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
McEWEN, President Judge,
concurring and dissenting:
While the author of the majority Opinion has proceeded to a sound and persuasive expression of views, I am, nonetheless, compelled to this expression since, while I agree that the Medical College of Pennsylvania is a public body for purposes of the Whistleblower Law, I am unable to agree that we can decide, on motion for summary judgment, whether appellees violated any statute, ordinance, regulation, code of conduct or ethical consideration designed to protect the interest of the public. I would, therefore, remand the ease to the trial court so as to enable appellant to present evidence in support of her claim of such violations.