IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Kedecia Manna, d/b/a 9th and Lloyd : CASES CONSOLIDATED

Inspections, OIS #EG30 :

 :

v. : No. 993 C.D. 2022

 : 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, :

Department of Transportation, Bureau :

of Motor Vehicles, :

Appellant :

Kedecia Manna, d/b/a/ 9th and Lloyd :

Inspections, OIS #EG30 :

 :

v. : No. 994 C.D. 2022

 : Submitted: September 9, 2024

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, :

Department of Transportation, Bureau :

of Motor Vehicles, :

Appellant :

BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge

HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge

HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY

PRESIDENT JUDGE COHN JUBELIRER FILED: October 7, 2024

In these consolidated appeals,1the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 

Department of Transportation, Bureau of Motor Vehicles (Department) appeals from 

the orders of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County (trial court), which 

1 This Court sua sponte consolidated these appeals by order dated July 17, 2023.
2

sustained the appeals of Kedecia Manna (Manna), d/b/a 9th and Lloyd Inspections, 

OIS #EG30 (Station), from the Department’s suspension of Manna’s Certificate of 

Appointment as an Official Safety Inspection Station (Safety Certificate) and

Certificate of Appointment as an Official Emission Inspection Station (Emissions 

Certificate) (together, Certificates), and reinstated the Certificates. Before this 

Court, the Department argues it properly suspended the Certificates as Manna’s 

liability insurance policy, which is required by Department regulations, was 

cancelled. Upon review, we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

Some brief background is essential to understanding the facts of this matter, 

as well as numerous other related appeals,

2 along with the relationship among the 

various individuals involved therewith. As stated in this Court’s September 27, 2023 

Memorandum Opinion and Order denying the Department’s request to reinstate its 

automatic supersedeas pending appeal, Manna operates the Station located at 1033 

West Ninth Street in Chester and rents the building housing the Station from her 

father and/or stepmother. (9/27/23 Mem. Op. & Order at 3.) Manna’s brother and 

his girlfriend, Kayla Lebowski, operate a competing station in the same building. 

(Id. at 4.) As will become apparent from the credited testimony, discussed more 

fully below, there is some family discord, to say the least. 

The Department contracts with Parsons Corporation (Parsons) to conduct 

investigative and administrative audits of inspection stations. (Id.) Thomas Bishop 

2 This Court’s September 27, 2023 Memorandum Opinion and Order denying the 

Department’s motion to reinstate its automatic supersedeas reflects there are numerous appeals 

involving Manna and the Department pending in this Court: the instant ones at 993 and 994 C.D. 

2022 (consolidated), and others at 516 and 517 C.D. 2022 (consolidated), 785 and 786 C.D. 2022 

(consolidated), 1057 and 1058 C.D. 2022 (consolidated), 1059-1062 C.D. 2022 (consolidated), 

and 230 C.D. 2023. 
3

is a Quality Assurance Manager with Parsons (QAO Bishop).

3

 Gregory Neely is a 

Quality Assurance Officer with Parsons (QAO Neely). 

On November 2, 2021, QAO Neely and Trooper Christopher Tustin (Trooper 

Tustin), a vehicle fraud investigator with the Pennsylvania State Police, conducted 

an audit of the Station. (Trial court’s Findings of Fact (FOF) ¶¶ 6, 8.) On November 

4, 2021, the Department hand delivered a notice to Manna stating the audit revealed 

that Manna’s certificate of liability insurance had been cancelled on October 18, 

2021, for nonpayment.4 (Id. ¶¶ 1-2.) The notice advised that, pursuant to the 

Department’s regulation at 67 Pa. Code § 175.22(b)(4),5 cancellation of insurance 

automatically voids the Inspection Certificate and inspections cannot be performed 

until the Department received new proof of insurance. (Id. ¶ 2.) On November 19, 

2021, another notice was issued pertaining to the Emissions Certificate, which cited 

67 Pa. Code § 177.402(b)(4).6 (Id. ¶ 3.) By letter hand-delivered on December 10, 

2021, the Department confirmed both Certificates were “voided on October 18, 

2021” after Manna’s insurance was cancelled for nonpayment. (Reproduced Record 

(R.R.) at 67a.) The letter further acknowledged receipt of proof of new insurance 

and stated, “[w]hile this insurance policy meets the regulatory requirements, it is 

understood that this policy is scheduled to be canceled on January 1, 2022, by your 

insurance carrier.” (Id.) The letter further stated that to reinstate the Certificates, 

3 The trial court refers to Bishop as a Quality Assurance Officer or QAO Bishop. Thus, 

we will do the same. 

