# Salvati v. Berks County Board of Assistance

> Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · April 23, 1984 · 81 Pa. Commw. 629

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6370134

## Case

- **Full name:** Jodi R. Salvati v. Berks County Board of Assistance, Department of Public Welfare
- **Court:** Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** April 23, 1984
- **Citations:** 81 Pa. Commw. 629; 474 A.2d 399; 1984 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1371
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Blatt
- **Judges:** Barry, Blatt, Craig, Crumlish, Doyle, Maophail, Reargued, Rogers, Williams
- **Cited by:** 7 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/6370134

## Opinion text

[Dissenting Opinion by
Judge Blatt]
I must respectfully dissent.
Hearsay testimony, consisting of allegedly received anonymous letters and phone calls, is the only evidence to support the majority’s position that the petitioner’s arrest was “job-related and touch [ed] upon [her] competency and ability.” Pennsylvania Department of Justice v. Grant, 22 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 582, 585-86 , 350 A.2d 878, 880 (1976). And, of course, an adjudication cannot be founded wholly on hearsay. Bleilevens v. Pennsylvania State Civil Service Commission, 11 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 1 , 312 A.2d 109 (1973).
Furthermore, I believe that the instant case is factually distinguishable from the cases relied on by the majority. Brown v. Department of Transportation, 34 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 461 , 383 A.2d 978 (1978) involved job-related charges bearing directly on an employee’s status as a security guard, and Grant involved an employee holding a position as a prison guard in a state correctional institution, a position which we held was “highly sensitive” and which required those who held it to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. In contrast, the record in the instant case is devoid of competent evidence establishing that the petitioner’s arrest had any connection to or bearing on her job, or that her position was at all “sensitive”.
Due to the absence of competent evidence in the record, I do not believe that the Commis *638 sion’s findings are supported by substantial evidence, and I would therefore reverse the order of the Commission.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6370134. Public record. Not legal advice.