# Harmon, D., Aplt. v. UCBR

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · April 26, 2019

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4391167

## Case

- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** April 26, 2019
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **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/4391167

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that deference is due to an agency’s interpretation of a statute rendered while acting in an expert capacity during the course of an adjudication
- noting that deference is due to an agency’s interpretation of a statute rendered while acting in an expert capacity during the course of an adjudication

## Opinion text

[J-62-2018][M.O. - Dougherty, J.]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
EASTERN DISTRICT

DANIEL HARMON, : No. 37 EAP 2017
:
Appellant : Appeal from the Order of the
: Commonwealth Court entered on 6/7/17
: at No 787 CD 2015 affirming the
: decision entered on 4/15/15 by the
v. : Unemployment Compensation Board of
: Review at No. B-577458
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION :
BOARD OF REVIEW, :
:
Appellee : ARGUED: September 25, 2018

CONCURRING OPINION

CHIEF JUSTICE SAYLOR DECIDED: April 26, 2019

I join the majority opinion, except for the treatment of deference due to the

Unemployment Compensation Board of Review. See Majority Opinion, slip op. at 12-

13. In this regard, I believe that some consideration should be given to the Board’s

adjudicative role at the time it proffered its interpretation of the governing statute. See,

e.g., Ark. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs. v. Ahlborn, 547 U.S. 268, 292, 126 S. Ct.

1752, 1767 (2006) (explaining that “agency adjudications typically warrant deference”);

accord ARIPPA v. PUC, 792 A.2d 636, 660 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (noting that deference is

due to an agency’s interpretation of a statute rendered while acting in an expert capacity

during the course of an adjudication). Such a role seems less likely than that of an

adversarial litigant to incentivize administrative agencies to “adopt positions arbitrarily
and/or based on interests unrelated to . . . legislative intent[.]” Huntley & Huntley v.

Borough of Oakmont, 600 Pa. 207, 229, 964 A.2d 855, 868 (2009).

A pervading question in this field, of course, is how much deference is due in any

given context. For present purposes, I find that the majority’s able analysis of the

relevant statute is substantially more persuasive than the reasoning supplied by the

Board and surpasses the weight of the deference that I would accord. Further, and

relatedly, the particular statutory-interpretation issue raised in the present matter only

modestly implicates agency expertise.

[J-62-2018][M.O. – Dougherty, J.] - 2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4391167. Public record. Not legal advice.