In Doughty v. City of Philadelphia, 141 Pa. Commw. 659, 596 A.2d 1187 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991), the Court considered whether Temple was immune from suit because it was an independent agency of the Commonwealth entitled to sovereign immunity. In that case, a court of common pleas concluded that Temple was not immune from liability as an independent Commonwealth agency, relying upon the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's opinion in Mooney. On appeal to this Court, Temple argued that Mooney did not control the disposition of that case. In rejecting Temple's assertion regarding the application of Mooney to its claim of sovereign immunity, this Court stated the following: Temple asserts that Mooney is inapplicable for three reasons: (1) because Mooney limited its analysis to the definition of state agency in the Right to Know Act; (2) because Mooney was decided 6 years before the sovereign immunity statute was enacted; (3) because Mooney does not consider the effect of the Temple Act's designation of Temple as an "instrumentality" of the commonwealth. As to the first contention, Temple argues that Mooney was decided based on the definition of "state agency" in the Right to Know Act, under which a "state agency" must perform "an essential governmental function". Temple asserts that the definition of "commonwealth agency" applicable to sovereign immunity contains no such restriction. The Supreme Court in Mooney did not limit itself to deciding whether Temple performed "an essential governmental function". Rather, the Supreme Court exhaustively examined the Temple Act, section-by-section, searching for any intent to transform Temple into a state agency and found none. As to the second contention, Temple states that because Mooney was decided before the 1978 sovereign immunity statute was enacted, the holding in Mooney that Temple is not a state agency is inapplicable. Temple cites no authority for this position. The sovereign immunity statute provides the defense of immunity to entities which have the status of commonwealth agency independent of the sovereign immunity statute. The only possible source for Temple's status as a commonwealth agency would be the Temple Act. In Mooney, the supreme court held that the General Assembly did not intend the Temple Act to alter Temple's prior status as a non-profit corporation. The subsequent passage of the 1978 sovereign immunity statute did not alter this holding in Mooney. As to the third contention, Temple asserts that the designation of Temple as an "instrumentality of the commonwealth" in the Temple Act transformed Temple into a state agency. Temple states that "instrumentality" is commonly defined as meaning "agency". Temple contends that if "instrumentality" does not mean "agency", inclusion of the term in the Temple Act would serve no purpose. "Instrumentality" is defined as "1: the quality or state of being instrumental: a condition as serving as an intermediary ... 2a: something by which an end is achieved: MEANS ... b: something that serves as an intermediary or agency through which one or more functions of a controlling force are carried out." Webster's Third International Dictionary 1172 (1986). The definition of "instrumentality" merely denotes that Temple is a means to achieving a purpose. The use of an entity by the commonwealth to achieve a purpose does not in itself transform the entity into a commonwealth agency. Contrary to Temple's argument, the term "instrumentality" has not been construed as conveying commonwealth agency status. Accordingly, we conclude that the mere description of Temple as an "instrumentality" of the commonwealth does not entitle Temple to use the defense of sovereign immunity. We conclude that Mooney controls this case, and holds with ample clarity that passage of the Temple Act did not transform Temple into a commonwealth agency. We hold that Temple is not entitled to the defense of sovereign immunity.... Doughty, 596 A.2d at 1189-1190, 1191.