Szczepanski, Petitioner v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board; 1909 C.D. 2011; Petitioner’s request for extension of time to file briefs and reproduced record, and it appearing that said request is not opposed, said request is granted and petitioner’s brief (15 copies) and reproduced record (5 copies) shall be filed on or before January 27, 2012.

Dissinger & Dissinger, Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review; 1722 C.D. 2011; Respondent’s request for extension of time to file briefs, and it appearing that said request is not opposed, said request is granted and respondent’s brief (15 copies) shall be filed on or before February 16, 2012.

Radnor Development Company, LP v. Board of Supervisors of Hereford Township; 556 C.D. 2011; The petition to list appeal for oral argument filed by appellant, Radnor Development Company, LP, the answer thereto filed by appellee Board of Supervisors of Hereford Township and the objection of intervenor Joseph Wolfgang, the petition is hereby Denied.

Affiliated Computer Services, Inc., Petitioner v. Com.; 455-458 F.R. 2009; The parties’ joint motion for an enlargement of time is granted and the parties are to file a status report by February 21, 2012.

Asplundh Tree Expert Co., Petitioner v. Com.; 422- 425 F.R. 2009; The parties’ joint motion for an enlargement of time is granted and the parties are to file a stipulation for judgment by March 21, 2012.

Level 3 Communications, LLC, Petitioner v. Com.; 166 F.R. 2007; The parties’ joint request for an extension of the schedule is granted. The parties shall file stipulation of facts by February 14, 2012; Petitioner’s brief is due March 13, 2012, and Respondent’s brief is due by April 12, 2012.

Com. et al., Petitioner v. PPL Generation, LLC et al.; 584 M.D. 2005; Application for Relief requesting that the Court require the Department to submit its response to the Intervener’s Opposition to the NRDA Report no later than February 3, 2012, it is hereby Ordered that the Department has until February 3, 2012, to respond to the Intervenor’s Opposition.

T.T., Petitioner v. Dept. of Public Welfare; 1890 C.D. 2011; Petitioner’s request for extension of time to file briefs, and it appearing that said request is not opposed, said request is granted and petitioner’s brief (15 copies) shall be filed on or before February 2, 2012.

Clifton v. Allegheny County; 2316 C.D. 2011; Appellants’ Emergency Application to Reinstate Automatic Supersedeas and the answers in opposition filed by appellees, the Emergency Application is denied.

Record Copy Services Corporation, Petitioner v. Com.; 916 F.R. 2008; Petitioner’s application for return of security, it appearing that security is no longer required, the Chief Clerk shall return the cash posted as security in this matter to petitioner.

ACS State & Local Solutions, Inc., Petitioner v. Com.; 666 F.R. 2010; Petitioner’s application for return of security, it appearing that security is no longer required, the Chief Clerk shall return the security bond to petitioner.

C&C Carriage Mushroom Company, Petitioner v. Com.; 441 F.R. 2010; The parties’ third joint status report, the parties shall file a stipulation for judgment in this matter on or before March 16, 2012. In the event a stipulation is not filed as ordered, the Court will schedule a status/settlement conference before a judge of this Court.

The United Telephone Company of Pennsylvania, Petitioner v. Com.; 56 F.R. 2008; The parties’ joint motion for enlargement of time, the motion is granted. The parties shall file a stipulation of facts on or before March 16, 2012. Upon the filing of a stipulation of facts, the Chief Clerk shall set a briefing schedule. In the event a stipulation is not filed as ordered, the Court will schedule a status/settlement conference before a judge of this Court.

The United Telephone Company of Pennsylvania, Petitioner v. Com.; 57 F.R. 2008; The parties’ joint motion for enlargement of time, the motion is granted. The parties shall file a stipulation of facts on or before March 16, 2012. Upon the filing of a stipulation of facts, the Chief Clerk shall set a briefing schedule. In the event a stipulation is not filed as ordered, the Court will schedule a status/settlement conference before a judge of this Court.

