Rovin, D.D.S. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

In Rovin, D.D.S. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 94 Pa. Commw. 71, 502 A.2d 785 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986), Sheldon Rovin (Dr. Rovin), a dentist, filed a complaint with the Commission and asserted that the Philadelphia Suburban Water Company (PSWC) failed to provide the public with adequate, safe and reasonable water service in violation of Section 1501 of the Code, 66 Pa.C.S. 1501. Dr. Rovin complained that some of his patients received fluoridated water while others did not and that those patients who had not received the fluoridated water were denied its benefits. He also asserted that those patients who had received fluoridated water were at risk if their pediatricians prescribed a fluoride supplement. Rovin, 502 A.2d at 786. The Commission dismissed Dr. Rovin's complaint because it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Dr. Rovin appealed to this Court and argued that the Commission "misconceived the nature of his complaint." Rovin, 502 A.2d at 786. He averred that the real issue was "whether an unreasonable and potentially unsafe situation existed, in violation of Section 1501 of the Code, when PSWC provided only some of its customers with fluoridated water." Id. at 786. Dr. Rovin asserted that the water was unsafe because flourosis could occur if a patient who drank the fluoridated water received a fluoride application. Finding that Dr. Rovin was "actually complaining about the quality of the water" and not the water service, this Court held that the Commission properly dismissed his complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Id. at 787. "Water quality in Pennsylvania is statutorily regulated by the provisions of the Pennsylvania Safe Drinking Water Act and the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act" and "enforcement of those statutes is specifically vested in DEP and the Federal Environmental Protection Agency." Id. at 787. Because Dr. Rovin did not otherwise complain about the quality of service by PSWC this Court concluded that he did not sustain his burden of proving a violation of Section 1501 of the Code and the Commission properly dismissed his complaint.