206 (emphasis added). Section 403.1 of the Code29 provides in relevant

part:

(a) [DHS] is authorized to establish rules, regulations,

procedures and standards consistent with law as to the

administration of programs providing assistance . . . that

do any of the following:

(1) Establish standards for determining eligibility and the

nature and extent of assistance.

(2) Authorize providers to condition the delivery of care

or services on the payment of applicable copayments.

(3) Modify existing benefits, establish benefit limits and

exceptions to those limits, establish various benefit

packages and offer different packages to different

recipients, to meet the needs of the recipients.

(4) Establish or revise provider payment rates or fee

schedules, reimbursement models or payment

methodologies for particular services.

(5) Restrict or eliminate presumptive eligibility.

(6) Establish provider qualifications.

(b) [DHS] is authorized to develop and submit State plans,

waivers or other proposals to the Federal Government and

to take such other measures as may be necessary to render

the Commonwealth eligible for available Federal funds or

other assistance.

62 P.S. § 403.1 (emphasis added).

 

29 Added by Section 2 of the Act of June 30, 2011, P.L. 89.
39

DHS’s Regulations are contained in the Medical Assistance (MA)

Manual (Manual).30 The Manual “sets forth the MA regulations and policies which

apply to providers.” Section 1101.11(a) of the Manual, 55 Pa. Code § 1101.11(a). 

Section 1101.11(b) of the Manual provides that “[t]he MA Program is authorized

under Article IV of the [Code] (62 P.S. §§ 401-488) and is administered in

conformity with Title XIX of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 1396-1396[w-5])

and regulations issued under it.” 55 Pa. Code § 1101.11(b).

Section 1101.74 of the Manual provides:

If, after investigation, [DHS] determines that a provider has

submitted or has caused to be submitted claims for

payments which the provider is not otherwise entitled to

receive, [DHS] will, in addition to the administrative action

described in [Sections] 1101.82-1101.84 [of the Manual]

(relating to administrative procedures), refer the case record

to the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit of the Department of

Justice for further investigation and possible referral for

prosecution under Federal, State and local laws. Providers

who are convicted by a Federal court of willfully

defrauding the Medicaid program are subject to a $25,000

fine or up to five years imprisonment or both.

55 Pa. Code § 1101.74. Further, Section 1101.75(a) of the Manual31 enumerates

provider prohibited acts which include submitting false or fraudulent claims. Section

 

30 55 Pa. Code §§ 1101.11-1251.81

31

 Section 1101.75(a) of the Manual states, in relevant part:

An enrolled provider may not, either directly or indirectly, do any of 

the following acts: 

(1) Knowingly or intentionally present for allowance or payment a 

false or fraudulent claim or cost report for furnishing services or 

merchandise under MA, knowingly present for allowance or 

payment a claim or cost report for medically unnecessary services 

or merchandise under MA, or knowingly submit false information, 

for the purpose of obtaining greater compensation than that to 

which the provider is legally entitled for furnishing services or 

merchandise under MA.
40

1101.75(b) of the Manual also mandates that providers or other persons who violate

its provisions are subject to criminal penalties, enforcement actions and restitution

and repayment. See 55 Pa. Code § 1101.75(b).

Section 1101.83 of the Manual specifically provides for restitution and

repayment as follows:

(a) If [DHS] determines that a provider has billed and

been paid for a service or item for which payment

should not have been made, it will review the provider’s

paid and unpaid invoices and compute the amount of

the overpayment or improper payment. [DHS] will use

statistical sampling methods and, where appropriate,

purchase invoices and other records for the purpose of

 

(2) Knowingly submit false information to obtain authorization to 

furnish services or items under MA.

. . . .

(5) Submit a claim for services or items which were not rendered 

by the provider or were not rendered to a recipient.

. . . .

(8) Submit a claim which misrepresents the description of the 

services, supplies or equipment dispensed or provided, the date of 

service, the identity of the recipient or of the attending, 

prescribing, referring or actual provider.

. . . .

(12) Enter into an agreement, combination or conspiracy to obtain 

or aid another in obtaining payment from the Department for 

which the provider or other person is not entitled, that is, eligible.

(13) Make a false statement in the application for enrollment or 

reenrollment in the program.

