2002 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

8-8-2002

Wolk v. NTSB

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 01-4112

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2002 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Wolk v. NTSB" (2002). 2002 Decisions. Paper 487.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002/487
 NOT PRECEDENTIAL 

 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

 FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

 

 No. 01-4112 

 

 ARTHUR ALAN WOLK, 

 Appellant 

 v. 

 NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD; 

 ALLIEDSIGNAL, INC; HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC.; 

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION 

 SAFETY BOARD; CAROL DINWIDDIE; DANIEL CAMPBELL; 

 FRANK GATTOLIN; TEN UNKNOWN NTSB EMPLOYEES, 

 Appellees 

 ____________ 

 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

 (D.C. Civ. No. 00-cv-06394 ) 

 District Judge: Honorable Ronald L. Buckwalter 

 ____________ 

 Argued July 15, 2002 

 Before: McKEE, WEIS and DUHı,* Circuit Judges. 

 

 (Filed August 8, 2002) 

 ____________ 

 

___________________________ 

 *Honorable John M. Duh , Jr., United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth 

Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting by designation. 

 ____________ 

Arthur Alan Wolk, Esquire (ARGUED) 

WOLK & GENTER 

1710-12 Locust Street 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 

Attorney for Appellant (pro se) 

Richard M. Bernstein, Esquire (ARGUED) 

Assistant United States Attorney 

Patrick L. Meehan, Esquire 

United States Attorney 

James G. Sheehan, Esquire 

Assistant United States Attorney 

Chief, Civil Division 

615 Chestnut Street, Suite 1250 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106-4476 

Attorneys for Appellees National Transportation Safety Board; United States of America; 

Carol Dinwiddie; Daniel Campbell; Frank Gattolin; and Ten Unknown NTSB Employees 
Patricia Proctor, Esquire (ARGUED) 

William M. Brown, III, Esquire 

Jason P. Gosselin, Esquire 

DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH, LLP 

One Logan Squire, 18th & Cherry Streets 

Philadelphia, PA 19103-6996 

Attorneys for Appellees AlliedSignal, Inc. and Honeywell International, Inc. 

 _______________ 

 OPINION 

 

WEIS, Circuit Judge. 

 Because this Opinion is non-precedential, we will only briefly sketch the 

pertinent facts of the case. 

 Plaintiff is an attorney specializing in the representation of parties injured or 

killed in airplane accidents. He is also an experienced amateur aviator. In 1985, plaintiff 

purchased a Korean War-era jet fighter plane, a Grumman F9F-2 Panther, which he had 

restored to flying condition. The FAA issued plaintiff a permanent license in 1987, and 

he flew the Panther in a number of air shows in the years following. 

 In September 1996, plaintiff experienced problems with the fuel system 

shortly after takeoff and was forced to make an emergency landing. The plane overshot 

the runway, crossed a highway and ultimately crashed into a hill. Plaintiff sustained 

serious injuries, but fortunately recovered. 

 The National Transportation and Safety Board, with the assistance of the 

AlliedSignal Company, investigated the accident and prepared a report. After reviewing 

the findings, plaintiff advised the Board that the report contained a number of errors, 

particularly with respect to his authorizations and qualifications to fly the Panther. The 

Board, conceding its mistakes, apologized to plaintiff, withdrew the report, and advised 

those who had obtained a copy of it of the errors. It then initiated another investigation in 

which some of the errors were corrected. Unfortunately, its second report, which was 

apparently posted on the NTSB’s website in late December 1999, reiterated errors 

contained in the original report, including those suggesting that plaintiff was not qualified 

to fly the Panther. 

 Plaintiff filed suit in the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Pennsylvania against the NTSB, some of its employees and 

AlliedSignal. His 53-page second amended complaint, together with a number of 

attached exhibits, alleged eight separate causes of action and sought compensatory and 

injunctive relief. The District Court, after conducting an exhaustive examination and 

analysis of each of the counts, dismissed the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim. We have carefully reviewed the District 

Court’s opinion and, despite the excellent brief and oral argument on appeal by plaintiff, 

do not find reversible error. 

 We can understand the plaintiff’s frustration with the Board’s actions. 

Although it acknowledged errors in its original report posted on the Internet, apparently 

through some sort of bureaucratic bumbling the Board repeated the same mistakes in the 

second report. We are certain that the District Court also sympathized with the plaintiff’s 

irritation, but concluded as do we that there was not a legal basis for recovery. 

 With respect to the plaintiff’s criticism of the "party system" employed by 

the NTSB in accident investigations, we are persuaded that changes to that procedure is a 

matter for Congress and not the courts. See Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. 

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 435 U.S. 519 (1978). 

 Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court will be affirmed. 

 
______________________________ 

TO THE CLERK: 

 Please file the foregoing Opinion. 

 /s/ Joseph F. Weis, Jr. 

 United States Circuit Judg