In Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Clayton, 546 Pa. 342, 684 A.2d 1060 (1996), the licensee suffered a grand mal epileptic seizure.
He had no prior history of seizure disorders.
As a result, the Department recalled his driving privileges pursuant to 67 Pa. Code § 83.4(a).
He appealed the recall to the trial court and presented evidence from his treating physician that he did suffer a grand mal seizure but that he could still safely drive.
The trial court sustained Clayton's appeal, and this Court and our Supreme Court both affirmed.
Our Supreme Court held that 67 Pa. Code § 83.49(a) created an impermissible irrebuttable presumption that a person who suffered from a seizure was incompetent to drive for a period of at least one year (now, six months) from the date of his last seizure.
Any evidence that Clayton could present to attempt to rebut the presumption that he was unfit to drive was deemed irrelevant by the language of the regulation, which made the appeal process a sham and violated due process.