Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2002

Kleinberg v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Decided November 13, 2002 · Zappala, Cappy, Castille, Nigro, Saylor, Eakin, Newman

810 A.2d 635; 570 Pa. 490; 2002 Pa. LEXIS 2363 (Atlantic Reporter, Second Series)

Opinion of the Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

The Order of the Commonwealth Court is affirmed.

Justice NEWMAN did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case. Justice CAPPY files a dissenting statement in which Justice NIGRO joins.

Dissenting Opinion

CAPPY, Justice,

dissenting.

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.l). 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.

Justice NIGRO joins this dissenting statement.

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