4 A copy of the November 4, 2021 notice is found at page 33a of the Reproduced Record.

5 This regulation provides, “[c]ancellation of the bond or insurance shall automatically void 

the certificate of appointment. Inspections shall cease until the [Department] receives a new bond 

or proof of insurance.” 67 Pa. Code § 175.22(b)(4).

6 A copy of the November 19, 2021 notice is found at page 27a of the Reproduced Record.

The regulation cited therein is identical to its counterpart in Section 175.22(b)(4) except Section 

177.402(b)(4) pertains to emissions certificates. 
4

the Department must be satisfied the Station is properly equipped and staffed with 

certified personnel and that the Station conducts business “honestly and in the best 

interests of the Commonwealth.” (Id.) The letter stated Manna did not comply with 

the following requests by the Department:

• to meet with your assigned [QAO] and the Pennsylvania State Police 

Vehicle Fraud Investigator;

• to return your void certificates of appointment, all unissued 

certificates of inspection, and all inspection materials to the Bureau;

• to secure stickers under lock and key in a safe place; and 

• to maintain and/or provide inspection records as required.

(Id.) The letter continued that because Manna claimed the required records were 

stolen, “it is unclear if your [S]tation meets the requirements to be reappointed.” 

(Id.) 

Manna appealed the notices.

7 Manna also filed emergency petitions seeking 

supersedeas and/or a temporary stay, which were subsequently granted by the trial 

court. On July 21, 2022, the trial court held a de novo hearing on Manna’s appeals.8

At the hearing, the Department did not present any witnesses. (FOF ¶ 4.) 

Instead, the Department submitted a copy of the notices and audit report, to which 

Manna stipulated. (Id.) The Department also submitted Manna’s testimony from 

7 The appeal related to the Emissions Certificate suspension was given trial court docket 

number cv-2021-010004 and docket number 993 C.D. 2022 in this Court. The appeal related to 

the Safety Certificate suspension was given trial court docket number cv-2021-010005 and docket 

number 994 C.D. 2022 in this Court.

8 A copy of the transcript from the hearing is found at pages 129a through 200a of the 

Reproduced Record. The transcript contains testimony in other proceedings involving Manna, 

which the trial court considered together. The original record contains numerous other transcripts 

from other proceedings in these matters, including the supersedeas hearing and on various other 

motions. 
5

another hearing where Manna admitted that the insurance lapsed without Manna’s 

knowledge. (Id. ¶ 5.) 

Manna testified on her own behalf as follows. On November 2, 2021, QAO

Neely and Trooper Tustin went to the Station for what Manna understood was to 

verify the Station was open, which it was. (Id. ¶¶ 6-7.) QAO Neely performed a 

regular audit. (Id. ¶ 8.) Manna provided QAO Neely with a copy of an insurance 

policy with a July 21, 2022 expiration date. (Id. ¶ 9.) Manna received a call from 

Trooper Tustin two days later informing her the insurance was cancelled for 

nonpayment on October 18, 2021. (Id. ¶ 12.) Manna contacted her insurance 

provider to inquire and obtained a new insurance policy the same day, which was

valid for one year. (Id. ¶ 15.) Manna faxed the Department a copy of the new policy 

the same day.9 (Id. ¶ 16.) A Department official called Manna, advising the new 

policy was not acceptable since it did not cover what needed to be covered, although 

a month later she received a letter from the Department indicating it was acceptable 

but was scheduled to be cancelled on January 2, 2022, despite the policy stating it 

was valid through November 4, 2022. (Id. ¶¶ 17-19.) After the telephone call, 

Manna emailed a copy of the new policy to Parsons and Department officials. (Id.

¶ 20.) 

On November 5, 2021, Trooper Tustin and QAO Neely delivered a notice to 

Manna’s house stating the original insurance policy was cancelled for nonpayment. 

(Id. ¶ 22.) That same day, Manna received a check from the original insurer stating 

the policy was cancelled because Manna did not cooperate with a mandatory 

physical inspection, for which Manna never received notice. (Id. ¶¶ 23-24.) Manna 

had not known of the cancellation until November 4, 2021, when Manna inquired. 