(14) Commit a prohibited act specified in [Section] 1102.81(a) [of 

the Manual] (relating to prohibited acts of a shared health facility 

and providers practicing in the shared health facility).

55 Pa. Code § 1101.75(a).
41

calculating the amount of restitution due for a service,

item, product or drug substitution.

(b) [DHS] may seek reimbursement from the ordering or

prescribing provider for payments to another provider, if

[DHS] determines that the ordering or prescribing provider

has done either of the following:

(1) Prescribed excessive diagnostic services; or

(2) Ordered diagnostic services or treatment or both,

without documenting the medical necessity for the

service or treatment in the medical record of the MA

recipient.

(c) The amount of restitution demanded by [DHS] will

be the amount of the overpayment received by the

ordering or prescribing provider or the amount of

payments to other providers for excessive or

unnecessary services prescribed or ordered. If the

ordering or prescribing provider is convicted of an

offense under Article XIV of the [Code] (62 P.S. §§

1401-1411), the restitution penalties of that article

applies.

(d) The provider shall pay the amount of restitution

owed to [DHS] either directly or by offset of valid

invoices that have not yet been paid. The method of

repayment is determined by [DHS]. All [DHS] demands

for restitution will be approved by the Deputy Secretary

for [MA] before the provider is notified.

(e) If [DHS] determines that a provider has committed

any prohibited act or has failed to satisfy any

requirement under [Section] 1101.75(a) [of the Manual]

(relating to provider prohibited acts), it may institute a

civil action against the provider in addition to

terminating the provider’s enrollment. If [DHS]

institutes a civil action against the provider, [DHS] may

seek to recover twice the amount of excess benefits or

payments plus legal interest from the date the violations

occurred.

(f) The provider is prohibited from billing an eligible

recipient for any amount for which the provider is required

to make restitution to [DHS].
42

55 Pa. Code § 1101.83 (italic and bold emphasis added).32

Finally, Section 1187.1(c) of the Manual states: “The MA Program

provides payment for nursing facility services provided to eligible recipients by

enrolled nursing facilities. Payment for services is made subject to this chapter and

Chapter 1101 (relating to general provisions).” 55 Pa. Code § 1187.1(c) (emphasis

added). 

The Commonwealth admits that “[DHS] has promulgated

comprehensive regulations to implement the [MA P]rogram [that] cover rate-setting .

. . and include mechanisms both for punishing non-compliance . . . and for recovering

overpayments to providers.” Commonwealth’s Br. at 40. Nevertheless, the

Commonwealth contends that it is entitled to pursue its equitable unjust enrichment

claim.

The instant matter is controlled by our Supreme Court’s decision in

Commonwealth v. Glen Alden Corp., 210 A.2d 256 (Pa. 1965).

33 In Glen Alden, the

Commonwealth filed an action in the trial court’s equity jurisdiction seeking an order

requiring the defendants to remove burning coal piles, asserting that the coal piles

constituted a public nuisance. The trial court sustained the defendants’ preliminary

objections to the trial court’s equity jurisdiction. 

 

32 The Commonwealth contends that there is no authority for a regulation to displace 

common law remedies. However, Sections 1101.75 and 1101.83 of the Manual substantially track 

Section 1407 of the Code, 62 P.S. § 1407, added by Section 3 of the Act of July 10, 1980, P.L. 493,

which provides a comprehensive, detailed statutory procedure addressing fraudulent MA claims, 

providing criminal penalties therefor, and permitting DHS to pursue civil remedies. Further, 

Section 1410 of the Code states “[DHS] shall have the power and its duty shall be to adopt rules 

and regulations to carry out the provisions of this article.” 62 P.S. § 1410 (added by Section 3 of 

the Act of July 10, 1980, P.L. 493) (emphasis added).

33 In Glen Alden, the Air Pollution Control Act, Act of January 8, 1960, P.L. 2119, 35 P.S. 

§§ 4001-4015 was at issue. The Supreme Court’s decision was superseded by the 1968 

amendments to the Act, see Act of June 12, 1968, P.L. 163, 35 P.S. § 4012.1, as recognized in 

Borough of Brookhaven v. American Rendering, Inc., 256 A.2d 626 (Pa. 1969). 
43

On appeal, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court explained: “[W]e have

frequently decided that equity has no jurisdiction to inquire into a controversy where

to do so would obviate a statutory procedure provided by the Legislature for its

resolution.” Id. at 258. Finding that the Air Pollution Control Act set forth a specific

procedure to address the very issue before the trial court in equity, the Court held that

“equity may not inquire into the dispute, notwithstanding the fact that the complaint

may state a cause of action in public nuisance, traditionally cognizable in equity.” Id. 

