holding that sovereign immunity does not apply where plaintiff seeks a declaration that it has a right to receive funds from the state agency
How later courts described this case
- holding that sovereign immunity does not apply where plaintiff seeks a declaration that it has a right to receive funds from the state agency
- sovereign immunity did not bar action seeking equitable relief or a declaratory judgment that plaintiff‗s assignee was entitled to direct payments from the Medical Professional Liability Catastrophe Loss Fund, a Commonwealth executive agency
- sovereign immunity did not bar action where goal of action was to restrain the Fund from performing the affirmative act of paying assigned plaintiffs or counsel and not an action to compel any affirmative action on the part of the Fund
- applying the capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception to the mootness doctrine
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SAYLOR, Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
I join the majority opinion insofar as it concludes that these declaratory judgment proceedings were improperly dismissed on the CAT Fund’s preliminary objections. Rather than proceeding to the merits of the controversy, however, I would remand the matter to the Commonwealth Court for further proceedings as appropriate, since I would not at this juncture foreclose the CAT Fund from developing an evidentiary record to support its claim that preclusion of assignments in this context is a necessary corollary to the legislative scheme essential to protect the integrity and effective administration of the statutory claims procedure.
Justice NEWMAN joins this concurring and dissenting opinion.