Court Opinion

ID: 9634734
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 13:21:58.750662+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:43:51.546249
License: Public Domain

*430FRIEDMAN, Judge,
concurring.
I agree with my colleagues in their analysis of the Becky incident and in the result they reach in the majority opinion.
With respect to the Jeremy incident, however, I disagree that we need to decide whether a procedural defect raised before a previous tribunal is relevant in a de novo review. The issue here is whether the Secretary, as the ultimate fact-finder, made findings of fact supported by the official record proceedings in rendering a decision. Belasco v. Board of Public Education of the School District of Pittsburgh, 510 Pa. 504, 510 A.2d 337 (1986); Grant v. Board of School Directors, 43 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 556, 403 A.2d 157 (1979).
Although the Secretary carefully analyzed the case on review, he failed to make any specific findings of fact with respect to charge of immorality filed against Shoup. Without such findings, we cannot apply the substantial evidence test necessary for our appellate review. Accordingly, on this basis alone, I would vacate and remand for necessary fact finding.