The Court explained: “The Commonwealth, at the instance of the Secretary of Health,

complains that the burning refuse piles maintained by defendants release noxious

gases to the detriment of the health and well[-]being of the surrounding residents. 

The Air Pollution Control Act is designed to regulate this very problem.” Id. The

Court further stated: “[W]e do not hesitate to conclude that the Legislature has

provided a statutory method for resolution of the alleged problem set forth in the

Commonwealth’s complaint, and therefore, it must be strictly pursued.” Id. at 259. 

The Court concluded: “[W]e see no reason why [the Commonwealth] should be

permitted to short circuit the method provided by the Legislature for resolving the

present controversy.” Id. at 260.

In the case at bar, the Commonwealth contends that the Parent Entities

and GGNSC Equity Holdings LLC were unjustly enriched because the Facilities

submitted billings to the MA Program for care they either did not provide, or was

inadequately rendered. As in Glen Alden, a statutory remedy exists, and “we see no

reason why [the Commonwealth] should be permitted to short circuit the method

provided by the Legislature for resolving the present controversy.” Id. at 260. Both

the Code and the Manual set forth the manner in which MA billing disputes shall be

remedied, and charges DHS with the responsibility of resolving the same. Because

Section 1504 of the Statutory Construction Act of 1972 and the aforementioned case
44

law require those statutory remedies to be strictly pursued, we sustain Golden Gate’s

Preliminary Objection 3 and dismiss the Commonwealth’s unjust enrichment claim.

34

 

V. Preliminary Objection 12

Golden Gate alleges in Preliminary Objection 12 that claims against the

Parent Entities must fail because the Commonwealth has not alleged facts sufficient

to pierce the corporate veil or impose vicarious liability.

Under Pennsylvania law, the existence and extent of shareholder liability

for corporate indebtedness is determined by the law of the state of incorporation.

Broderick v. Stephano, 171 A. 582 (Pa. 1934). The Parent Entities and the Facilities

were incorporated in Delaware. Therefore, in evaluating whether the Commonwealth

has alleged sufficient facts to pierce Golden Gate’s corporate veil, we must apply

Delaware law.

The Delaware Court of Chancery has explained:

In order to state a cognizable claim to pierce the corporate

veil of the [g]eneral [p]artner, plaintiffs must allege facts

that, if taken as true, demonstrate the [o]fficers’ and/or the

[p]arents’ complete domination and control of the

[g]eneral [p]artner. The degree of control required to

pierce the veil is exclusive domination and control . . . to

the point that [the [g]eneral [p]artner] no longer has legal

or independent significance of [its] own.

Piercing the corporate veil under the alter ego theory

requires that the corporate structure cause fraud or

similar injustice.

[35]

 Effectively, the corporation must be a

sham and exist for no other purpose than as a vehicle for

fraud.

 

34 Having dismissed the Commonwealth’s unjust enrichment claim, we need not address 

Golden Gate’s other related arguments. 

35 The term “‘[s]imilar injustice’ includes the contravention of law or contract.” Nufarm v.

RAM Research (Del. Ch., C.A. No. 16179, filed Sept. 15, 1998), Ltr. Op. at __.
45

Wallace v. Wood, 752 A.2d 1175, 1183-84 (Del. Ch. 1999) (italic and bold emphasis 

added; footnotes and quotation marks omitted); see also Outokumpu Eng’g Enters.,

Inc. v. Kvaerner Enviropower, Inc., 685 A.2d 724, 729 (Del. Super. 1996). 

