Opinion ID: 2753830
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Immediate and Irreparable Harm

Text: Having concluded that SEIU has a clear right to relief and is likely to succeed on the merits, we next examine whether it demonstrated that “an injunction is necessary to prevent immediate and irreparable harm that cannot be adequately compensated by damages.” Summit Towne Center, Inc., 828 A.2d at 1001. This inquiry is facilitated by case law holding that where the offending conduct sought to be restrained through a (Ncontinued) were leased from non-governmental entities over which the DOH would have no control. SEIU’s position, which we adopt herein, is that Section 1403(c)(1) requires that the number of Centers, i.e., sixty, remain the same. 19 Because we conclude that SEIU is likely to succeed on the merits of its underlying action based upon a statutory violation, we need not address SEIU’s contention that it is also likely to succeed on the constitutional grounds raised. See Commonwealth v. Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc., 8 A.3d 267, 271 (Pa. 2010) (holding that “it has long been the policy of this Court to avoid constitutional questions where a matter can be decided on alternative, non-constitutional grounds”). [J-15-2014] - 19 preliminary injunction violates a statutory mandate, irreparable injury will have been established. See Commonwealth v. Coward, 414 A.2d 91, 98-99 (Pa. 1980) (holding that where a statute prescribes certain activity, the court need only make a finding that the illegal activity occurred to conclude that there was irreparable injury for purposes of issuing a preliminary injunction); Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission v. Israel, 52 A. 2d 317, 321 (Pa. 1947) (holding that when the Legislature declares certain conduct to be unlawful, it is tantamount to calling it injurious to the public, and to continue such unlawful conduct constitutes irreparable injury for purposes of seeking injunctive relief); Commonwealth ex rel. Corbett v. Snyder, 977 A.2d 28 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (affirming issuance of a preliminary injunction and finding that irreparable harm was presumed where there was a credible violation of the state consumer protection statute). It is undisputed that the Executive Branch proposes to close more than one-third of the existing sixty Centers and to furlough twenty-six nurse consulting positions. Even absent factual findings by the Commonwealth Court regarding the pros and cons of the Executive Branch’s proposal, it is clear that such action will reduce the number of Centers and the level of public health services in direct contravention of the plain language of Section 1403(c)(1). Accordingly, we conclude that SEIU has demonstrated immediate and irreparable harm.