Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Denton v. Silver Stream Nursing & Rehabilitation Center

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 7, 1999PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

McEWEN, President Judge,

concurring and dissenting:

¶ 1 While the author of the majority view provides, in his usual fashion, a sound rationale and persuasive expression of view, I am unable to find that appellees, privately owned, for-profit business entities, are “public bodies” for purposes of the Whistleblower Law4, 48 P.S. §§ 1421-1428. Nonetheless, I agree with the majority that the order which dismissed the amended complaint of appellant must be vacated and the case remanded for trial5, as I believe appellant has pleaded a viable cause of action for wrongful discharge and civil…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Spierling v. First American Home Health Services, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
  2. Heinly v. CommonwealthCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1993
  3. Householder v. Kensington Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  4. Cyclops Corporation/Sawhill Tubular Division v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1993

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Betz, J. v. UPMC Pinnacle West Shore Hosp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2023

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API