Accordingly, “[t]o state a ‘veil-piercing claim,’ the plaintiff must plead facts 

supporting an inference that the corporation, through its alter-ego, has created a sham 

entity designed to defraud investors and creditors.” Crosse v. BCBSD, Inc., 836 A.2d 

492, 497 (Del. 2003). Notably, “the fraud or similar injustice that must be

demonstrated in order to pierce a corporate veil under Delaware law must, in

particular, ‘be found in the defendants’ use of the corporate form.” Foxmeyer Corp.

v. Gen. Elec. Corp., 290 B.R. 229, 236 (Bankr. D. Del. 2003) (italic and bold

emphasis added) (quoting Mobil Oil Corp. v. Linear Fims, Inc., 718 F.Supp. 260, 269

(D. Del 1989)).

36

 

36 Under Pennsylvania law:

Piercing the corporate veil is an extraordinary remedy reserved for

cases involving exceptional circumstances. There is a strong

presumption against piercing the corporate veil, and the independence

of separate corporate entities is presumed.

The purpose of the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil is to assess

liability for the acts of a corporation to the equity holders in the

corporation by removing the statutory protection otherwise insulating

a shareholder from liability. Where a corporation operates as a mere

façade for the operations of a dominant shareholder, the dominating

shareholder may be held liable for the corporation’s inequitable

conduct perpetrated through the use of the corporate form’s

protections. 

While there is no bright-line test for when to pierce the corporate veil,

courts established the following list of factors for consideration: ‘[1]

[u]ndercapitalization, [2] failure to adhere to the corporate formalities,

[3] substantial intermingling of corporate and personal affairs and [4]

use of the corporate form to perpetrate a fraud.’ Lumax Indus., Inc.

[v. Aultman], . . . 669 A.2d [893,] 895 [(Pa. 1995)] (citing Dep’t of

Envtl. Res. v. Reggs Run Coal Co., . . . 423 A.2d 765, 768-69 ([Pa.

Cmwlth.] 1980)).
46

The Commonwealth alleges numerous facts in the Amended Complaint

supporting its assertion that the Parent Entities controlled the Facilities, and that the

Parent Entities siphoned monies from the Facilities.37 The Commonwealth contends

that GGNSC Holdings LLC directly or indirectly owns each of the Parent Entities

and each of the Facilities, and that GGNSC Holdings LLC “exercises pervasive, dayto-day control over the operations of the [Facilities] through the actions of . . . the

other [Parent Entities].” Amended Complaint at 150, ¶ 253. Further, the

Commonwealth in its Amended Complaint describes the corporate structure as

follows:

[T]he relationship between each of the [Facilities] and

Golden Gate National Senior Care LLC, GGNSC Clinical

Services LLC, and Golden Ventures is not a typical arm’s

length relationship, in which one business contracts with

another to provide services at its direction. On information

and belief, the [Facilities] do not provide direction to or

exercise any measure of control over Golden Gate National

Senior Care LLC, GGNSC Clinical Services LLC, or

Golden Ventures, nor do the [Facilities] direct the services

that these entities provide to them. Rather, these [Parent

 

Newcrete Prods. v. City of Wilkes-Barre, 37 A.3d 7, 12-13 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (citations omitted).

Importantly, “[t]he corporate form will be disregarded only when the entity is used to defeat

public convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud, or defend crime.” Mosaica Educ., Inc. v. Pa.

Prevailing Wage Appeals Bd., 925 A.2d 176, 184 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007). Further:

Any inquiry involving corporate veil-piercing must ‘start from the

general rule that the corporate entity should be recognized and upheld,

unless specific, unusual circumstances call for an exception.’ Wedner

v. Unemployment Comp[.] Bd. of Review, . . . , 296 A.2d 792, 794

([Pa.] 1972). One ‘exception’ is the alter ego theory which

requires proof (1) that the party exercised domination and control

over [the] corporation; and (2) that injustice will result if [the]

corporate fiction is maintained despite unity of interests between

[the] corporation and its principal.

Allegheny Energy Supply Co., LLC v. Wolf Run Mining Co., 53 A.3d 53, 58 n.7 (Pa. Super. 2012)

(emphasis added).

37 Importantly, “[t]he Commonwealth has not alleged (and is not suggesting) that the 

[Facilities] are deeply in debt or insolvent[.]” Commonwealth’s Br. at 54.
47

Entities] exercise pervasive day-to-day control over the

[Facilities] - at the direction of the ultimate parent company,

[GGNSC Holdings LLC]. The [Facilities] are then, in turn,

required to pay each of these [Parent Entities] for these

services.

