Opinion

Pennsylvania State Board of Funeral Directors v. Errichetti

  • 440 Pa. 40
  • 269 A.2d 758
  • 1970 Pa. LEXIS 528
Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Filed
Oct 9, 1970
Status
Published
On the bench
Bell, Brien, Cohen, Consideration, Eagen, Lower, Pomeroy, Roberts, Took, Would
Cited by
3 cases
Authority
More cited than 76.2%

board erred in considering matters outside of the record when rendering decision

How later courts described this case

  • board erred in considering matters outside of the record when rendering decision

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Upon information obtained from the Maine Board of Medical Examiners, the Pennsylvania State Board of Funeral Directors issued a citation charging that Victor Errichetti, appellant, had violated §13(b) of the Funeral Director Law, Act of January 14, 1952, P. L. (1951) 1898, as amended, 63 P.S. §479.13(b) *42 which states that, “No person other than a licensed funeral director or a resident trainee shall prepare or embalm the body of any deceased person.” After a hearing, the Board found that appellant had violated that section, and it ordered that his funeral director’s license be revoked. On appeal the Commonwealth Court affirmed, 89 Dauph. 378 (1968), as did the Superior Court, 215 Pa. Superior Ct. 461 , 258 A. 2d 534 (1969). We granted allocatur.

After a careful reading of the record, we conclude that there is substantial evidence to support the finding that appellant violated §13 (b). As to the penalty, however, at oral argument, counsel for the Board admitted that in making its decision to revoke appellant’s license the Board considered matters outside the record in this action. As this was clearly improper, we must vacate the order of the Superior Court and remand the record to the Commonwealth Court which under the Administrative Agency Law, Act of June 4, 1945, P. L. 1388, §44, 71 P.S. §1710.44, has the power to affirm, modify or set aside the revocation order.

The order is vacated, and the record is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Mr. Justice Roberts dissents and would affirm the order of the lower court.

Mr. Justice Jones took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.