Flanigan v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation

806 A.2d 524, 2002 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 794
CourtCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedSeptember 11, 2002
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 806 A.2d 524 (Flanigan v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Flanigan v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, 806 A.2d 524, 2002 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 794 (Pa. Ct. App. 2002).

Opinion

OPINION BY

Senior Judge FLAHERTY.

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (Department) appeals from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County (trial court) which sustained the appeal of Timothy M. Flanigan (Flanigan) from a one-year suspension of his operating privilege pursuant to 75 Pa.C.S. § 1547(b)(1) and reversed the Department. We reverse and reinstate Flanigan’s one-year suspension of his operating privilege.

On January 18, 2001, Officer John O’Leary of the Jefferson Hills Police Department (Officer O’Leary) observed Flan-igan driving erratically on State Route 51. Officer O’Leary stopped the vehicle, detected an odor of alcohol on Flanigan and observed that his eyes were blood shot and his speech slurred. Flanigan proceeded to fail several field sobriety tests, was placed under arrest and transported to Jefferson Hospital to have blood drawn for a blood/alcohol test. Flanigan was advised as to where and why he was being taken to the hospital.

While on the way to the hospital, Flani-gan advised Officer O’Leary that he suffered from migraine headaches. Officer O’Leary testified that Flanigan’s behavior changed severely upon arrival at the hospital. Flanigan had an exaggerated weak walk and was moaning loudly. Flanigan advised Officer O’Leary that he suffered from migraine headaches and that he was [526]*526on medication for this condition. While Officer O’Leary read Flanigan the chemical test warnings, Flanigan continued to moan and when Officer O’Leary asked him if he understood the warnings, Flanigan looked at him and asked “what.” Officer O’Leary again advised him that anything short of submitting to the test would constitute a refusal. Flanigan stated that he was not refusing but that he could not take the test until he took his medicine. Officer O’Leary then advised him that he must submit to the blood test now and that another officer would contact his wife and have her meet them at the police station after the blood test with his medicine. Flanigan still refused to take the blood test until he got his medicine. Officer O’Leary attempted fo obtain his consent for 20-25 minutes, then re-cuffed Flanigan and escorted him out of the hospital. On the way out of the hospital, Flanigan went limp and fell to the ground screaming “what are you doing to me.” Officer O’Leary picked him up and put him into the police car.

Once at the police station, Officer O’Leary finished processing Flanigan who continued to proclaim that he was not refusing to take the blood test, that he just wanted his medicine first. Flanigan was then released to his wife, who confirmed that he was on prescription medication. However, she produced an empty bottle.

Flanigan testified that the lights at the hospital triggered the symptoms of his condition, chronic cluster migraines. Flanigan stated that his symptoms include severe headaches, an almost epileptic condition and the inability to think straight. Flanigan stated that he told Officer O’Leary that he had a bad headache and asked that he call his wife to get his medicine for him.

The trial court found as follows:

All of the credible evidence clearly proves that Defendant suffered from migraine headaches and that he was suffering from one at the hospital. It is also clear on the record that Officer O’Leary had notice of the Defendant’s condition and that while Officer O’Leary elected to ignore the Defendant’s condition because of his insistence that the Defendant must play by DOT’s rules, the physical symptoms of Defendant’s discomfort and his complaints would have made, it obvious to any reasonable person that Defendant was in extreme pain and needed his medication....
Nothing in Defendant’s conduct was indicative of his refusing to submit to the blood test. O’Leary admits this in his testimony. (T.T. at 20).
It is noteworthy that one of the symptoms in Defendant’s condition is that he is unable to “think straight” whenever he experienced this chronic migraine headache. (T.T. at 22 & 23). There is no doubt the Defendant was suffering from one of these migraine headaches whenever the Officer was pressuring him to submit to the test.... Defendant’s headache certainly was such a physical condition that prevented the Defendant from making such a knowing and conscious refusal.
It is the finding of the Court that Defendant did not refuse to submit to the blood test and that his appeal is, therefore, sustained.

Trial Court Opinion, December 18, 2001, at 4-5.

The Department appeals to our Court contending that the trial court’s opinion is not supported by competent evidence, in that Flanigan did not offer competent medical evidence to support his inability to make a knowing and conscious refusal of the blood test or to show that he was [527]*527physically incapable of having a blood test done.1

Section 1547(b)(1) of the Code, commonly referred to as the Implied Consent Law, provides that:

If any person placed under arrest for a violation of section 3731 (relating to driving under the influence of alcohol or controlled substance) is requested to submit to chemical testing and refuses to do so, the testing shall not be conducted but upon notice by the police officer, the department shall suspend the operating privilege of the person for a period of 12 months.

75 Pa.C.S. § 1547(b)(1).

To sustain a license suspension under Section 1547(b) of the Code, the Department must demonstrate that the licensee: (1) was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol; (2) was asked to submit to chemical testing; (3) refused to do so; and (4) was specifically warned that a refusal would result in the suspension of his operating privilege. Carlin v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 739 A.2d 656 (Pa.Cmwlth.1999), appeal denied, 563 Pa. 678, 759 A.2d 924 (2000). If the Department is able to sustain its burden, the burden then shifts to the licensee to prove that he was physically unable to take the test or that he was incapable of making a knowing and conscious refusal. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Wilhelm, 156 Pa.Cmwlth. 24, 626 A.2d 660 (1993).

Where a licensee suffers from a medical condition that affects his or her ability to perform a test and that condition is not obvious, a finding that a licensee was unable to take the test for medical reasons must be supported by competent medical evidence. Wright v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 788 A.2d 443 (Pa.Cmwlth.2001).

Flanigan was not required to produce expert medical evidence to establish that he had chronic cluster migraines, however, such medical evidence was necessary to establish the extent to which his problem prevented him from having the blood test performed on him. See, Wright v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 788 A.2d 443 (Pa.Cmwlth.2001); Lemon v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing,

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Tullo v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing
837 A.2d 605 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
806 A.2d 524, 2002 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 794, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flanigan-v-commonwealth-department-of-transportation-pacommwct-2002.