Hickory Telephone Company, Petitioner v. Com.; 230 F.R. 2010; The parties’ fourth joint status report, this matter is stayed pending resolution of the petitions for review at Nos. 56 and 57 F.R. 2008. The parties shall file a further status report not later than disposition of the petitions for review at Nos. 56 and 56 F.R. 2008 or July 31, 2012, whichever is earlier.

Phillips, Petitioner v. Com.; 648-649 F.R. 2010; The parties’ second status reports in these matters, the parties shall file a further joint status report on or before March 16, 2012.

Wachovia Investors, Inc., Petitioner v. Com.; 633-634 F.R. 2010; The parties’ second joint status report in these matters, the parties shall file a further joint status report on or before March 16, 2012.

FUNC Holdings, Inc., Petitioner v. Com.; 625-630 and 740-741 F.R. 2010; The parties’ second joint status report in these matters, the parties shall file a further joint status report on or before March 16, 2012.

McNeil, Petitioner v. Com.; 651 F.R. 2010; The parties’ second joint status report in this matter, the parties shall file a further joint status report on or before March 16, 2012.

Nutrisystem, Inc., Petitioner v. Com.; 614 F.R. 2010; The parties’ second status report in this matter, the parties shall file a further joint status report on or before March 13, 2012.

Animal Medic, Inc., Petitioner v. Com.; 647 F.R. 2010; The parties’ second joint status report in this matter, the parties shall file a further joint status report on or before March 13, 2012.

Pilot Freight Services, Petitioner v. Com.; 645 F.R. 2010; The parties’ second joint status report in this matter, the parties shall file a further joint status report on or before March 13, 2012.

Larson, Petitioner v. Com.; 417 F.R. 2010; The parties’ third joint status report, the parties shall file a stipulation for judgment in this matter on or before March 16, 2012. In the event a stipulation is not filed as ordered, the Court will schedule a status/settlement conference before a judge of this Court.

German American Capital Corp., Petitioner v. Com.; 27 F.R. 2010; The Chief Clerk shall mark the docket in this matter as closed.

Com. et al., Petitioner v. Lucas; 619 M.D. 2011; Petitioner’s petition for enforcement of a final administrative order, hearing thereon is fixed for February 1, 2012 at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 3001, Pennsylvania Judicial Center, 601 Commonwealth Avenue, Harrisburg, PA.

Klein, Petitioner v. Com.; 848 F.R. 2010; Petitioner’s unopposed application for return of security, it appearing that a stipulation for judgment has been filed and that petitioner has satisfied his liabilities to respondent, the application is granted. The Chief Clerk is directed to return the security filed in this matter to petitioner.

BJ’s Wholesale Club, Petitioner v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board; 2010 C.D. 2011; Petitioner’s request for stay is set for January 20, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. The argument shall be conducted by telephone call to the offices of counsel of record, and shall originate from the chambers of a designated judge of the Commonwealth Court sitting in Harrisburg.

Donovan v. Philadelphia Zoning Board of Adjustment and City of Philadelphia and Frank Paiva, Jr. Appeal of: Frank Paiva, Jr.; 1164 C.D. 2011; Appellees Anne Donovan and Paul Donovan are hereby directed to file a brief (15 copies) within thirty (30) days of the exit date of this order or they shall be precluded from filing a brief as of course. It further appearing that appellant’s brief and reproduced record were not served upon appellees, appellant is hereby directed to serve his brief upon all other parties, including appellees Anne Donovan and Paul Donovan, and shall file proof of service with the court within fourteen (14) days of the exit date of this order.

Oliver v. City of Pittsburgh; 1441 C.D. 2008; Appellant City of Pittsburgh is entitled to subrogate benefits payable under the Heart and Lung Act, Act of June 28, 1935, PL. 477, as amended, 53 P.S. ßß637-638, following appellee’s settlement of a third-party claim, see Oliver v. City of Pittsburgh, 608 Pa. 386, 11 A.3d 960 (2011), and remanded the matter for further proceedings, and it further appearing that the Supreme Court did not address "whether an employee has immunity from its employer’s subrogation claim" pursuant to the Workers’ Compensation Act, Act of June 15, 1936, P.L. 736, as amended, 11 P.S. ß1-1041.1, 2501-2708, the parties shall file status reports no later than January 23, 2012, advising the Court whether the Supreme Court’s order renders the issue of appellee’s immunity from subrogation moot and what, if any, issues remain for disposition by this Court.

