Title: Kleinberg et al. v. S.E.P.T.A. (Dissenting Statement)
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 49EAP2001
State: Pennsylvania
Issuer: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Date: November 14, 2002

[J-162-2002] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT DR. HARVEY S. KLEINBERG, ET AL., INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Appellants v. SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 49 EAP 2001 Appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court entered on November 29, 2000 (reargument denied February 7, 2001) at No. 565 CD 2000 reversing the Order entered on January 19, 2000 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Civil Division, at No. 1310 March Term 1998 and remanding the case 765 A.2d 405 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) ARGUED: October 22, 2002 DISSENTING STATEMENT MR. JUSTICE CAPPY Filed: November 13, 2002 I respectfully dissent. The Commonwealth Court ignored those portions of the Physical Therapy Practice Act (PTPA) that provide that the PTPA will not limit a physician's ability to practice medicine. See 63 P.S. §1304(a), (b.1). These provisions must be read in pari materia with the Medical Practice Act and the Osteopathic Medical Practice Act, which delineate the scope of the physician's practice of medicine. In my view, the practice of medicine encompasses the services at issue here, and is not limited by the PTPA. See 75 Pa.C.S. §1712, amended by 2002, Oct. 4, P.L. 845, No. 123, §3 (amending the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law to require insurers to cover "rehabilitative medicine…services", including "physical therapy"). Accordingly, I cannot join the decision to affirm per curiam the order of the Commonwealth Court. Mr. Justice Nigro joins this dissenting statement.