HomeMy WebLinkAbout94-03106
~
'is
.
~
c.3
(
~
J
"
o
-
cY)
~ -,
~J:f\~;
LD
~,
JUN 9 II 07 AH '9~
11 II:,
or I,' : ,;'iCli',IMi)
CU!':;IF, ,,'U 1"",~1Y
I nUl'),"l "~" ~,
<:# 'Ia..5 0
5,00
#,4
.1 J
~
,. ~
t..f s-: s-a
...
"
,--;-.
~l.ofJ '} 79
((cpL. -#- I (~5' (
. I
#
.
i ·
,~
-'
j
.. .;
.,,-j
. .
tI
01
..
,~-_..
~~ ~ ~
ii
~~ ~ ,..
~
:E 8 ~
~i5~ B :l~~~
iiPo.~ ffi 0 s ~ ~ ~ ~
l><
o . Po. , ~ c( ~ ~ ~
u~;:l III ,
I>. :> ..: :E z ~ III
I>. :> 0 <( It:l D-
o H ~ ~
ou i= ~~~~
~i~ H
~ ::J
o H ~ D-
U ...... :l
I ~
~ '3, 0
~
zeo
H z U
, . '
. '
'J UL 2'i iOQ),
'11 \
,
ISSUES I
1. That the recall of Petitioner's license for six months was
arbitrary and capricious under Section l5l9(c) of the Motor Vehicle Code
which permits the Petitioner to present satisfactory evidence to the Depart-
ment in accordance with the regulations to establish that such person is com-
petent to drive a motor vehicle. Under the case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Department of Transportation, Hureau of Driver Licensing v. Alfred Ronald Chalfant,
565 A2d 1252, involving a school bus driver, the Court held that the Department
was required to prove that the Defendant's seizure disorder was likely to cause
loss or impairment of consciousness or an inability to drive a school bus. They
further stated that the Department was required to prove that a driver is physically
incompetent at the time of the recall, It is submitted that proof of a seizure
disability itself is insufficient under the regulations to justify the recall of
the license and does not disqualify without regard to whether the medical condition
presently affects driving ability.
2, The Petitioner has been taking the prescribed medication, Tegretol,
since April IS, 1995 and has had no seizure or fade-out since that time and it is
submitted that the condition is now under control. It should be noted at the
signing of this Hrief that there has been no evidence of seizure problems for a
period in excess of three months and at the time of the hearing on this matter
the medication will have been taken for almost four months. Attached hereto
and marked Exhibit "A" is a copy of a letter from Dr. Schiro indicating that the
condition appears to be under control as of June 9, 1994. It would appear that
the recall of Petioner's license for a period of six months, when the Petitioner's
-2-
Doctor feela that the condition ia under control with the use of medication,
is arbitrary and capricioua.
In view of the above, your Petitioner reapectfully requeats the
Court to act aaide the recall of Petitioner's licenae.
?iJj/2A~ tJJakA
William A. Yocu '\.
-3-
j
...
0\'
,
n,
I
I
I
I
" :
.... I
5,"0 I
1.<: Ill'
., .....1
"'....I'l
01 III Ill,
....,.. 1>,
7'~~1
"'10 III
'" e ~
cjU p..
7,
!
~
Ii;.' .
, .
\.
'\'.....
,~.T~t
,
'4.
I
,
""
-
i
,
I
~!
g,
1><'
.1
<I
~ I
.,..,1
::11
~I
101
...
-
U
~1
-:
rI.
11.
;11 ',\ l~~
~, oJ I
,
r
t:.
I'
\1\1 :.
"
~
.
.
~
'.
f'
\'
n
.
,
.