# McGrath v. Bureau of Professional & Occupational Affairs

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · February 13, 2017 · 166 A.3d 1216

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4125685

## Case

- **Full name:** Shannon MCGRATH, Respondent v. BUREAU OF PROFESSIONAL AND OCCUPATIONAL AFFAIRS, State Board of Nursing, Petitioner
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** February 13, 2017
- **Citations:** 166 A.3d 1216; 2017 Pa. LEXIS 304; 2017 WL 565070
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Per Curiam
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4125685

## Opinion text

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
WESTERN DISTRICT

SHANNON MCGRATH, : No. 365 WAL 2016
:
Respondent :
: Petition for Allowance of Appeal from
: the Order of the Commonwealth Court
v. :
:
:
BUREAU OF PROFESSIONAL AND :
OCCUPATIONAL AFFAIRS, STATE :
BOARD OF NURSING, :
:
Petitioner :

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 13th day of February, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by the Petitioner, are:
(1) Whether this Honorable Court should grant allocatur in a case of first
impression in this Court and one of substantial public importance to
consumer health and safety requiring prompt resolution involving the
length of an automatic license suspension of a nurse licensee convicted of
a drug felony where the Commonwealth Court incorrectly reversed its prior
correct application of Section 1921(c) of the Statutory Construction Act
and created a paradigm in which a nurse licensee may be suspended for
as little as one day for the same conduct that bars a nurse applicant from
obtaining a license for ten years?
(2) Whether the Commonwealth Court erred in ignoring case law and the
principles of statutory construction when it applied the rule of lenity to a
statute that was no longer ambiguous under Packer’s interpretation?
(3) Whether the Commonwealth Court erred in not applying the principle of
stare decisis as Packer was not clearly contrary to the body of law?

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4125685. Public record. Not legal advice.