Amended Complaint at 152, ¶ 257. The Commonwealth further avers:

The [Parent Entities] exercise control over the [Facilities]

by, for example:

(a) Restricting the ability of the [Facilities’] managers to

increase staffing levels;

(b) Supervising - and in some cases, overriding - the

personnel decisions of the [Facilities];

(c) Visiting facilities, observing care, and enforcing

corporate-level policies;

(d) Preparing and submitting requests for reimbursement

and required cost reports under the [MA] Program in

Pennsylvania;

(e) Creating and implementing company-wide policies and

incentive programs;

(f) Requiring centralized reporting of key data points - such

as daily reporting of census information - from the

[Facilities] to the [Parent Entities];

(g) Maintaining a company-wide Customer Compliance

Hotline for residents to call if they have raised a concern

with [Facilities] staff but still feel that their concern has not

been addressed to their satisfaction.

Amended Complaint at 152-53, ¶ 258.

Clearly absent from the Amended Complaint, however, are allegations

that Golden Gate “use[d] . . . the corporate form” to engage in “fraud or similar

injustice[.]” Foxmeyer, 290 B.R. at 236 (emphasis added). Thus, the

Commonwealth did not allege that the Parent Entities used the particular nature of

Golden Gate’s corporate structure to engage in “fraud or similar injustice.” Id. Nor
48

did the Commonwealth allege in its Amended Complaint facts sufficient to support a

conclusion that “[Golden Gate] [is] a sham and exist[s] for no other purpose than as

a vehicle for fraud.” Id. (emphasis added).38 Accordingly, Golden Gate’s

Preliminary Objection 12 is sustained.

39

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Preliminary Objections 1, 2, and 7 are 

overruled. Preliminary Objections 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11 and 12 are sustained.

40

Given our disposition of the Preliminary Objections, for all of the above 

reasons, the Amended Complaint is dismissed. 

___________________________

ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

 

38 In the Amended Complaint, the Commonwealth alleges that the various Facilities “own[] 

and operate[] skilled nursing facilit[ies.]” Amended Complaint at 11-20, ¶¶ 27-76. As such, these 

allegations conflict with the premise that the Facilities are “sham[s] and exist for no other purpose

than as a vehicle for fraud.” Wallace, 752 A.2d at 1184 (emphasis added).

39 We also reject the Commonwealth’s assertion that the Parent Entities are vicariously 

liable for the acts of the Facilities, given that the argument seeks to disregard the corporate form 

without meeting the requirements for piercing the corporate veil.

40 For the reasons stated herein, Preliminary Objection 9 is moot. 
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania :

Acting by Attorney General, :

Kathleen Kane, :

Plaintiff :

:

v. :

:

Golden Gate National Senior Care LLC; :

GGNSC Holdings LLC; GGNSC :

Administrative Services LLC; GGNSC :

Clinical Services LLC; GGNSC Equity :

Holdings LLC; GGNSC Harrisburg LP; :

GGNSC Harrisburg GP, LLC; GGNSC :

Camp Hill III LP; GGNSC Camp Hill :

III GP, LLC; GGNSC Clarion LP; :

GGNSC Clarion GP, LLC; GGNSC :

Gettysburg LP; GGNSC Gettysburg GP, :

LLC; GGNSC Altoona Hillview LP; :

GGNSC Altoona Hillview GP, LLC; :

GGNSC Lansdale LP; GGNSC :

Lansdale GP, LLC; GGNSC :

Monroeville LP; GGNSC Monroeville :

GP, LLC; GGNSC Mt. Lebanon LP; :

GGNSC Mt. Lebanon GP, LLC; :

GGNSC Phoenixville II LP; GGNSC :

Phoenixville II GP, LLC; GGNSC :

Philadelphia LP; GGNSC Philadelphia :

GP, LLC; GGNSC Wilkes-Barre II LP; :

GGNSC Wilkes-Barre II GP, LLC; :

GGNSC Tunkhannock LP; GGNSC :

Tunkhannock GP, LLC; GGNSC :

Erie Western Reserve LP; GGNSC :

Erie Western Reserve GP, LLC; :

GGNSC Pottsville LP; GGNSC :

Pottsville GP, LLC, : No. 336 M.D. 2015

Defendants :

O R D E R
AND NOW, this 22nd day of March, 2017, we dispose of Defendants

Golden Gate National Senior Care, LLC, et al.’s Preliminary Objections as follows:

Preliminary Objection 1: Overruled.

