Opinion
629 M.D. 2022
05-07-2024
PA Home Care Association, Petitioner v. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Human Services; Meg Snead, in her official capacity as Acting Secretary of the Department of Human Services; Jamie Buchenauer, in her official capacity as Deputy Secretary for the Department of Human Services' Office of Long-Term Living, Respondents
ORDER
PER CURIAM
NOW, May 7, 2024, upon consideration of PA Home Care Association's (Petitioner) "Application For Reconsideration of Interlocutory Order in Light of New Supreme Court Authority" (Application) and brief in support, Respondents' Answer to the Application, Petitioner's Reply Brief in Support of the Application, Respondents' Surreply Brief, and our Supreme Court's decision in Allegheny Reproductive Health Center v. Pennsylvania Department of Human Services, 309 A.3d 808 (Pa. 2024) (ARH II), the Application is GRANTED. Respondents' preliminary objections to Counts IV through VIII of the Petition for Review in the Nature of a Complaint for Declaratory Relief are OVERRULED, and Respondents are directed to file an Answer to Counts IV through VIII of the Petition no later than 30 days from the exit date of this Order.
The Court finds that the Application is timely filed because it challenges the Court's October 20, 2023 interlocutory order entered in this original jurisdiction matter and was filed before a final disposition of the merits has occurred. See Commonwealth v. James, 69 A.3d 180, 186 (Pa. 2013); Fernandez v. City of Pittsburgh, 643 A.2d 1176, 1185 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994); 20A West's Appellate Practice § 1701:35 (2023-2024 ed.). Reconsideration may be granted under exceptional and compelling circumstances, which may include a change in controlling authority. See Pa.R.A.P. 2543, Note. The Court's October 20, 2023 decision sustaining Respondents' preliminary objections (POs) to Counts IV through VIII of the Petition for Review in the Nature of a Complaint for Declaratory Relief based on Petitioner's lack of standing relied upon the third-party standing analysis in Allegheny Reproductive Health Center v. Pennsylvania Department of Human Services, 249 A.3d 598 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2021) (ARH I), rev'd ARH II, and Harrisburg School District v. Harrisburg Education Association, 379 A.2d 893 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1977). However, in ARH II, the Supreme Court reversed ARH I's standing analysis and rejected the federal standing principles adopted in Harrisburg School District, directing the use of the traditional standing analysis for Pennsylvania set forth in William Penn Parking Garage, Inc. v. City of Pittsburgh, 346 A.2d 269, 283 (Pa. 1975) (William Penn), for deciding third-party standing. ARH II, 309 A.3d at 839-42 & nn. 19-21. Because the Court's earlier decision was based on a now-rejected standing analysis and Petitioner has established standing under the William Penn standard, it does not appear with certainty that the law will not permit recovery on this basis and, therefore, the POs to these counts based on standing must be overruled. Stanton-Negley Drug Co. v. Pa. Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 927 A.2d 671, 673 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007).