Court Opinion

ID: 9752548
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 18:14:14.150191+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:17.375457
License: Public Domain

CRUMLISH, Jr., President Judge.
I respectfully dissent.
*244As the majority notes, “[t]he Board followed its standard operating procedure in prosecuting and adjudicating this matter.” (Footnote omitted). The majority also notes that the Board not only made the initial decision to issue a complaint against Lyness, but ultimately adjudicated that complaint by ordering, without an evidentiary hearing or oral argument, a harsher sanction than that imposed by the hearing examiner. Such involvement constitutes an impermissible commingling of prosecutorial and adjudicatory functions under Dussia v. Barger, 466 Pa. 152, 351 A.2d 667 (1975).
Thus, for the reasons more fully explained in my dissent in Bruteyn Appeal, 32 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 541, 380 A.2d 497 (1977), I would reverse.
COLINS, J., joins in this dissent.