# Riggio v. Burns

> Superior Court of Pennsylvania · March 30, 1998 · 711 A.2d 497

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9728197

## Case

- **Full name:** Silvana RIGGIO, M.D., Appellant, v. Rosalie A. BURNS, M.D., Lawrence Brown, M.D., and Medical College of Pennsylvania, Appellees
- **Court:** Superior Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** March 30, 1998
- **Citations:** 711 A.2d 497; 1998 Pa. Super. LEXIS 542
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Cavanaugh
- **Judges:** McEwen, Meewen, Cavanaugh, Cirillo, Tamilia, Popovich, Johnson, Hudock, Elliott, Eakin
- **Cited by:** 30 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/9728197

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9728197. Public record. Not legal advice.