holding that similar regulatory statutes were “entirely too general and vague to permit the conclusion that a violation had occurred amounting to ‘wrongdoing’ under the Whistleblower Law”
How later courts described this case
- holding that similar regulatory statutes were “entirely too general and vague to permit the conclusion that a violation had occurred amounting to ‘wrongdoing’ under the Whistleblower Law”
- stating in no uncertain terms that, even though it need not reach the Medicaid PWL issue, the court is not bound by Cohen
- report of allegedly unsafe lack of supervision of procedures performed by medical residents does not constitute a report of “wrongdoing” under the Whistleblower Law where it was not shown that any statute, regulation or professional code required supervision
- “Where the ~17- language of a statute is unambiguous on its face, we are bound to give effect to that language.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Tanay v. Encore Healthcare, LLC, 810 F. Supp. 2d 734 (2011)
The court there relied on Riggio, a case which was factually distinguishable.
The opinion
CAVANAUGH, Judge,
concurring:
I join in every respect with the majority disposition by Judge Hudock. I write separately only to point out what I consider a necessary consequence of the procedural posture in which this ease is presented before our court en banc. It is, of course, basic to our en banc procedures that an appeal en banc is, in fact, a de novo appeal which considers all of the issues raised by appellant or cross-appellant. In this case, en banc review was sought solely on the issue of the application of the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law and the majority opinion properly has limited its consideration to that issue. By so doing, appellant has abandoned or waived any present or future consideration of other issues initially raised in this appeal which were some five in number.