Bedford Somerset MHMR, Petitioner v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board; 1997 C.D. 2011; Petitioner’s request for supersedeas pending appeal, argument is set for January 20, 2012, at 10:00 a.m. The argument shall be conducted by telephone call to the offices of counsel of record, and shall originate from the chambers of a designated judge of the Commonwealth Court sitting in Harrisburg.

Officemax North America, Inc., Petitioner v. Com.; 92 F.R. 2010; The status/settlement conference scheduled for January 9, 2012, at 2:30 p.m., in Conf. Room 3006, Pennsylvania Judicial Center, 601 Commonwealth Avenue, Harrisburg, is cancelled. The Chief Clerk shall mark the docket in this matter as Closed.

C Cor Incorporation, Petitioner v. Com.; 262 F.R. 2010; All counsel attending this conference shall have the full and complete authorization of their respective clients to settle these matters. Counsel shall instruct their clients to be available, at the time of the conference, so that counsel may, by telephone, confirm with their respective clients counsel’s settlement authorization, should this become necessary. The parties shall complete all trial depositions or stipulations of fact not later than 120 days after the status/settlement conference.

Howard, Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review; 1500 C.D. 2011; Respondent’s unopposed application for remission of the appeal to the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, the application is granted. This matter is remanded for further proceedings and the issuance of a new adjudication from which any aggrieved party may appeal. Respondent’s application to stay briefing schedule is dismissed as moot.

Wilks, Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review; 1473 C.D. 2011; Respondent’s application for extension of time to file brief, the application is granted. In light of petitioner’s opposition, no further extensions will be granted. Respondent shall file a brief by January 23, 2012, or be precluded from filing any brief or participating in any oral argument unless otherwise ordered.

Fields, Petitioner v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board; 1432 C.D. 2011; Respondent’s brief was due December 13, 2011 and that to date the same has not been filed, respondent’s brief (15 copies) shall be filed and served within 14 days of the exit date of this Order or respondent shall be precluded from oral argument, if oral argument is scheduled, and from filing a brief unless otherwise ordered.

Pemrich, Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review; 1428 C.D. 2011; Petitioner’s communication seeking an extension of time to prepare his brief, and it appearing that James F. Donohue, Esquire has withdrawn his appearance on behalf of petitioner, this Court’s order of December 5, 2011 is vacated.

Petitioner shall proceed without counsel and shall file his brief (15 copies) on or before January 23, 2012.

Com. v. Rahim; 2092 C.D. 2011; Petitioner’s failure to comply with this court’s defect correction notice dated November 15, 2011.

Pokorny, Petitioner v. Dept. of Public Welfare; 1899 C.D. 2011; Petitioner’s brief was due December 14, 2011, and that to date the same has not been filed, petitioner’s brief (15 copies) shall be filed and served within 14 days of the exit date of this Order or the above petition for review shall be dismissed as of course.

Hilbert, Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review; 1750 C.D. 2011; Petitioner’s brief was due December 14, 2011, and that to date the same has not been filed, petitioner’s brief (15 copies) shall be filed and served within 14 days of the exit date of this Order or the above petition for review shall be dismissed as of course.

Wyant, Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review; 1727 C.D. 2011; Petitioner’s brief was due December 14, 2011, and that to date the same has not been filed, petitioner’s brief (15 copies) shall be filed and served within 14 days of the exit date of this Order or the above petition for review shall be dismissed as of course.

Coleman, Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review; 1351 C.D. 2011; Petitioner’s brief was due December 14, 2011, and that to date the same has not been filed, petitioner’s brief (15 copies) shall be filed and served within 14 days of the exit date of this Order or the above petition for review shall be dismissed as of course.

Billman, Petitioner v. Attorney General of Pennsylvania et al.; 426 M.D. 2011; Petitioner’s Motion for Extension of Time to Reply to Respondent Answer and New Matter, the extension is granted. Petitioner’s Answer to New Matter is due on or before January 18, 2012.