Preliminary Objection 2: Overruled.

Preliminary Objection 3: Sustained.

Preliminary Objection 4: Sustained.

Preliminary Objection 5: Sustained.

Preliminary Objection 6: Sustained.

Preliminary Objection 7: Overruled.

Preliminary Objection 8: Sustained.

Preliminary Objection 9: Moot.

Preliminary Objection 10: Sustained.

Preliminary Objection 11: Sustained.

Preliminary Objection 12: Sustained.

Based on the disposition of the Preliminary Objections, the Amended 

Complaint is hereby dismissed.

___________________________

ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania :

Acting by Attorney General, :

Kathleen Kane, :

Plaintiff :

 :

v. : No. 336 M.D. 2015

 : Argued: June 8, 2016

Golden Gate National Senior Care :

LLC; GGNSC Holdings LLC; :

GGNSC Administrative Services :

LLC; GGNSC Clinical Services :

LLC; GGNSC Equity Holdings LLC; :

GGNSC Harrisburg LP; GGNSC :

Harrisburg GP, LLC; GGNSC Camp :

Hill III LP; GGNSC Camp Hill III :

GP, LLC; GGNSC Clarion LP; :

GGNSC Clarion GP, LLC; GGNSC :

Gettysburg LP; GGNSC Gettysburg :

GP, LLC; GGNSC Altoona Hillview :

LP; GGNSC Altoona Hillview GP, :

LLC; GGNSC Lansdale LP; GGNSC :

Lansdale GP, LLC; GGNSC :

Monroeville LP; GGNSC :

Monroeville GP, LLC; GGNSC Mt. :

Lebanon LP; GGNSC Mt. Lebanon :

GP, LLC; GGNSC Phoenixville II :

LP; GGNSC Phoenixville II GP, :

LLC; GGNSC Philadelphia LP; :

GGNSC Philadelphia GP, LLC; :

GGNSC Wilkes-Barre II LP; :

GGNSC Wilkes-Barre II GP, LLC; :

GGNSC Tunkhannock LP; GGNSC :

Tunkhannock GP, LLC; GGNSC :

Erie Western Reserve LP; GGNSC :

Erie Western Reserve GP, LLC; :

GGNSC Pottsville LP; GGNSC :

Pottsville GP, LLC, :

Defendants :
BEFORE: HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge

HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge

HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge

HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge

HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge

HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION 

BY JUDGE COHN JUBELIRER FILED: March 22, 2017

I, respectfully, cannot completely agree with the thoughtful Majority opinion

and therefore write separately. 

I concur with the Majority’s decision insofar as it holds that the 

Commonwealth has not stated claims under Sections 2(4)(v), 2(4)(ix), and 2(4)(x) 

of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL),

1

because 

the representations in the advertising materials are puffery. I also agree that the 

care plans, resident assessments, and bills are not advertising and are, therefore, 

not actionable under the above provisions. However, Section 2(4)(xxi) of the 

UTPCPL differs from the other provisions relied upon by the Commonwealth as 

Section 2(4)(xxi) establishes a cause of action to remedy “any . . . fraudulent or 

deceptive conduct which creates a likelihood of confusion or of 

misunderstanding.” 73 P.S. § 201-2(4)(xxi). There is no requirement under this 

“catch all” provision that the representation be made in an advertisement. 

By addressing Section 2(4)(xxi) separately from Sections 2(4)(v), 2(4)(ix),

and 2(4)(x), the Majority recognizes this distinction. However, the Majority, sua 

sponte, raises and then sustains a preliminary objection on the basis that the 

 

1 Act of December 17, 1968, P.L. 1224, as amended, 73 P.S. §§ 201-2(4)(v), (ix), (x).
RCJ-2

Commonwealth did not attach a copy of the writings that underlie the cause of 

action. Commonwealth v. Golden Gate National Senior Care LLC, __ A.3d __, __ 

(Pa. Cmwlth., No. 336 M.D. 2015, filed March 22, 2017), slip op. at 23. Golden 

Gate National Senior Care LLC (Golden Gate) did not raise this as a basis for its 

preliminary objections, see Rule 1032(a) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil 