9 A copy of the new certificate of liability insurance and policy are found at pages 39a 

through 48a of the Reproduced Record.
6

(Id. ¶ 26.) According to Manna, a competing station owned by her brother and his 

girlfriend, Lebowski, shares the same building as the Station,

10 and a year earlier 

Lebowski forcibly removed and destroyed Manna’s mailbox, an incident the 

Department stipulated occurred. (Id. ¶¶ 30-32, 43.) As a result, the Station’s mail 

is delivered to the competing station. (Id. ¶ 33.) Also, because Manna had been 

unlawfully evicted from the building by her father’s wife just days before the 

insurance was cancelled and Manna was warned she would be arrested if she 

attempted to enter the building, Manna was not at the Station to receive mail. (Id.

¶¶ 44-46.) Although some mail is delivered to Manna’s home address, Department 

regulations require certain items be sent only to the Station’s business address. (Id.

¶¶ 34, 36.) 

Because QAO Neely previously testified in another matter that he does not 

verify insurance and just accepts the certificate of insurance provided, Manna 

testified someone with knowledge the policy was cancelled had to contact Parsons, 

such as someone who had access to and was opening Manna’s mail. (Id. ¶¶ 38-41.) 

QAO Bishop told Manna a competing business had reported the Station “had been 

discontinued.” (Id. ¶ 40.) QAO Bishop knew Manna’s father, who QAO Bishop 

called a “good guy,” and Manna started having problems with audits after Manna 

started having problems with her father. (Id. ¶¶ 42-43.) The trial court found 

Manna’s testimony credible and noted that although neither QAO Bishop nor QAO 

Neely testified in this matter, they were previously found not credible by the trial 

court in another matter involving Manna. (Id. ¶¶ 48-50.) 

10 The trial court found that the Department improperly awarded the competing station a 

certificate of appointment since it and Manna’s station share common access, citing 67 Pa. Code 

§ 175.21(e). (FOF ¶¶ 70-71, 93.)
7

Based upon the testimony provided, the trial court determined Manna was 

denied due process because she was not given an opportunity to be heard after 

receiving the suspension notice, as required by 67 Pa. Code § 177.651.11 (Id. ¶ 55.) 

The trial court further found that after Manna provided copies of the new insurance, 

the Station should have been permitted to resume operations under the Department’s 

regulations. (Id. ¶ 61.) The trial court also found credible Manna’s testimony that

Lebowski stole the Station’s mail, resulting in Manna not receiving notice of the 

insurance cancellation. (Id. ¶ 62.) In addition, the trial court found Manna followed 

the law when it came to the eviction despite it being unlawful, and that the trial court

“cannot find that Manna violated 67 Pa. Code § 175.22(b)(4) and [§] 177.402(b)(2) 

because that would assist [the Department] to sanction Manna for her failure to 

perform an illegal act.” (Id. ¶ 69.) 

The trial court found QAO Bishop and Lebowski “systematically orchestrated 

Manna receiving the violations from the November 2, 2021” audit, Lebowski 

informed QAO Bishop of the unlawful eviction leading to other audits of the Station, 

and QAO Neely and Trooper Tustin went to the Station unannounced on November 

2, 2021. (Id. ¶¶ 88-92, 105.) The trial court found the notices inaccurately stated 

Manna’s insurance was cancelled for nonpayment, which the Department did not try 

to confirm was accurate, before suspending the Certificates. (Id. ¶¶ 94-96, 103.) 

Furthermore, the trial court stated that “[b]ut for the conduct of QAO Bishop, Manna 

would not have been audited on November 2, 2021 and received violations from this 

audit.” (Id. ¶ 97.) The trial court found “QAO Bishop demonstrated a bias against 

11 This regulation provides that “[p]rior to the immediate suspension of any official 

emission inspection station, certificate of appointment, emission inspector certification or certified 

repair technician, the Department shall, within 3 days, provide written notice of the alleged 

violation and the opportunity to be heard.” 67 Pa. Code § 177.651.
8

Manna,” and “QAO Bishop, a government agent of [the Department], engaged in 

conduct that was so grossly shocking and so outrageous as to violate the universal 

sense of justice; and therefore, denied Manna of due process barring the violations” 

resulting in the suspension of Manna’s Certificates. (Id. ¶ 98, 105.) Citing 

precedent, the trial court reasoned it had authority to “alter the penalty” when an 

owner lacks knowledge of a violation, which Manna did. (Id. ¶¶ 100-02, 105.)

Accordingly, the trial court granted Manna’s appeals and reinstated the Certificates. 

(Trial Court’s Order.)

