Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1992

COM., DEPT. OF PUBLIC WELFARE v. Portnoy

COM., DEPT. OF PUBLIC WELFARE v. Portnoy
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Decided June 17, 1992 · Nix, Larsen, Flaherty, McDermott, Zappala, Papadakos, Cappy
612 A.2d 1349; 531 Pa. 320; 1992 Pa. LEXIS 457 (Atlantic Reporter, Second Series)

COM., DEPT. OF PUBLIC WELFARE v. Portnoy

Opinion of the Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Order of Commonwealth Court affirmed.

NIX, C.J., files a concurring opinion. FLAHERTY and McDERMOTT, JJ., dissent.

Concurring Opinion

NIX, Chief Justice,

concurring.

I reluctantly concur in the affirmance of the Commonwealth Court’s order affirming the dismissal of the complaint of appellant’s suit against appellee attorneys, in light of our per curiam affirmance in Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Public Welfare v. Thomas, 526 Pa. 540, 587 A.2d 727 (1991).

However, I must write separately to exhort the General Assembly to amend Chapter XIV of the Public Welfare Code, 62 P.S. §§ 1401, et seq., to provide remedies and/or penalties against attorneys who knowingly violate the Public Welfare Code. These benefits are public funds which are paid for by the taxpayers. I find it unconscionable that an attorney, who is charged with knowledge of the law and is aware that his client has received public assistance, would fail to notify the Department of Public Welfare that his client has been reimbursed for injuries already paid for by the Commonwealth. The law clearly establishes an obligation on the attorney to advise the Department of Public Welfare, 62 P.S. § 1409(b)(12), but fails to provide a remedy or sanction against an attorney who neglects that duty. The legislature should seriously consider establishing a sanction for those who fail to comply.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.