PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION Initial Decision Dismissing Complaint Fred Kurland v. Verizon Pennsylvania, Inc.; C-2010-2190283
[41 Pa.B. 4828]
[Saturday, September 3, 2011]INITIAL DECISION DISMISSING COMPLAINT Before
David A. Salapa
Administrative Law JudgeHISTORY OF THE PROCEEDING On July 26, 2010, Fred Kurland (Complainant) filed a complaint with the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (Commission) against Verizon Pennsylvania, Inc. (Respondent). The complaint alleges that there are incorrect charges on the Complainant's bill and that there is a reliability, safety or quality problem with the Complainant's utility service. The complaint requests that the Commission order the Respondent to rewire the Complainant's house, reimburse the Complainant for loss of service and loss of business, and credit his account. The Commission served the complaint and a letter dated July 28, 2010 on the Respondent, notifying the Respondent that a complaint had been filed against it.
Rather than file an answer to the complaint, the Respondent requested several extensions of time in order to attempt to reach the Complainant and resolve the issues set forth in his complaint. The Commission granted each of these requests by Secretarial Letters. The Commission served each of these Secretarial Letters on the parties.
The Commission served the most recent of these Secretarial Letters on the parties on January 24, 2011. The Secretarial Letter dated January 24, 2011 and served on the Complainant at the address shown on the complaint was returned to the Commission on February 17, 2011 by the United States Postal Service. On the envelope containing the Secretarial letter, the United States Postal Service attached a sticker stating ''return to sender not deliverable as addressed unable to forward''.
On February 24, 2011, the Respondent filed a letter with the Commission stating that the Respondent believed that the Complainant had passed away. Enclosed with the Respondent's letter is a LEXIS screen shot of a public record search showing that a person with the same name and address as the Complainant's passed away on December 25, 2010. Also enclosed with the Respondent's letter is a copy of an obituary that appeared online for an individual with the same name as the Complainant who passed away on December 25, 2010.
The letter states that prior to December 25, 2010, the Respondent's representatives had spoken to the Complainant but that since December 25, 2010, the Respondent's representatives have been unable to contact the Complainant. According to the letter, the Complainant's cell phone has been disconnected and his business lines are answered by voicemail. The Respondent mailed a letter to the Complainant's home address asking him to contact the Respondent but has received no response. The letter requests that the Commission dismiss the complaint since it appears that the Complainant has passed away.
On June 21, 2011, the Register of Wills and Clerk of the Orphans' Court Division of Delaware County filed a letter with the Commission. This letter was apparently filed in response to a letter sent to the Register of Wills by the Commission's Secretary inquiring whether there was any record of an estate of the Complainant being probated. The letter states that the Register of Wills found no record showing that an estate had been probated.
By notice dated July 21, 2011, the Commission notified the parties that it had assigned the case to me as motions judge. For the reasons set forth below, I will dismiss the complaint.
FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Complainant in this case is Fred Kurland.
2. The Respondent in this case is Verizon Pennsylvania, Inc.
3. On July 26, 2010, the Complainant filed a complaint with the Commission against the Respondent.
4. The Respondent requested several extensions of time in order to attempt to reach the Complainant and resolve the issues set forth in his complaint.
5. The Commission granted each of these requests by Secretarial Letters.
6. The Commission served each of these Secretarial Letters on the parties.
7. The Secretarial Letter dated January 24, 2011, served on the Complainant to the address shown on the complaint, was returned to the Commission on February 17, 2011, by the United States Postal Service.
8. On the envelope containing the January 24, 2011 Secretarial Letter, the United States Postal Service attached a sticker stating ''return to sender not deliverable as addressed unable to forward''.
DISCUSSION Initially, the Respondent has requested that the Commission dismiss the Complainant's complaint because it believes that the Complainant is deceased. However, the information that the Respondent has provided in support of this assertion, a LEXIS screen shot and a copy of what appears to be an obituary for the Complainant that appeared online are hearsay, in that they are out-of-court statements offered to prove the truth of the matters therein. Commonwealth v. Harvey, 666 A.2d 1108 (Pa. Super. 1995). While the statute at 2 Pa.C.S. § 505 provides that Commonwealth agencies are not bound by technical rules of evidence, the Hearsay Rule is not a technical rule of evidence, but a fundamental rule of law which administrative agencies must follow, particularly when facts crucial to the issue are to be placed upon the record. Bleilevens v. Commonwealth of Pa., State Civil Service Comm'n, 312 A.2d 109 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1973). Therefore, uncorroborated hearsay cannot be used to support a finding of fact. Walker v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 367 A.2d 366 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1976). Since there is nothing in the record to corroborate the information provided by the Respondent, the Commission cannot make a finding in this case that the Complainant is deceased and the Commission cannot dismiss the complaint on that basis.
However, the regulation at 52 Pa. Code § 5.21(d) states that a person filing a formal complaint is entitled to a formal hearing except where the Commission determines that a hearing is not necessary or in the public interest. If the Commission concludes that a hearing is not necessary or in the public interest, the Commission may dismiss the complaint without hearing. In this case, I conclude that a hearing is not in the public interest because the Complainant has failed to provide a current address and it is appropriate to dismiss the complaint without hearing.
The Complainant has a duty, pursuant to 52 Pa. Code § 1.53(d), to inform the Commission promptly of changes to his current address. The Complainant has had almost six months since the United States Postal Service returned the January 24, 2011 Secretarial Letter on February 17, 2011 to inform the Commission of his current address. The Complainant has failed to provide the Commission with his current address. The Complainant's failure to provide this information in violation of Commission regulations serves as a basis for dismissing his complaint.
The Complainant has not contacted the Commission regarding the status of his complaint or to provide the Commission with an address where it can serve him with a hearing notice. The Complainant has therefore taken no action to prosecute his claims or pursue litigation. I conclude that the Complainant's conduct in this case is obstructive to the orderly conduct of the proceeding and contrary to the public interest. Neither the Commission nor the Respondent should be obligated to expend any more time, energy, or money attempting to locate the Complainant in order to either serve him with documents or to schedule a hearing. It is appropriate under the circumstances to dismiss the Complainant's complaint.
The Complainant has failed to comply with 52 Pa. Code 1.53(d) by failing to provide the Commission with his current address. The Complainant has not contacted the Commission or taken any further action to prosecute his claims or pursue litigation. For all these reasons, I conclude that it is appropriate to dismiss the complaint. I will direct that a copy of this initial decision be published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin in order to serve the Complainant by publication pursuant to 52 Pa. Code § 1.53(e).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Commission has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this dispute. 66 Pa.C.S.A. § 701.
2. A party has a duty to inform the Commission promptly of changes to his current address. 52 Pa. Code § 1.53(d).
3. It is just, reasonable and in the public interest that the complaint filed at Docket No. C-2010-2190283 be dismissed.
ORDER THEREFORE,
IT IS ORDERED:
1. That the complaint of Fred Kurland at Docket No. C-2010-2190283 against Verizon Pennsylvania, Inc. is dismissed.
2. That the Secretary of the Commission serve a copy of this initial decision on Fred Kurland by publication, pursuant to 52 Pa. Code § 1.53(e), by causing a copy of this initial decision to be published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin.
3. That the record at Docket No. C-2010-2190283 is marked closed.
DAVID A. SALAPA,
Administrative Law JudgeDate: July 26, 2011
[Pa.B. Doc. No. 11-1530. Filed for public inspection September 2, 2011, 9:00 a.m.]