Wilcox, Petitioner v. PA. Dept. of Corrections; 312 M.D. 2011; Respondent’s First Request for Extension of Time to File Answer to Petition for Review, the extension is granted. Respondent’s answer to the petition for review is due on or before January 9, 2012.

Carter, Petitioner v. Com. et al.; 727 M.D. 2010; Petitioner’s response to our prior Rule to Show Cause why this matter should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution, the Rule is hereby discharged. It appearing that petitioner never served the petition for review on respondents as required by Pa. R.A.P. 1514(c), petitioner shall serve his petition for review on all respondents and the Attorney General in person or by certified mail as required by Pa. R.A.P. 1514(c) and file with this court a certificate of service of same within 14 days of the entry of this order or this matter will be dismissed as a matter of course.

Amoriello, Petitioner v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole; 2193 C.D. 2010; Respondent’s Application to Dismiss as Moot, and it now appearing that petitioner has served his maximum sentence and has been released, and that a decision on the merits of petitioner’s petition for review would not render him any relief, Taylor v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 746 A.2d 671 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000), respondent’s motion is granted, and the petition for review is dismissed as moot.

Markel, Petitioner v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole; 523 M.D. 2011; Petitioner’s Request to Re-Open His Case, which we treat as a request for reconsideration, reconsideration is granted. This court’s order of December 8, 2011 is vacated, and the petition for review is reinstated. Upon consideration of petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, which motion also seeks waiver of this Court’s filing fee, the motion is granted. This Court’s filing fee is waived and petitioner shall proceed in conformity with Pa. R.A.P. 2187(c).

Doe v. Health Care Administrator Tretinick, Medical Director Herbik, Com., Dentists S.C.I. Rockview and Fayette, Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections, Superintendent Smeal of Smithfield, Superintendent Coleman of Fayette, State Trooper Doe of Huntingdon County, Health Care Administrator Weaver JC Blair Hospital, Doctor Thomas and Medical Director Doe of JC Blair, J. Doe, Those Withheld from the Record and Acting in Concert or Participation, Appeal of: Donald Jennings; 1525 C.D. 2011; Appellant having filed one brief with exhibits attached and one without exhibits, appellant is directed to file three additional complete copies of his Brief for Appellant and one additional copy of the exhibits on or before December 30, 2011, or this matter will be dismissed as a matter of course. Appellees’ brief is due, if at all, within 30 days of appellant’s compliance with this order.

Murray, Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review; 1685 C.D. 2011; Petition for review thereof was August 8, 2011, and that petitioner filed a pro se communication attempting to appeal the Board’s order on August 24, 2011, which was more than 30 days after the determination sought to be reviewed was entered. It further appears that petitioner filed a nunc pro tunc petition for review on September 12, 2011. The nunc pro tunc petition for review, however, fails to allege fraud, a breakdown in the administrative process, or non-negligent circumstances explaining why the appeal to this Court is untimely.

Berkery, Petitioner v. Public Utility Commission; 1927 C.D. 2011; Petitioner’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, which application also seeks waiver of this Court’s filing fee, the application is granted, the filing fee is waived and petitioner shall proceed in conformity with Pa. R.A.P. 2151(b) and 2187(c). Upon consideration of the above matter, it appears that the Public Utility Commission’s order was entered on August 26, 2011, and that petitioner filed her pro se communication with this Court on September 2, 2011. It further appears that the Chief Clerk issued a directive on September 2, 2011, instructing petitioner to file a petition for review within 30 days of that date (October 3, 2011). Because petitioner’s petition for review was not filed with this Court until October 17, 2011, it must be quashed as untimely filed.

Schock, Petitioner v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board; 111 C.D. 2011; The parties, it is hereby Ordered that the parties shall file a joint status report with this Court by January 31, 2012, if they have not discontinued their respective petitions for review by that time.

Patel, Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review; 1700 C.D. 2011; Petitioner’s pro se communication was filed with this Court on July 29, 2011. It further appears that the Chief Clerk issued a directive on August 2, 2011, instructing petitioner to file a petition for review within 30 days of that date (September 1, 2011). Because petitioner’s petition for review was not filed with this Court until September 12, 2011, it must be quashed as untimely filed.