Procedure, Pa. R.C.P. No. 1032(a) (a “party waives all . . . objections which are not 

presented . . . by preliminary objection”), and it is not jurisdictional. Because the 

Court addressed an objection not raised by Golden Gate, the Commonwealth could 

not respond by either amending its pleading or explaining why the writings could 

not be attached. See Pa. R.C.P. No. 1028(c)(1) (“A party may file an amended 

pleading as of course within twenty days after service of a copy of preliminary 

objections”); Pa. R.C.P. No. 1019(i) (“[w]hen any claim or defense is based upon a

writing, the pleader shall attach a copy of the writing, or the material part thereof, 

but if the writing or copy is not accessible to the pleader, it is sufficient so to state, 

together with the reason, and to set forth the substance in writing” (emphasis 

added)). I note that the writings at issue could contain confidential medical 

information. See 42 U.S.C. § 1396r(c)(1)(A)(iii) (Providing residents of skilled 

nursing facilities who receive medical assistance through Medicaid with “[t]he 

right to privacy with regard to accommodations, medical treatment, written and 

telephonic communications, visits, and meetings of family and of resident 

groups”). I would therefore not dismiss this claim, pursuant to Section 2(4)(xxi) of 

the UTPCPL, insofar as it alleges deceptive conduct involving bills and care plans 

which could directly impact purchasing decisions.

2

 

 

2

I recognize that care plans are created after a resident arrives at a nursing care facility. 

However, the relationship between residents, and their representatives, and the facilities are 

(Footnote continued on next page...)
RCJ-3

I also question the Majority’s decision to sustain Golden Gate’s Preliminary 

Objection X, alleging that the Commonwealth may not recover restitution or 

restoration for itself under Section 4.1 of the UTPCPL, 73 P.S. § 201-4.1. Because 

the Majority has already dismissed the underlying substantive claims, there is no 

need to decide whether the Commonwealth is a “person in interest” entitled to 

restitution or restoration under Section 4.1 of the UTPCPL, and therefore the 

question is moot and the discussion merely dicta. I do not believe the Court should 

address a complex issue of first impression in dicta.

3

This is particularly true 

where, as here, the resolution of the issue is subject to differences of opinion. I am 

not convinced that the Supreme Court’s determination in Meyer v. Community 

College of Beaver County, 93 A.3d 806 (Pa. 2014) (Meyer II), that the UTPCPL

_____________________________

(continued...)

ongoing, and the services are arguably continually purchased. In addition, care plans are 

amended as needs change. Therefore, I cannot say at this early stage, that the allegations here 

could not affect whether residents and/or their representatives can make informed decisions 

regarding whether to continue to purchase services from a particular facility. See, e.g., the 

federal Resident’s Bill of Rights, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1395i-3(c), 1396r(c), and associated regulations, 

which require that residents who receive assistance through Medicare or Medicaid be given care 

plans and be provided with the opportunity to be involved in the crafting of and amending of 

such plans; 42 U.S.C. § 1395i-3(c)(1)(A)(i) (providing for “[t]he right [of Medicare recipients] to

. . . be fully informed in advance about care and treatment, to be fully informed in advance of 

any changes in care or treatment that may affect the resident’s well-being, and (except with 

respect to a resident adjudged incompetent) to participate in planning care and treatment or 

changes in care and treatment”); 42 U.S.C. § 1396r(c)(1)(A)(i) (providing the same for those 

residents that receive assistance through medical assistance programs administered by states 

(Medicaid)); see also 42 C.F.R. § 483.10 (detailing the rights of residents in long term care 

facilities); 42 U.S.C. §§ 1395i-3(c)(1)(B)(iii), 1396r(c)(1)(B)(iv) (providing for the right to be 

informed “periodically during the resident’s stay, of services available in the facility and of 

related charges for such services”). 

3

The same principle applies to the Majority’s decision to address Golden Gate’s 

Preliminary Objection XII. There is no need for the Majority to hold that the Commonwealth 

cannot pierce the corporate veil when the Majority already dismissed all the substantive claims 

asserted.
RCJ-4

does not include a political subdivision or agency in its definition of “a ‘person’ 

subject to liability” would necessarily mean that the Attorney General could not be 

a “person in interest” here, in bringing a cause of action under Section 4.1. I agree 

with the Majority that “[w]hen the meaning of a word or phrase is clear when used 

in one section, it will be construed to mean the same thing in another section of the 

same statute.” Housing Auth. of Cnty. of Chester v Pa. State Civil Serv. Comm’n, 

730 A.2d 935, 945-46 (Pa. 1999) (emphasis added). However, the Supreme Court 

has found that the UTPCPL is not clear, but is ambiguous as to the meaning of the 

word “person.” Meyer II, 93 A.3d at 814. In Meyer II, the Supreme Court applied 

the principles of statutory construction to that ambiguous term and reasoned that

the General Assembly could not have intended to include political subdivisions as 

a person subject to liability because imposing liability would violate the longstanding principle that government entities are not subject to punitive damages, 

and because the purpose of the statute is to protect consumers from merchants, not 

from the government. Id. at 814-15. That reasoning is not applicable here because 

no liability will be imposed upon a government entity; instead, the Commonwealth 

is seeking restitution and restoration from Golden Gate, a merchant, for money the 

Commonwealth paid as a result of the alleged deception. Given that the Supreme 

Court has found the term “person” ambiguous as used in the UTPCPL, an 

interpretation that the Commonwealth can be a “person of interest” in the 

restoration provision is permissible and consistent with our mandate to construe the 

terms of the UTPCPL “liberally to effect its object of preventing unfair or 

deceptive practices.” Com., by Creamer v. Monumental Props., Inc., 329 A.2d 

812, 817 (Pa. 1974).

4

 

 

4

I believe that this relief could nonetheless be available under Section 4 of the UTPCPL, 

(Footnote continued on next page...)
RCJ-5

For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent to the Majority’s decision to 

dismiss the Commonwealth’s claim under Section 2(4)(xxi) of the UTPCPL on the 

basis of an objection that was not raised by Golden Gate but raised sua sponte by 

this Court. I also disagree that the Court should address a complex and significant 

issue of first impression in dicta and question the Majority’s resolution of that 

issue. In all other areas, I concur.

___________________________________

RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge

_____________________________

(continued...)

73 P.S. § 201-4, if the Commonwealth can prove a claim under Section 2(4)(xxi). Section 4 

provides the Attorney General with the authority to seek injunctive relief if it has reason to 

believe that any person has violated the substantive provisions of the UTPCPL. In interpreting a 

similar provision of the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act), 15 U.S.C. §§ 41-58, as 

amended, federal courts have uniformly held that because the FTC Act provides the government 

with the authority to seek injunctive relief, the panoply of equitable power are also available to 

the courts to deprive a defendant of unjust gains. I note that we may look to federal decisions 

under the FTC Act for guidance in interpreting similar provisions in the UTPCPL. Com., by 

Creamer v. Monumental Props., Inc., 329 A.2d 812, 818 (Pa. 1974). The Attorney General 

under the UTPCPL sits in the same position as the FTC sits under the FTC Act. See e.g., Fed.

Trade Comm’n v. Commerce Planet, Inc., 815 F.3d 593, 599 (9th Cir. 2016), cert. denied sub 

nom. Gugliuzza v. Fed. Trade Comm’n, 137 S. Ct. 624 (2017), and cert. denied sub nom.

Gugliuzza v. Fed. Trade Comm’n, 137 S. Ct. 624 (2017) (concluding “[t]he equitable jurisdiction 

to enjoin future violations of § 5(a) [of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 53(b)] carries with it the 

inherent power to deprive defendants of their unjust gains from past violations”); Fed. Trade 

Comm’n v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 62 F. Supp. 2d 25, 37 (D.D.C.), on reconsideration in part sub 

nom. Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 99 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 1999) (holding that the 

FTC may seek disgorgement or any other form of equitable ancillary relief once an injunction is 

issued under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act); Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Sec. Rare Coin & Bullion 

Corp., 931 F.2d 1312, 1316 (8th Cir. 1991) (“The [trial court] has broad remedial discretion to 

grant an appropriate form of equitable relief under section 13(b) of the [FTC] Act”).