In its Opinion issued pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 

1925(a), Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a), after restating the procedural and factual history, 

including Manna’s testimony, the trial court explained that the plain language of the 

regulations upon which the Department relied bars inspections only until evidence 

of new insurance is provided. (1925(a) Op. at 10.)12 Further, the trial court explained 

that Manna credibly testified she was unaware of the insurance cancellation and 

immediately obtained new insurance. (Id. at 12.) It further reasoned that, to the 

extent the Department relied upon Section 4724(a) of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa.C.S. 

§ 4724(a),13 such argument was without merit because none of the notices referenced 

that provision. (Id. at 13.) 

12 A copy of the trial court’s 1925(a) Opinion is found beginning on page 243a of the 

Reproduced Record.

13 Section 4724(a) provides:

The [D]epartment shall supervise and inspect official inspection stations and may 

suspend the certificate of appointment issued to a station or may impose a monetary 

penalty or may issue a warning against the station which it finds is not properly 

equipped or conducted or which has violated or failed to comply with any of the 

provisions of this chapter or regulations adopted by the [D]epartment. A schedule 

of all penalties, points and suspension may be established by the [D]epartment by 

publishing a notice in the Pennsylvania Bulletin until the regulations governing 

(Footnote continued on next page...)
9

The Department appeals.14

II. PARTIES’ ARGUMENTS15

The Department argues under its regulations, specifically 67 Pa. Code 

§§ 177.402(b)(4) and 175.22(b)(4), cancellation of one’s insurance automatically 

voids emissions and safety certificates. It maintains there is substantial evidence to 

support its actions because Manna admitted her insurance had been cancelled and 

the reason therefore is irrelevant. The Department further maintains the trial court 

erred or abused its discretion in reinstating the Certificates as the Department is 

tasked with ensuring a station meets the requirements for such certificates. 

According to the Department, it is within the Department’s purview to reinstate the 

Certificates and it “raised credible concerns that [the S]tation was not operating in 

the best interests of the Commonwealth.” (Department’s Brief (Br.) at 15.) It 

maintains only after Manna returns all the required documents would the 

Department schedule a site visit to ensure the Station was properly equipped, 

secured, and staffed. 

these penalties are promulgated by the [D]epartment. The [D]epartment shall 

maintain a list of all stations holding certificates of appointment and of those whose 

certificates of appointment have been suspended. Any suspended certificate of 

appointment and all unused certificates of inspection shall be returned immediately 

to the [D]epartment.

75 Pa.C.S. § 4724(a).

14 The Department’s appeals resulted in an automatic supersedeas under Pennsylvania Rule 

of Appellate Procedure 1736, Pa.R.A.P. 1736. Manna petitioned the trial court to vacate the 

automatic supersedeas, which the trial court granted. Before this Court, the Department sought to 

reinstate the supersedeas, which was denied by Memorandum Opinion and Order entered 

September 27, 2023. 

15 Appellees QAO Bishop, QAO Neely, Patrick Monahan, and Parsons were precluded 

from filing briefs and participating in oral argument, if scheduled, by Order of January 18, 2024.
10

Manna, proceeding pro se, argues she was unaware her insurance had been 

cancelled as she was not receiving mail due to an issue with the neighboring and 

competing station, and upon learning from the Department that the insurance was 

cancelled, Manna immediately obtained another policy. Manna acknowledges the 

Department’s regulations provide for automatic voiding of a certificate but points 

out they also provide that it is temporary until proof of insurance is provided, which 

Manna did. Upon proof of new insurance, Manna argues the Station was entitled to 

resume inspections. Manna also argues the trial court credited her testimony as to 

the events surrounding the insurance cancellation and subsequent suspension of the 

Certificates. Manna points to precedent that allows a trial court to “alter the penalty” 

when it finds the station’s operator was unaware of the violation, which is what the 

trial court did here. Manna further argues that the Department cited to no statutory 

authority that would have permitted it to void the Certificates after November 4, 

2021, when she provided proof of new insurance. To the extent the Department 

relies upon other provisions of the Vehicle Code, Manna responds the Department 

did not cite those provisions in its notices and reliance upon it now would violate 

Manna’s due process rights. 

III. DISCUSSION

We review suspensions of inspection certificates “to determine[e] whether the 

trial court committed an error of law or whether the trial court’s findings are 

supported by substantial evidence.” McCarthy v. Dep’t of Transp., 7 A.3d 346, 350 

(Pa. Cmwlth. 2010). “[S]ubstantial evidence is [defined as] ‘relevant evidence that 

a reasonable mind, without weighing the evidence or substituting its judgment for 

that of the fact finder, might accept as adequate to support the conclusion reached.’” 