Fircak v. North Strabane Township and North Strabane Township Zoning Hearing Board, Appeal of: Margaret George and Daniel George; 1942 C.D. 2011; Appellants’ petition for stay pending appeal and appellee Fircak’s response in opposition, and the court concluding that appellants’ application seeks to change the status quo and, therefore, is in the nature of a request for injunction pending appeal, the petition is denied.

Lewis, Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review; 1552 C.D. 2011; Respondent’s application to stay briefing schedule pending resolution of application to compel, the application to stay is granted. The briefing schedule is stayed until further order of this Court.

Koshinskie, Petitioner v. State Civil Service Commission; 2225 C.D. 2011; Petition for review thereof was November 21, 2011. Because the petition for review was filed November 23, 2011, the petition for review is quashed as untimely filed.

Com. et al., Petitioner v. Andrew; 522 M.D. 2008; Petitioner’s statement of intention to proceed, petitioner is directed to file a status report discussing the procedural posture of this case and how the above action is impacted by the cased docketed at 130 M.D. 1995. Petitioner’s status report shall be filed no later than February 6, 2012.

Breitenbach, Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review; 1728 C.D. 2011; Petition for review thereof was September 12, 2011. Because the petition for review was filed September 15, 2011, the petition for review is quashed as untimely filed.

Gerhard v. Com. et al.; 2592 C.D. 2010; Appeal is remanded to the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County, for such action as the Court deems necessary, including issuance of a new order from which any aggrieved party may appeal.

Elliott Company, Inc., Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review; 2451 C.D. 2010; Respondent’s unopposed status report, the stay previously entered in this matter remains in effect for an additional 60 day period. In the event a motion to remand this matter is not filed on or before February 21, 2012, the stay shall be vacated and the Chief Clerk shall set a briefing schedule.

Banks v. Court of Common Pleas, FJD; 1597 C.D. 2011; Appellant filed an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in the trial court and that the application was not acted upon by the trial court, and it further appearing that appellant has not paid this court’s filing fee, appellant shall pay this court’s filing fee of $73.50 or shall file with this court an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis within fourteen days of the exit date of this order or this matter shall be dismissed as of course.

Sklaroff v. Township of Abington and Baederwood Limited Partnership; 1442 C.D. 2011; Appellant’s "summary-judgment motion," it appearing that this matter is an appeal from a final order of the court of common pleas and that summary judgment is not an appropriate application in an appellate matter, the motion is dismissed as unauthorized. Further, it appearing that appellant’s "brief in reply to intervenor/appellee filing and in support of summary-judgment motion" addresses matters within appellee Baederwood Limited Partnership’s brief, appellant shall file additional copies (15 total) of his reply brief no later than January 5, 2012, and shall serve appellees with copies of his reply brief and file proof of service of the same.

Felix, Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review; 1983 C.D. 2011; Petition for review and dismiss appeal, filed by the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board), it appearing that the Board’s decision related only to the timeliness of claimant’s appeal, and it further appearing that the petition for review does not raise the timeliness issue, the motion to quash is granted for failure to preserve any issue that may properly be brought before this Court. Respondent’s application to stay certification of the record pending resolution of the motion to quash claimant’s petition for review is dismissed as moot.

Nobile, Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review; 2085 C.D. 2011; Petition for review and dismiss appeal, filed by the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board), it appearing that the Board’s decision related only to the timeliness of claimant’s appeal, and it further appearing that the petition for review does not raise the timeliness issue, the motion to quash is granted for failure to preserve any issue that may properly be brought before this Court. Respondent’s application to stay certification of the record is dismissed as moot.

HEI Investments, Inc., Petitioner v. Com.; 212 F.R. 2010; All counsel attending this conference shall have the full and complete authorization of their respective clients to settle these matters. Counsel shall instruct their clients to be available, at the time of the conference, so that counsel may, by telephone, confirm with their respective clients counsel’s settlement authorization, should this become necessary. A motion for continuance of the status conference will not be granted absent extraordinary circumstances.