Snyder v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Motor Vehicles, 970 A.2d 523, 528 (Pa. 
11

Cmwlth. 2009) (citation omitted). The trial court serves as finder of fact, and if the 

record evidence “is adequate to support the finding found by the trial court, . . . we 

are precluded from overturning th[e] finding and must affirm.” Dep’t of Transp., 

Bureau of Traffic Safety v. O’Connell, 555 A.2d 873, 875 (Pa. 1989). The Court 

reviews the record “evidence in a light most favorable to . . . the prevailing party in 

the trial court.” Sillah v. Dep’t of Transp. (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 1311 C.D. 2016, filed 

Jan. 16, 2018), slip op. at 10 n.1516 (citing McDonald v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of 

Driver Licensing, 708 A.2d 154, 156 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998)). Evidentiary weight 

determinations are “solely within the province of the trial court.” Id. (citing 

Castagna v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Motor Vehicles, 831 A.2d 156, 160 n.4 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 2003)). Likewise, “witness credibility [lies] solely within the province of 

the trial court.” Castagna, 831 A.2d at 160 n.4. The Department bears the burden 

of proving violations by a preponderance of the evidence. Firestone Tire & Serv. 

Ctr., O.I.S. #798 v. Dep’t of Transp., 871 A.2d 863, 867 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005).

In its notices to Manna, the Department cited its regulations, 67 Pa. Code 

§§ 175.22(b)(4) (pertaining to safety certificates) and 177.402(b)(4) (pertaining to 

emissions certificates), as the bases for suspending Manna’s Certificates. The 

regulations identically provide that “[c]ancellation of the bond or insurance shall 

automatically void the certificate of appointment.” 67 Pa. Code §§ 175.22(b)(4), 

177.402(b)(4). Importantly, however, the very next sentence provides that 

“[i]nspections shall cease until the [Department] receives a new bond or proof of 

insurance.” Id. (emphasis added). Manna testified she provided proof of insurance 

on November 4, 2021, when she first learned her prior insurance was cancelled, by 

16 Unreported panel decisions of this Court may be cited for their persuasive value pursuant 

to Rule 126(b) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, Pa.R.A.P 126(b), and Section 

414(a) of this Court’s Internal Operating Procedures, 210 Pa. Code § 69.414(a).
12

faxing a copy to the Department. (FOF ¶ 16.) She further testified that someone 

from the Department called her that day saying the insurance was unacceptable, 

although in a subsequent letter, the Department acknowledged it was acceptable. 

(Id. ¶¶ 17-18.) The trial court found Manna’s testimony credible. (Id. ¶ 48.) The 

trial court, as factfinder, is charged with making credibility determinations. Sillah, 

slip op. at 10 n.15. In short, based upon the credited evidence and the very same 

regulations the Department used to suspend Manna’s Certificates, Manna’s 

Certificates were reinstated upon her providing proof of the new insurance policy

and she should have been permitted to resume inspections. 

To the extent the Department relies upon provisions of the Vehicle Code to 

justify its refusal to reinstate Manna’s Certificates, the trial court concluded the 

Department did not cite those provisions and therefore, the argument is without 

merit. (1925 Op. at 14.) We agree. As explained in Manna v. Department of 

Transportation, Bureau of Motor Vehicles (Pa. Cmwlth., Nos. 516 & 517 C.D. 2022, 

filed September 20, 2024), slip op. at 14-15, holding someone accountable for 

violations of statutory or regulatory provisions that were not cited violates due 

process. 

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s orders sustaining 

Manna’s appeals and reinstating Manna’s Certificates. 

__________________________________________

RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Kedecia Manna, d/b/a 9th and Lloyd : CASES CONSOLIDATED

Inspections, OIS #EG30 :

 :

v. : No. 993 C.D. 2022 

 : 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, :

Department of Transportation, Bureau :

of Motor Vehicles, :

Appellant :

Kedecia Manna, d/b/a/ 9th and Lloyd :

Inspections, OIS #EG30 :

 :

v. : No. 994 C.D. 2022

 : 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, :

Department of Transportation, Bureau :

of Motor Vehicles, :

Appellant :

O R D E R

NOW, October 7, 2024, the Orders of the Court of Common Pleas of 

Delaware County, entered in the above-captioned matters, are AFFIRMED.

__________________________________________

RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge