PENNSYLVANIA
PUBLIC HEALTH LAW
BENCH BOOK

DEVELOPED BY

THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
OF PENNSYLVANIA COURTS

and the

UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH
GRADUATE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
CENTER FOR PUBLIC HEALTH PREPAREDNESS

PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC HEALTH LAW BENCH BOOK

Introduction and Acknowledgments

In an age when political unrest, global travel and emerging biological threats can combine
to create social, political and economic havoc worldwide, Pennsylvania’s court system may
be required to address unprecedented challenges.

For a number of reasons, those challenges will be particularly difficult – Pennsylvania’s public
health law is a patchwork of statutes and state and local regulations that predate contemporary
Constitutional due process standards; defining federal and state jurisdictional boundaries in a 
public health context can be problematic;  Pennsylvania public health case law dates primarily to
the late 19th and early 20th centuries; the liberty restrictions on individual citizens which arise in a
public health context are civil in nature and unfamiliar to judges more comfortable in dealing with
such issues in a criminal context; and, finally, in the public health arena traditional individualized,
deliberative judicial process may result in delay that, literally, becomes a matter of life and death.

Recognizing these complexities, the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts developed 
this bench book to provide Pennsylvania judges with the critical information they will need to 
have when they are presented with public health cases.  In collaboration with the University of
Pittsburgh’s Graduate School of Public Health Center for Public Health Preparedness, the AOPC
convened researchers, writers, and a board of editors who have worked for the past year on this
project.  Given the nature of the threats that confront us, it is important to note this is ongoing
work.  It will be expanded, updated, and corrected as time, circumstances, and changes in the 
law require.

This bench book is divided into three sections.  

• Section One contains a set of public health law Bench Guides which provide concise 
responses to the key questions that will arise when specific public health issues come 
before the court.  

• Section Two is analysis and background information on some of the legal issues the 

court may be called on to consider.  

• Section Three provides a glossary of public health related terminology, model orders 
and a table of cases.  In the bench book CD format, all material is hyperlinked to 
original sources. 

Principal writing and research of this bench book was performed by Darren M. Breslin, Esq. and
Owen J. Kelly, Esq., AOPC staff attorneys, and Elizabeth Ferrell Schmidt, Esq. and Patricia M.
Sweeney, JD, MPH, RN of the University of Pittsburgh Center for Public Health Preparedness.

Pennsylvania Public Health Law Bench Book Introduction  pg 1

The editorial board consisted of Judge Mark I. Bernstein of Philadelphia County, Judge John A.
Bozza of Erie County, President Judge John M. Cleland of McKean County, Grace R. Schuyler, Esq.,
Office of Legal Counsel, Pennsylvania Department of Health, and Zygmont A. Pines, Esq.,
Pennsylvania State Court Administrator.

Special appreciation is extended to Daniel Stier, Esq. and the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention Public Health Law Program, Caroline S. Cooper of American University, Doctors
Caroline C. Johnson and Esther D. Chernak of the Philadelphia Department of Public Health,
AOPC Assistant Court Administrator Andrea Tuominen, AOPC legal intern Joseph DiGuglielmo,
UPCPHP legal intern Caleb Wallace, and  especially to Judge Linda L. Chezem, retired Judge of the
Indiana Court of Appeals, and who is a pioneer is the work of alerting judges to the challenges
presented by public health law and teaching judges what they need to know to perform their 
critical functions in a democratic society. 

This bench book is intended to be a practical and useful resource.  While it was written for
Pennsylvania judges, we have drawn on the work being done in other states to address problems
and issues that are national, even international, in scope.  We hope our work will contribute to 
the collective and ongoing effort of judges around the country who are committed to preserving
the rule of law in the face of unprecedented challenges.

Please direct any suggestions, comments and corrections to paphl@pacourts.us.

February 2007

The technical assistance provided by Judge Chezem was made possible through the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA)
Criminal Courts Technical Assistance Project at American University.

Work conducted by the University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health - Center for Public Health Preparedness was
sponsored in part by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention under cooperative agreement number U90/CCU324238. 

The Pennsylvania Public Health Law Benchbook was written for Pennsylvania judges. It is not intended to provide or constitute
legal advice.

Pennsylvania Public Health Law Bench Book Introduction  pg 2

Pennsylvania Public Health Law Bench Book 
Table of Contents

Section 1.00  Bench Guides

Section 1.10

Involuntary Medical Examination for Communicable Disease

Section 1.20

Involuntary Treatment for Communicable Disease

Section 1.30

Quarantine under The Disease Prevention and Control Law

Section 1.40

Isolation under The Disease Prevention and Control Law

Section 1.50

Quarantine and Isolation under The Counterterrorism Planning, Preparedness
and Response Act

Section 1.60

Searches of Property 

Section 1.70

Temporary Closures or Evacuations 

Section 1.80

Habeas Corpus 

Section 2.00 Legal Issues in a Public Health Context

Section 2.10

Section 2.11
Section 2.12
Section 2.13
Section 2.14

Section 2.20

Section 2.21
Section 2.22
Section 2.23
Section 2.24
Section 2.25

Section 2.30

Section 2.31
Section 2.32
Section 2.33
Section 2.34

Pennsylvania Public Health Infrastructure
Introduction
The Pennsylvania Department of Health
County/Municipal health departments
Local health authorities

Jurisdiction
The Role of the Federal Government
The Role of the Commonwealth
Structure and jurisdiction of Pennsylvania courts
Venue
The Administrative Process 

Costs and Compensation
Pennsylvania statutes
Costs incurred during the taking of property
Compensation 
Costs incurred during quarantines and isolations

Section 2.40

Section 2.41
Section 2.42
Section 2.43

Emergency Declarations
Authority to declare an emergency
Changes in governmental powers during a state of emergency
The role of the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency (“PEMA”)

Pennsylvania Public Health Law Bench Book Table Of Contents  pg 1

Section 2.50

Due Process (in development)

Section 2.60

Search and Seizure (in development)

Section 2.70

Special Populations (in development)

Section 2.80

Diseased Animal Control (in development)

Section 3.00    Petition Checklists and Model Orders

Section 3.10

Actions Filed Under The Disease Prevention and Control Law
Petition check list
Pre-hearing model order for public health cases
Pre-hearing model order for Habeas Corpus

Section 3.11
Section 3.12
Section 3.13
Section 3.14 Model order for medical examination
Section 3.15 Model order for medical treatment
Section 3.16 Model order for quarantine
Section 3.17 Model order for isolation

Section 3.20

Actions Filed Under The Counterterrorism Planning, Preparedness and 
Response Act
Petition check list
Pre-hearing model order for isolation or quarantine

Section 3.21
Section 3.22
Section 3.23 Model order for the continuation of isolation
Section 3.24 Model order for the continuation of quarantine

Section 4.00   Appendices

Section 4.11

Contact Information: The Pennsylvania Department of Health

Section 4.12

Contact Information:  Community Health District Offices

Section 4.13

Contact Information:  County/Municipal Health Departments

Section 4.14

Table of Authorities

Section 4.15

Glossary

Pennsylvania Public Health Law Bench Book Table Of Contents  pg 2

SECTION 1.00 BENCH GUIDE

SECTION
1.10

Involuntary Medical Examination for 
Communicable Disease
The Disease Prevention and Control Law Of 19551

Summary

Public health authorities2 may petition the court to compel a medical examination for 
the presence of a communicable disease if an individual is reasonably suspected of being
infected with a communicable disease, or of being a carrier, and has refused a public
health order to undergo an examination.   35 P.S. § 521.7(2); 28 Pa. Code § 27.82.3

A. Under What Circumstances May The Court Order An Individual To Submit

To A Medical Examination?

The Disease Prevention and Control Law of 1955 (“DPCL”) provides that the court may order an
individual to submit to a medical examination to determine whether the individual is infected with
a communicable disease, or is a carrier thereof, when: 

1. The person named in the petition is suspected of being infected with, or a carrier of, a 

communicable disease, as evidenced by a sworn statement by a duly licensed Pennsylvania
physician; and

2. The person has refused to be examined when ordered to do so by a public health authority 

and had no valid reason for refusing.4

35 P.S. § 521.7(2).5

1 The purpose of the Disease Prevention and Control Law of 1955 is “to assign primary responsibility for the prevention and
control of diseases to local health departments, and to institute a system of mandatory reporting, examination, diagnosis,
and treatment of communicable diseases.” Commonwealth v. Moore, 526 Pa. 152, 159, 584 A.2d 936, 940 (Pa. 1991).

2 For purposes of the Pennsylvania Public Health Law Bench Book, “public health authority” includes The Pennsylvania

Department of Health, all County/Municipal health departments (the health departments authorized by The Local Health
Administration Law (Act 315- 16 P.S. § 12001 et seq.)  and all local health authorities (the 237 local boards or departments
of health that operate outside of the Local Health Administration Law structure and funding).

3 See also Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (compulsory smallpox vaccination); Reynolds v. McNichols, 488 F.2d
1378 (10th Cir. 1973) (compulsory treatment for venereal disease); City of New York v. Antoinette R., 630 N.Y.S.2d 1008
(N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1995) (compulsory treatment for tuberculosis).

4 Refusal to comply with a public health authority’s order to undergo a medical examination is not an explicit prerequisite in
the statute, but it is implied.  35 P.S. § 521.7(1)-(2). In determining whether the respondent had a valid reason for refusing
the examination, the court may consider religious objections, but these objections may not be controlling in a communicable
disease situation.  See Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166-67 (1944) (“[t]he right to practice religion freely does not
include the liberty to expose the community . . . to communicable disease”).

5 Authority to conduct medical evaluations may also appear in local regulations or ordinances. See e.g. Philadelphia Code 

§ 6-203.

Sect 1.10 Involuntary Medical Examination for Communicable Diseases  pg 1

B. What Is The Procedure For Issuing A Court Order For An Involuntary

Medical Examination?

1. Filing of a Petition

A petition to compel a medical examination may be brought by The Pennsylvania Department
of Health, a County/Municipal health department or a local health authority (collectively referred
to as “public health authorities”).  35 P.S. §§
521.3, 521.5; 28 Pa. Code § 27.82. 

Note: If the public health authority is not
The Pennsylvania Department of Health or

The respondent will be the person suspected
of being infected with, or a carrier of, a 
communicable disease. The DPCL does not
mention multiple respondents in a single action.

a County/Municipal health department, the
authority must receive approval from The
Pennsylvania Department of Health before 
taking any disease control measure.  
28 Pa. Code §§ 27.1, 27.60(c). 

Pursuant to the DPCL, petitions to compel a
medical examination must have appended thereto “a statement, under oath, by a physician
duly licensed to practice in the Commonwealth, that [the respondent] is suspected of being
infected with . . . a communicable disease, or that such person is suspected of being a carrier.”
35 P.S. § 521.7(2).  The statute also provides that this statement “shall be received in evidence
and shall constitute prima facie evidence that the person therein named is suspected of being
infected with . . . a communicable disease [or is a carrier].”

By statute, the court of common pleas of the county where an individual is present has 
jurisdiction to adjudicate involuntary medical examination petitions.  35 P.S. § 521.7(2); 28 Pa.
Code § 27.82(b). 

2. Jurisdiction  

3. Venue 

The DPCL does not address venue, other than what is stated in the preceding section on 
jurisdiction, accordingly the general rules governing venue apply.  Pa. R. Civ. P. 1006.

4.  Service and Notice   

Neither the statute nor its accompanying regulations address service,6 nor do they specify what
form notice must take, other than requiring that the respondent be served with a copy of the 
petition seeking to compel a medical examination.   35 P.S. § 521.7(2). The general rules governing
service and notice apply,7 and both should be provided to the respondent consistent with petition

6 “Service of process is a mechanism by which a court obtains jurisdiction of a defendant, and therefore, the rules concerning
service of process must be strictly followed . . . Thus, improper service is not merely a procedural defect that can be ignored.”
(internal citations omitted). Mayer v. Garman, __ Pa. __ ; __A.2d. __; 2006 WL 2252067, citing Cintas Corp. v. Lee’s Cleaning
Services, Inc., 549 Pa. 84, 91, 700 A.2d 915  (Pa. 1997). See also Fraisar v. Gillis, 892 A.2d 74, 77-78 (Pa. Commw. 2006)
(discussing process service rules).

7 Under the DPCL a hearing must be held on the petition within 24 hours of service.  35 P.S. § 521.7(2). Accordingly, expedited

service may be appropriate, especially if there is a request to isolate or detain the respondent pending the hearing.
Additionally, the Court may consider alternative means of service given the allegation that the respondent may be infected
with, or a carrier of, a highly contagious communicable disease. The legislature contemplated this in the Counterterrorism
Planning, Preparedness and Response Act (“Counterterrorism Act”),  35 P.S. § 2140.301(b)(3)(notice may be oral or written).
For alternative service,  Pa. R. Civ. P. 430. With the notice, it is suggested the respondent be advised of the right to counsel. 
See § B 5 b. infra.

Sect 1.10 Involuntary Medical Examination for Communicable Diseases  pg 2

practice under Pa. R. Civ. P. 206 and local rule.8
unemancipated minor, that person’s parents or legal guardian are generally entitled to notice.  

If the respondent is incapacitated or an 

5.  Hearings   

A non-jury trial is required to be held within
24 hours after service on the respondent.  
35 P.S. § 521.7(2).

a. Burden and Standard of Proof 

There is no Pennsylvania law on this point.
The burden of proof would be on the
public health authority as the entity 
seeking the examination. 

Note: If the petitioner is not The
Pennsylvania Department of Health or a
County/Municipal health department, a copy of
the petition and any hearing notices and court
orders should be served upon The Pennsylvania
Department of Health since that entity has the
ultimate authority to protect the health of the
citizens of Pennsylvania.  35 P.S. § 521.3(c); 
71 P.S. § 532(a).  

Pennsylvania law is not clear as to the standard of proof required for court ordered involuntary
medical examinations. However, possession and control of one’s body is the most highly 
protected privacy interest.9

Arguably, the standard is as minimal as “reasonable suspicion” to believe the respondent is
infected with, or a carrier of, a communicable disease.10

Furthermore, persuasive authority from other jurisdictions and legal scholars suggest the ADA 
is applicable to governmental orders compelling liberty restrictions resulting from public
health orders. “The ADA and its regulations require that a health officer seeking to infringe
upon a diseased person’s liberty by imposing detention, confinement, isolation or quarantine,

8 See Pa. R. Civ. P. 440 for service of process under Rule 206.

9 “No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law, than the right of every individual to the
possession and control of his own person . . .” In re Fiori, 543 Pa. 592, 600-01, 673 A.2d 905 (Pa. 1996), quoting Union
Pacific Railway Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891). See also Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757,769-70 (1966)
(“The interests in human dignity and privacy which the Fourth Amendment protects forbid [intrusion into the body] on the
mere chance that desired evidence might be obtained”).

10 This section of the DPCL requires a sworn statement by a licensed Pennsylvania physician asserting that the respondent is
“suspected” of being infected with a communicable disease.  35 P.S. § 521.7(2). Accordingly, the standard of proof is
arguably at least “reasonable suspicion.” Cf. Commonwealth v. Ickes, 582 Pa. 561, 873 A.2d 698 (Pa. 2005) (reasonable
suspicion required before game officer may conduct an investigatory detention). The court may find a higher standard of
proof is required in certain cases if the proposed examination entails a significant restraint on the respondent’s liberty. See
e.g. City of Newark v. J.S., 652 A.2d 265, 271-72 (N.J. Super. 1993) (standard of proof required for involuntary commit-
ment of tuberculosis patient). Accord In re Hancock, 719 A.2d 1053, 1056-58 (Pa. Super. 1998) (“Clear and convincing
evidence” required for involuntary civil commitment under the Pennsylvania Mental Health Procedures Act). Other cases
the court may wish to consider when deciding the appropriate standard of proof include: Skinner v. Railway Labor
Executives’ Ass’n, 489 U.S. 602, 616-20 (1989) (standard applicable to drug and alcohol testing of railroad employees);
In Interest of F.B., 658 A.2d 1378, (Pa. Super. 1995), aff’d 555 Pa. 661, 726 A.2d 361 (Pa. 1999) (administrative searches
may be reasonable absent individualized suspicion “when the intrusion involved in the search is no greater than neces-
sary to satisfy the governmental interest justifying the search, i.e., courts balance the degree of intrusion against the
need for the search”); Commonwealth v. Johnston, 515 Pa. 454, 530 A.2d 74 (Pa. 1987) (balancing of interests test to
determine “reasonableness” under Article I, § 8); Theodore v. Delaware Valley Sch. Dist., 761 A.2d  652, 656-58 (Pa.
Commw. 2000) (discussing level of proof required when drug and alcohol testing school students). Compare with Pa. R.
Crim. P. 203 (suspicion must be supported by “probable cause” for the issuance of warrants in the criminal context).

Sect 1.10 Involuntary Medical Examination for Communicable Diseases  pg 3

must first establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that the person poses a significant risk of
transmitting disease to others with serious consequences.”11

b. Right to Counsel 

The DPCL does not address the right to 
counsel or appointed counsel. However,
due process and case law from other
jurisdictions suggest respondents are
entitled to be represented by counsel
and appointing counsel for the indigent
may be necessary.

Note: Involuntary medical examinations
may implicate both searches and seizures,

and when compelled by the state, are 
governed by the Fourth Amendment to the 
U.S. Constitution and Article I, § 8 of the
Pennsylvania Constitution.12

The standard of proof may depend on the nature
of the medical examination sought, the duration
of the restraints on the respondent’s freedom and
the public health interests sought to be protected. 

Due process may require the 
appointment of counsel for the indigent
if the respondent may be deprived of a
fundamental right, such as liberty.13 Whether due process would require the appointment of
counsel for an indigent respondent in a particular case may depend on the type of medical
examination sought and the existence and duration of any restraints on the respondent’s
freedom or degree of privacy intrusion. 

In determining whether appointed counsel is necessary, the court may wish to balance the 
presumption that there is no absolute right to appointed counsel unless the litigant may lose 
his or her liberty14 against: (1) The private interest at stake; (2) the government interest at
stake; and (3) the likelihood of an erroneous decision.15

c. Conduct of the Hearing 

1. Hearings would be conducted according to the Rules of Civil Procedure. The Rules do not
address taking testimony by telephone or advanced communication technology. However, 
in a public health case where the respondent is alleged to have a potentially dangerous 
communicable disease, or may already be in isolation or quarantine, the court may wish to
conduct hearings with the aid of a telephone or by using other communication technology
(such as two-way simultaneous audio-visual communication).16 This method of conducting

11 See e.g., City of Newark,  652 A.2d at 274. See also, Lawrence O. Gostin, The Law and the Public’s Health: A Study of

Infectious Disease Law in the United States, 99 Colum. L. Rev. 59 (Jan. 1999). 

12 See Skinner, 489 U.S. at 616 (collection and analysis of biological samples deemed Fourth Amendment searches); Theodore,

761 A.2d at 656-58. 

13 The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires the appointment of counsel when an individual may be
deprived of his or her physical liberty as a result of the proceeding. Lassiter v. Department of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18,
26-27 (1981) (holding that there is a presumption that “an indigent litigant has a right to appointed counsel only when, if
he loses, he may be deprived of his physical liberty”).   

14 See Lassiter, 452 U. S. at 26-27.

15 See Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (setting forth the three factors a court should weigh in determining if

appointed counsel is required in a civil proceeding); Commonwealth v. $9,847.00 United States Currency, 704 A.2d 612,
615 (Pa. 1997) (finding no right to appointed counsel in a civil forfeiture proceeding).

16 Many courthouses, magisterial district judge offices, state and county prisons and health care facilities have simultaneous

audio-visual communication equipment.

Sect 1.10 Involuntary Medical Examination for Communicable Diseases  pg 4

hearings is contemplated by the Counterterrorism Act.  35 P.S. § 2140.301(b)(3). See City
of Newark v. J.S., 652 A.2d 265, 268 n.1 (N.J. Super. 1993).17

2. The DPCL does not dictate that hearings be held on the record, but persuasive authority

from other jurisdictions suggests hearings should be on the record.18

C. What Remedies Are Available To The Court?

If the court finds that the public health authority had reasonable grounds to suspect the respondent
of being infected with, or a carrier of, a communicable disease, and the respondent refused to
submit to a medical examination without a valid reason for doing so, it shall order a physical
examination that shall include physical and laboratory tests performed in a laboratory approved by
the Secretary and shall be conducted in accordance with acceptable professional practices. The
court-ordered examination may be conducted by a physician of the respondent’s choice at his or
her own expense.   35 P.S. § 521.7(2).

If the individual refuses to comply with the court ordered examination, the court may order the
individual committed to an institution, as discussed in § D.1, below.

In addition, to enforce court orders, common pleas court judges may issue preliminary/special or
permanent injunctions.  Pa. R. Civ. P. 1531.19

D. What Enforcement Mechanisms Are Available To The Court?

1. Statutory sanctions 

If the respondent refuses to undergo the court ordered medical examination, he or she may be
committed by the court to an institution within the Commonwealth that has been determined
by the Secretary to be suitable for the care of the particular disease the respondent is suspected
of being infected with or carrying.  35 P.S. § 521.7(2).20

2. Prosecution

In addition, any person who violates any provision of the DPCL, or any regulation issued by the State
Advisory Board or ordinances, rules or regulations issued by a public health authority (including The
Pennsylvania Department of Health, any County/Municipal department of health or local health

17 Accord 42 Pa. C.S. § 5985 (child victims or material witnesses may testify through the use of closed circuit television in cer-

tain circumstances).

18 See e.g. Greene v. Edwards, 263 S.E.2d 661, 663 (W. Va. 1980). Cf. 50 P.S. § 7304(e)(5) (“On the record” hearings are

required in involuntary treatment petitions under Section 304 of the Mental Health Procedures Act).

19 Injunctive relief may be appropriate in the public health context. See e.g. Commonwealth ex rel. Preate v. Danny’s New Adam

and Eve Bookstore, 625 A.2d 119 (Pa. Commw. 1993) (preliminary injunction issued because of ongoing threat to public harm).

20 Although not explicitly stated in the statute, court ordered commitment for refusal to undergo a medical examination would
be in quarantine, conceivably lasting until it is determined the individual is not infected with a communicable disease or in 
a communicable state. Compare with 35 P.S. § 521.7(1). This commitment would presumably be in addition to other
enforcement mechanisms discussed in this section.

Sect 1.10 Involuntary Medical Examination for Communicable Diseases  pg 5

authority),21 commits a summary offense, punishable by a fine of not less than twenty-five dollars
($25.00), nor more than three hundred dollars ($300.00), plus costs.  35 P.S. § 521.20(a).  In default
of payment, the offender may be sentenced to county jail for thirty (30) days. Id. Prosecutions may
be initiated by The Pennsylvania Department of Health, a County/Municipal health department or a
local health authority, or by any person having knowledge of a violation of any provision of the
DPCL or its accompanying regulations. 35 P.S. § 521.20(b).22

3. Contempt 

Violation of a court order, such as an order of quarantine, and violation of an injunction, may
expose the violator to contempt. The court possesses the inherent authority to enforce court
orders by way of the power of contempt. See generally, Commonwealth v. Bowden, 576 Pa.
151, 184-86, 838 A.2d 740 (Pa. 2003).

E. Who Is Responsible For Costs?

Regarding the cost of the medical examination, the DPCL  states that the respondent must pay 
the expenses related to having the physician of his or her choice conduct an examination.   
35 P.S. § 521.7(2).  

Presumably, the governmental authority seeking the examination must pay expenses related to 
the examination if the respondent does not choose the physician or facility.23

. When Is Informed Consent A Consideration?
F

Typically physicians must provide patients with sufficient information to determine whether or 
not to proceed with the proposed surgical or operative procedure.  40 P.S. § 1303.504 (MCARE
Act - Informed Consent); Montgomery v. Bazaz-Sehgal, 568 Pa. 574, 583-84, 798 A.2d 742 
(Pa. 2002). Informed consent may not be required for non-surgical procedures, see MCARE Act at
§504(a)(1-5); Montgomery, 568 Pa. at 584, or when treatment is mandated by court order.24
No cases have been found on this point.

21 The DPCL defines local health authority as the board of health or the department of public health of a city, borough, incorporat-
ed town or township of the first class, or a county department of health, or joint county department of health.  35 P.S. § 521.2. 

22 In addition, under the Local Health Administration Law, 16 P.S. § 12001 - 12028, any person who violates this law, or any
rule or regulation of the County/Municipal health departments or who interferes with a health director or any agent of a
County/Municipal health department in the discharge of official duties, convicted of a second or subsequent offense, 
commits a misdemeanor, and upon conviction, may be fined not less than five hundred dollars ($500.00), nor more than
one thousand dollars ($1,000.00), imprisoned for up to one year, or both. 16 P. S. § 12027(b). Also, separate penalty 
provisions exist for communicable tuberculosis.  35 P.S. § 521.19(a). 

23 See e.g. Commonwealth v. Irwin, 1904 WL 2601 (CCP Venango, 1904) and Zellner v. Allentown, 18 C.C. 162; 1896 WL

3663 (Lehigh County C.C.P. 1896) (the governmental unit ordering isolation or quarantine has a duty to furnish food and
other necessities during the period of quarantine if the individuals so restricted cannot afford these items themselves. 

24 Although no cases have been found on point, legal commentators suggest protection of the public’s health and statutory

authorization to compel treatment (and examinations antecedent to treatment) for communicable diseases in laws similar to
the DPCL may outweigh privacy and informed consent restrictions. Lawrence O. Gostin, Public Health Law: Power, Duty,
Restraint (Berkely: University of California Press & Milbank Memorial Fund)(2000). 

Sect 1.10 Involuntary Medical Examination for Communicable Diseases  pg 6

SECTION 1.00 BENCH GUIDE

SECTION
1.20

Involuntary Treatment for  
Communicable Disease
The Disease Prevention and Control Law Of 19551

Summary

Public health authorities2 may petition the court to compel treatment for a communicable
disease if an individual has a communicable disease in a communicable stage and has
refused a public health order to receive treatment. 

While individuals in Pennsylvania have a right to refuse medical treatment, that right may
be outweighed when an individual with a communicable disease poses a significant risk to
the health of others and there are no lesser restrictive means of protecting the public’s
health.3 In these limited circumstances, the Commonwealth may compel an individual to
submit to involuntary treatment for the disease.  35 P.S. § 521.11(a.2); 28 Pa. Code § 27.87.4

A. Under What Circumstances May The Court Order An Individual To 

Submit To Treatment For A Communicable Disease?

The Disease Prevention and Control Law of 1955 (“DPCL”), 35 P.S. § 521.11(a.2), provides that a
court may order the “safekeeping and treatment” of an individual when:

1. The person named in the petition is infected with or a carrier of a communicable disease; and

2. The person has refused treatment and had no valid reason for refusing.5

1 The purpose of the Disease Prevention and Control Law of 1955 is “to assign primary responsibility for the prevention and
control of diseases to local health departments, and to institute a system of mandatory reporting, examination, diagnosis, 
and treatment of communicable diseases.” Commonwealth v. Moore, 526 Pa. 152, 159, 584 A.2d 936, 940 (1991).

2 For purposes of the Pennsylvania Public Health Law Bench Book, the term “public health authority” includes The

Pennsylvania Department of Health, all County/ Municipal health departments (the health departments authorized by the
Local Health Administration Law (Act 315 - 16 P.S. § 12001 et seq.) and all local health authorities (the 237 local boards or
departments of health that operate outside of the Local Health Administration Law (Act 315) structure and funding).

3 See In re Duran, 769 A.2d 497, 503-05 (Pa. Super 2001) (refusal of medical  treatment); Ragona v. Preate, 1990 WL 259033
(Lackawanna CCP 1990); In re Jane Doe, 1987 WL 226878 at *6 (Phila. CCP 1987); Stull v. Reber, 215 Pa. 156, 64 A 419
(Pa. 1906) (upholding involuntary vaccinations of school children). But see Commonwealth v. Nixon, 718 A.2d 311 (Pa.
Super. 1998), aff’d at 563 Pa. 425, 761 A.2d 1151 (2000) (parents’ duty to override mature minor’s decision to refuse 
treatment when life is in danger).

4 See also Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (compulsory smallpox vaccination); Reynolds v. McNichols, 488 F.2d
1378 (10th Cir. 1973) (compulsory treatment for venereal disease); City of New York v. Antoinette R., 630 N.Y.S.2d 1008
(N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1995) (compulsory treatment for tuberculosis).

5 Refusal to comply with a public health authority’s order to undergo medical treatment is not an explicit prerequisite in the

statute, but it is implied.  35 P.S. § 521.11(a.1)-(a.2). In determining whether the respondent had a valid reason for refusing
treatment, the court may consider religious objections, but these objections have their limits in a communicable disease 
situation.  See Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166-67 (1944) (“[t]he right to practice religion freely does not include
the liberty to expose the community . . . to communicable disease.”).

Sect 1.20 Involuntary Treatment for Communicable Disease  pg 1

Although not statutorily required in Pennsylvania, courts in other jurisdictions have only allowed
quarantine, isolation or involuntary medical treatment when there are no lesser restrictive means
of protecting the public’s health.6 Some courts have stated that when a person has not been 
convicted of a crime, “any deprivation of his liberty by the state must be the least restrictive 
means of achieving the purpose of the deprivation.”7

B. What Is The Procedure Of Issuing A Court Order For Involuntary

Treatment?

1. Filing a Petition 

A petition to compel safekeeping and treat-
ment may be brought by The Pennsylvania
Department of Health, a County/Municipal
health department or a local health authority.
35 P.S. § 521.3, 5; 28 Pa. Code § 27.87. 
The DPCL does not mention multiple 
respondents in a single action. 

Note: If the public health authority is not
The Pennsylvania Department of Health 
or a County/Municipal health department, the
authority must receive approval from The
Pennsylvania Department of Health before 
taking any disease control measure. 28 Pa.
Code §§ 27.1, 27.60(c). 

The respondent will be the person suspected of being infected with, or a carrier of, a 
communicable disease.

By statute, the court of common pleas of the county where an individual is present has 
jurisdiction to adjudicate involuntary medical treatment petitions and to commit the individual 
to an institution for safekeeping and treatment.  35 P.S. § 521.11(a.2); 28 Pa. Code § 27.87(b). 

2. Jurisdiction  

3. Venue 

The DPCL does not address venue, other than what is stated in the preceding section on jurisdiction;
accordingly, the general rules governing venue apply.  Pa. R. Civ. P. 1006.

4. Service and Notice   

Neither the statute nor its accompanying regulations address service,8 nor do they specify what
form notice must take, other than requiring that the respondent be served with a copy of the 
petition seeking to compel safekeeping and treatment.   35 P.S. § 521.11(a.2). The general rules

6 See City of Newark v. J.S., 652 A.2d 265, 271-72 (N.J. Super. 1993); Best v. St. Vincent’s Hosp., 2003 W.L. 21518829 at 

* 7-8 (S.D.N.Y. 2003), Report and Recommendations adopted by District Court at 2003 WL 21767656 (SDNY), remanded
on other grounds at 2004 WL 2166316 (2nd Cir. 2004). 

7 Hamilton v. Love, 328 F. Supp. 1182, 1192 (D.C. Ark. 1971); City of Newark, 652 A.2d at 268; Cf. Commonwealth v. Milice,

584 A.2d 997 (Pa. Super. 1991)(least restrictive means in mental health commitment). 

8 “Service of process is a mechanism by which a court obtains jurisdiction of a defendant, and therefore, the rules concerning
service of process must be strictly followed . . .  Thus, improper service is not merely a procedural defect that can be ignored
. . . ” (internal citations omitted). Mayer v. Garman, __ Pa. __ ; __A.2d. __; 2006 WL 2252067, citing Cintas Corp. v. Lee’s
Cleaning Services, Inc., 549 Pa. 84, 91, 700 A.2d 915 (1997). See also Fraisar v. Gillis, 892 A.2d 74, 77-78 (Pa. Commw.
2006) (discussing process service rules).

Sect 1.20 Involuntary Treatment for Communicable Disease  pg 2

governing service and notice apply,9 and both should be provided to the respondent consistent
with petition practice under Pa. R. Civ. P. 206 and local rule.10 If the respondent is incapacitated
or an unemancipated minor, that person’s parents or legal guardian are generally entitled 
to notice.  

5.  Hearings   

A non-jury trial is required to be held within
24 hours after service on the respondent.
35 P.S. § 521.11(a.2).

a. Burden and Standard of Proof 

Note: If the petitioner is not The
Pennsylvania Department of Health or a
County/Municipal health department, a copy of
the petition and any hearing notices and court
orders should be served upon The Pennsylvania
Department of Health since that entity has the
ultimate authority to protect the health of the
citizens of Pennsylvania.  35 P.S. § 521.3(c); 
71 P.S. § 532(a).  

There is no Pennsylvania law on this
point. However, possession and control
of one’s body is the most highly protected
privacy interest.11 By analogy to involuntary civil commitment under the Mental Health
Procedures Act, the public health authority has the burden of proving the statutory 
elements by clear and convincing evidence. See In re Hancock, 719 A.2d 1053, 1056-58 
(Pa. Super. 1998).12

Furthermore, persuasive authority from other jurisdictions and legal scholars suggest the ADA
is applicable to governmental orders compelling liberty restrictions resulting from public
health orders.“ The ADA and its regulations require that a health officer seeking to infringe
upon a diseased person’s liberty by
imposing detention, confinement, 
isolation or quarantine, must first 
establish, by clear and convincing 
evidence, that the person poses a 
significant risk of transmitting disease to
others with serious consequences.”13

Note: Involuntary medical treatment may
implicate both searches and seizures, and
when compelled by the state, are governed by
the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
and Article I, § 8 of the Pennsylvania
Constitution.14

9 Under the DPCL a hearing must be held on the petition within 24 hours of service.  35 P.S. § 521.11(a.2). Accordingly, 

expedited service may be appropriate, especially if there is a request to isolate / detain the respondent pending the hearing.
Additionally, the court may consider alternative means of service given the allegation that the respondent may be infected
with, or a carrier of, a highly contagious communicable disease. The legislature contemplated this in the Counterterrorism
Planning, Preparedness and Response Act (“Counterterrorism Act”),  35 P.S. § 2140.301(b)(3) (notice may be oral or written).
For alternative service, Pa. R. Civ. P. 430. With the notice, it is suggested the respondent be advised of the right to counsel.
See § B.5.b, infra.

10 See Pa. R. Civ. P. 440 for service of process under Rule 206.

11 “No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law, than the right of every individual to the
possession and control of his own person . . . ” In re: Fiori, 543 Pa. 592, 600-01, 673 A.2d 905 (1996), quoting Union
Pacific Railway Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891). See also Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757,769-70 (1966)
(“The interests in human dignity and privacy which the Fourth Amendment protects forbid [intrusion into the body] on the
mere chance that desired evidence might be obtained”).

12 See also Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (1979) (standard of proof in civil commitment proceedings); City of Newark v. J.S.,
652 A.2d 265, 271-72 (N.J. Super. 1993) (standard of proof required for involuntary commitment of tuberculosis patient).

13 See e.g., City of Newark, 652 A. 2d. at 274. See also, Lawrence O. Gostin, The Law and the Public’s Health: A Study of

Infectious Disease Law in the United States, 99 Colum. L. Rev. 59 (Jan. 1999). 

14 See Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Ass’n, 489 U.S. 602, 616-20 (1989) (collection and analysis of biological samples

deemed Fourth Amendment searches); Theodore v. Delaware Valley Sch. Dist., 761 A.2d 652, 656-58 (Pa. Commw. 2000)
(discussing level of proof required when drug and alcohol testing school students).

Sect 1.20 Involuntary Treatment for Communicable Disease  pg 3

The DPCL does not address the right to counsel or appointed counsel. However, due process
and case law from other jurisdictions suggest respondents are entitled to be represented by
counsel, and appointing counsel for the indigent may be necessary.15

b. Right to Counsel  

c.  Conduct of Hearing 

1. Hearings would be conducted according to the Rules of Civil Procedure. The Rules do 
not address taking testimony by telephone or advanced communication technology.
However, in a public health case where the respondent is alleged to have a potentially 
dangerous communicable disease, or may already be in isolation or quarantine, the 
court may wish to conduct hearings with the aid of a telephone or by using other 
communication technology (such as two-way simultaneous audio-visual communication).16
This method of conducting hearings is contemplated by the Counterterrorism Planning,
Preparedness and Response Act, (“Counterterrorism Act”). 35 P.S. § 2140.301(b)(3). 
See also City of Newark v. J.S., 652 A.2d 265, 268 n.1 (N.J. Super. 1993).17 

2. The DPCL does not dictate that hearings be held on the record, but persuasive authority

from other jurisdictions suggests hearings should be on the record.18

C. What Remedies Are Available To The Court?

1. Safekeeping and Treatment 

The court may order the respondent committed to an appropriate institution for safekeeping
and treatment for the communicable disease if the petitioning authority meets its burden. 
If treatment is not required to render the disease non-communicable, the court may order 
the respondent isolated without treatment until such time as the disease is rendered 
non-communicable.  35 P.S. § 521.11(a.2).19

15 The court may need to appoint a public defender to represent indigent respondents. 16 P.S. § 9960.6(a)(11) (appointment
when representation is constitutionally required). Cf. 16 P.S. §9960.6(c) (appointment of public defender for persons who
may be subject to commitment under the Mental Health and Mental Retardation Act of 1966). Also, under the
Counterterrorism Planning, Preparedness and Response Act, (“Counterterrorism Act”)  individuals subject to isolation or
quarantine are entitled to be represented by counsel and if an individual is without the financial resources or otherwise
unable to employ counsel, the court must appoint counsel. 35 P.S. § 2140.301(b)(4). 

16 Many courthouses, magisterial district judge offices, state and county prisons, and health care facilities have simultaneous

audio-visual communication equipment.

certain circumstances).

17 Accord 42 Pa. C.S. § 5985 (child victims or material witnesses may testify through the use of closed circuit television in 

18 See e.g. Greene v. Edwards, 263 S.E.2d 661, 663 (W. Va. 1980). Cf. 50 P.S. § 7304(e)(5) (“On the record” hearings are

required in involuntary treatment petitions under Section 304 of the Mental Health Procedures Act).

19 If treatment is ordered, the DPCL states treatment shall include treatment by a duly-accredited practitioner of any well 
recognized church or religious denomination which relies on prayer or spiritual means alone for healing, as long as all 
regulations pertaining to sanitation, isolation or quarantine are complied with. 35 P.S. § 521.11(a.3); 28 Pa. Code § 27.87(c).
Neither the statute nor the regulations clarify exactly what this means.  Also, “[t]he right to practice religion freely does not
include the liberty to expose the community or the child to communicable disease or the latter to ill health or death.”  Prince v.
Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166-67 (1944); In re First Church of Christ, Scientist, 205 Pa. 543, 551, 55 A. 536, 539 (1903)
(“It may be said that the wisdom or folly of . . . prayer alone, in the cure of disease, is for the parties who invoke such a remedy,
But . . . ’none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself,’ and the consequences of leaving disease to run unchecked
in the community is so serious that sound public policy forbids it.”). See also In the Matter of Cabrera, 552 A.2d 1114, 1118
(Pa. Super. 1988); Stull v. Reber, 215 Pa. 156, 64 A. 419 (Pa. 1906) (upholding involuntary vaccinations of school children).

Sect 1.20 Involuntary Treatment for Communicable Disease  pg 4

Although not statutorily required, if ordering isolation or treatment, the court may wish to 
consider if there are any less restrictive means of protecting the public’s health. See City of
Newark, 652 A 2d. at 272-74; Best, 2003 WL 21518829 at *7-8. 

Legal commentators have reasoned that the
public health authority must utilize policies
that achieve the public health objective with 
the least intrusion on personal rights and
freedoms”20 The rules and regulations
employed to combat contagious or 
infectious diseases must not be unreasonable,
nor may they be enforced unreasonably.21
Quarantine, isolation and involuntary 
medical treatment orders must be 
“reasonable, humane and not cruel.”22

2.  Injunction 

To enforce court orders, common pleas
court judges may issue preliminary/special or
permanent injunctions.  Pa. R. Civ. P. 1531.27

Note: If ordering a restraint on an 
individual’s liberty the court may wish to 
consider the least restrictive means (“LRM”).23
1. Effective non-invasive forms of testing are

less-restrictive than invasive forms of testing.

2. If treatment is ordered, the least restrictive

but effective means should be considered.24
3. If a period of isolation alone will cause the
person to become non-communicable, 
isolation without treatment may be 
appropriate as an LRM.25

4. In the quarantine context, the LRM may

involve ordering someone quarantined at
home rather than at a facility, unless there 
is evidence that the individual will not obey 
a court order.26

D.  What Enforcement Mechanisms Are Available To The Court?

1. Prosecution 

While there is no case law for guidance, by statute, any person who violates any provision of the
DPCL, or any regulation issued by the State Advisory Board or ordinances, rules or regulations
issued by a public health authority (including The Pennsylvania Department of Health, any
County/Municipal health department or local health authority),28 commits a summary offense, 

20 Lawrence O. Gostin, Public Health Law: Power, Duty, Restraint (Berkely: University of California Press & Milbank Memorial

Fund)(2000).

21 See Allentown v. Wagner, 27 Pa. Super. 485 (1905).

22 See Commonwealth ex rel. Ogden v. Cairns, 20 Pa. D. 453, 1911 WL 3741 (Pa. Quar. Sess. 1911). 

23 See City of Newark, 652 A.2d at 272-74; Best, 2003 WL 21518829 at *7-8. 

24 For example, would voluntary or mandatory “directly observed treatment” be appropriate for involuntary treatment, or is

commitment to an institution necessary?

25 If isolation is required, for how long will the respondent be isolated? Must the person be isolated for the full course of 

treatment? Can the person be isolated at home, or is a more restrictive environment, such as a facility or hospital required?
See e.g., City of New York v. Antoinette R., 630 N.Y.S.2d 1008 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1995); City of Newark, 652 A.2d at 272-74;
Best, 2003 WL 21518829 at *7-8.

26 If quarantine is required, for how long will the respondent be quarantined? Can the person be quarantined at home, or 

is a more restrictive environment required  See e.g., Antoinette R., supra, at note 13; City of Newark, 652 A.2d at 272-74;
Best, 2003 WL 21518829 at *7-8.

27 Injunctive relief may be appropriate in the public health context. See e.g. Commonwealth ex. rel. Preate v. Danny’s New Adam and

Eve Bookstore, 625 A.2d 119 (Pa. Commw. 1993) (preliminary injunction issued because of ongoing threat to public health).

28 The DPCL defines local health authority as the board of health or the department of public health of a city, borough, incorporated
town or township of the first class, or a county department of health, or joint county department of health. 35 P.S. § 521.2. 

Sect 1.20 Involuntary Treatment for Communicable Disease  pg 5

punishable by a fine of not less than twenty-five dollars ($25.00), nor more than three hundred
dollars ($300.00), plus costs.  In default of payment, the offender may be sentenced to county
jail for thirty (30) days.  35 P.S. § 521.20(a).  Prosecutions may be initiated by The Pennslyvania
Department of Health, a County/Municipal health department or a local health authority, or by
any person having knowledge of a violation of any provision of the DPCL or its accompanying
regulations.  35 P.S. § 521.20(b).29

2. Contempt  

Violation of a court order, such as an order of quarantine, and violation of an injunction, may
expose the violator to contempt. The Court possesses the inherent authority to enforce court
orders by way of the power of contempt. See generally, Commonwealth v. Bowden, 576 Pa.
151, 184-86, 838 A.2d 740 (2003). 

E. May The Court Order Pre-Trial Detention?

A public health authority may seek an order authorizing the isolation of an individual under the
DPCL pending a hearing. There is no case law to offer guidance on this question. 

By analogy, the Counterterrorism Act contemplates pre-hearing quarantine. 35 P.S. § 2140.301(a).

Pennsylvania statutes authorize a public health authority to order individuals isolated without court
approval.  35 P.S. § 521.11(a.1) and 28 Pa. Code § 27.87(a) (the public health authority may cause
an individual who has refused to submit to treatment for a communicable disease to be isolated
“until the disease has been rendered non-communicable.”).

Neither the statutes nor the regulations have been tested in the courts, however they may provide
some guidance, or a basis for the court to order pre-hearing isolation.

Presumably, if the public health authority has made a prima facie showing of the existence of a 
dangerous communicable disease and a substantial threat to others or the community if the individual
is not isolated, and if there are no lesser-restrictive means of protecting the public’s health, the court
may order the respondent isolated pending hearing and disposition of the petition.30

29 In addition, under the Local Health Administration Law, 16 P.S. §§ 12001 - 12028, any person who violates this law, or any
rule or regulation of the County/Municipal health department (“Act 315” department), or who interferes with a health
director or any agent of a County/Municipal health department in the discharge of official duties, convicted of a second or
subsequent offense, commits a misdemeanor, and upon conviction, may be fined not less than five hundred dollars
($500.00), nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00), imprisoned for up to one year, or both. 16 P.S. § 12027(b).
Also, separate penalty provisions exist for communicable tuberculosis.  35 P.S. § 521.19(a). 

30 For cases from other jurisdictions discussing limitations on personal freedom in a public health context and due process

requirements, see Best v. St. Vincent’s Hosp., 2003 WL 21518829 (U.S.D.C. S.D.N.Y., 2003), Report and Recommendations
adopted by district court at 2003 WL 21767656 (S.D.N.Y.), remanded on other grounds at 2004 WL 2166316 (2nd Cir.
2004); New York v. Antoinette R., 630 N.Y.S.2d 1008 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1995); City of Newark v. J.S., 652 A.2d 265 (N.J. Super.
1993); Greene v. Edwards, 263 S.E.2d 661 (W.Va. 1980); Reynolds v. McNichols, 488 F.2d 1378 (10th Cir. 1973). See also 7
McQuillin Mun. Corp. § 24.235 (3rd Ed).

Sect 1.20 Involuntary Treatment for Communicable Disease  pg 6

. Who Is Responsible For Costs?
F

Regarding the cost of the medical treatment, three section of the DPCL address costs. 

35 P.S. § 521.7(2) provides that the respondent must pay the expenses related to having the 
physician of his or her choice conduct an examination. 

35 P.S. § 521.9 requires The Pennsylvania Department of Health to provide or designate facilities
for the free diagnosis, testing and treatment of venereal disease. County/Municipal health 
departments and local health authorities can undertake these expenses with the approval of 
The Pennsylvania Department of Health, and they may do so, with or without financial assistance
from The Pennsylvania Department of Health. 

35 P.S. § 521.11(b) provides that public health authorities must reimburse institutions that 
receive individuals who are ordered isolated or quarantined for safekeeping and treatment for a
venereal disease.  

Presumably, the governmental authority seeking the treatment must pay expenses related to the
treatment if the respondent does not choose the physician or facility.31

G. When Is Informed Consent A Consideration?

Typically physicians must provide patients with sufficient information to determine whether or 
not to proceed with the proposed surgical or operative procedure. 40 P.S. § 1303.504 (MCARE
Act - Informed Consent); Montgomery v. Bazaz-Sehgal, 568 Pa. 574, 583-84, 798 A.2d 742
(2002). Informed consent may not be required for non-surgical procedures, see MCARE Act at §
504(a)(1-5); Montgomery, supra at 584, or when treatment is mandated by court order.32 No cases
have been found on this point.

31 See e.g. Commonwealth v. Irwin, 1904 WL 2601 (CCP Venango, 1904) and Zellner v. Allentown, 18 C.C. 162; 1896 WL
3663 (Lehigh County C.C.P. 1896) (the governmental unit ordering isolation or quarantine has a duty to furnish food and
other necessities during the period of quarantine if the individuals so restricted cannot afford these items themselves. 

32 Although no cases have been found on point, legal commentators suggest protection of the public’s health and statutory
authorization to compel medical treatment for communicable diseases in laws similar to the DPCL may outweigh privacy
and informed consent restrictions. Lawrence O. Gostin, Public Health Law: Power, Duty, Restraint (Berkely: University of
California Press & Milbank Memorial Fund)(2000).

Sect 1.20 Involuntary Treatment for Communicable Disease  pg 7

SECTION 1.00 BENCH GUIDE

SECTION
1.30

Quarantine1
The Disease Prevention and Control Law Of 19552

For quarantine petitions brought under the Counterterrorism Planning, Preparedness and
Response Act, see Section 1.50. 

Summary 

Pennsylvania law authorizes public health authorities3 to order quarantines to inhibit 
the spread of communicable diseases. No statute, regulation or case law addresses 
the procedures or standards to be used if an individual refuses to comply with a public
health quarantine order. Public health authorities may petition the courts to order a
quarantine. This bench guide is intended to assist common pleas court judges faced 
with a public health petition to order a quarantine.

A “quarantine” separates persons who have been exposed to, but who are not 
necessarily infected with, a communicable disease from those not exposed. 

A. Under What Circumstances May Individuals4 Be Ordered Quarantined?

The Disease Prevention and Control Law of 1955 (“DPCL”) provides that The Pennsylvania
Department of Health, County/Municipal health departments and local health authorities may

1 Quarantine: “The limitation of freedom of movement of persons or animals who have been exposed to a communicable 

disease for a period of time equal to the longest usual incubation period of the disease in such manner as to prevent 
effective contact with those not so exposed. Quarantine may be complete . . . modified . . . or it may consist merely of 
surveillance or segregation.” 35 P.S. § 521.2(i) (definitions). This is distinguished from “isolation” defined at 35 P.S. § 521.2(e). 

Potentially, a quarantine may be sought or ordered for one or more individuals, 35 P.S. § 2140.301(a), or for an entire 
geographic area. For a general discussion of the latter, see Joseph Barbera, MD, et al., Large-Scale Quarantine Following
Biological Terrorism in the United States: Scientific Examination, Logistic and Legal Limits, and Possible Consequences, 
286 JAMA 2711, 2712 (December 5, 2001). 

A “cordon sanitaire” is the quarantining of an entire geographic area, such as a city or a town. Lawrence O. Gostin,
Symposium Article: Part 1: Public Health: Pandemic Influenza: Public Health Preparedness for the Next Global Health
Emergency, 32 J.L. Med. & Ethics 565 (Winter 2004); Daniel Markovits, Symposium: Expert Testimony: Bridging Bioethics and
Evidence Law: Independent Article: Quarantine and Distributive Justice, 33 J.L. MED. & ETHICS 323, 324 (2005). 

2 The purpose of the Disease Prevention and Control Law of 1955 is “to assign primary responsibility for the prevention and
control of diseases to local health departments, and to institute a system of mandatory reporting, examination, diagnosis,
and treatment of communicable diseases.” Commonwealth v. Moore, 526 Pa. 152, 159, 584 A.2d 936, 940 (1991).

3 For purposes of the Pennsylvania Public Health Law Bench Book, the term “public health authority” includes The

Pennsylvania Department of Health, all County/ Municipal departments of health (the health departments authorized by 
The Local Health Administration Law (Act 315- 16 P.S.§ 12001 et seq.) and all local health authorities (the 237 local boards
or departments of health that operate outside of the Local Health Administration Law (Act 315) structure and funding). 

4 Although the general quarantining authority given to the various departments of health references the ability to restrain 
individuals, it is likely that the authority to order a large-scale quarantine would extend to departments of health as well. 
See Commonwealth ex re. Ogden v. Cairns, 20 Pa. D. 453, 1911 WL 3741 (Philadelphia Clerk of Quar. Sess., 1911), 
aff’d 46 Pa. Super 96 (1911)(habeas corpus challenging quarantine of a district of the city of Philadelphia denied). Cf.
Counterterrorism Planning, Preparedness and Response Act (“Counterterrorism Act”), 35 P.S. § 2140.301(a) (individuals or
groups of individuals may be temporarily isolated or quarantined).

Sect 1.30 Quarantine under The Disease Prevention and Control Law  pg 1

order an individual quarantined if he or she has been exposed to a communicable disease and
when quarantine is necessary to protect the public from the spread of the communicable disease.5
35 P.S. §§ 521.5 and 521.16(a)(3)-(5); 28 Pa. Code §§ 27.60-61 and 27.65. It is likely court action
will be sought if an individual refuses to abide by the public health order for quarantine.
Pennsylvania law does not address the 
procedures or standards to be applied if 
the public health authority petitions the court 
to order a quarantine.

Note: There is no Pennsylvania law 
establishing what must be alleged or

proven for a court ordered quarantine.6

B. What Must Be Proven To Obtain A Court Ordered quarantine?

There is no direct Pennsylvania law on point. Analogy to other provisions of the DPCL may be
helpful. For example, to obtain an order for involuntary testing for a communicable disease, the
public health authority must show:

The person named in the petition was exposed to a communicable disease, and the person
refused to be tested and had no valid reason for refusing.7

35 P.S. § 521.7(2). 

By analogy, it is suggested for a public health authority to obtain a court order for a quarantine,
it must show:

1. The person named in the petition was exposed to a communicable disease, and

2. The person has refused to be quarantined and has no valid reason for refusing.

Although not statutorily required in Pennsylvania, courts in other jurisdictions have only permitted
quarantine when because of the disease, the person poses a significant threat to the health and 
safety of others and there are no lesser restrictive means of protecting the public’s health.8 Some
courts have stated that when a person has not been convicted of a crime, “any deprivation of his 
liberty by the state must be the least restrictive means of achieving the purpose of the deprivation.”9 

5 Isolation and quarantine are historically recognized public health techniques used to contain the spread of infectious disease.
See e.g. Compagnie Francaise de Navigation a Vapeur v. State Board of Health, 186 U.S. 380 (1902) (recognizing the power
of states to institute quarantine to protect their citizens from infectious diseases); Craig v. Kline, 65 Pa. 399 (Pa. 1870). (The
passage of health and quarantine laws is within the reserved power of the states).

6 However, statutes specifically authorizing quarantine authority include: 71 P.S. § 532(c) (The Pennsylvania Department of

Health); 16 P.S. §§ 12010-12 (all County/Municipal health departments); 16 P.S. §§ 2185-92 (Third Class counties); 53 P.S. §§
14401-02 (First Class cities); 53 P.S. §§ 24661-75 (Second Class cities); 53 P.S. § 37307 (Third Class cities); 53 P.S. § 46202(6)
and §§ 48105-06 (Boroughs); 53 P.S. §§ 56605-08 (First Class townships); 53 P.S. §§ 68001- 06 (Second Class townships).
Authority may also appear in regulations or ordinances at the local level. See e.g. Philadelphia Code § 6-204 (isolation and
quarantine).

7 This provision is used for analogy because if a public health authority orders an individual to undergo medical testing and the

individual refuses, the department may order that individual quarantined.  35 P.S. § 521.7(1).

8 See City of Newark v. J.S., 652 A.2d 265, 271-72 (N.J. Super. 1993); Best v. St. Vincent’s Hosp., 2003 W.L. 21518829 at 

* 7-8 (S.D.N.Y. 2003), Report and Recommendations adopted by district court at 2003 WL 21767656, remanded on other
grounds at 2004 WL 2166316 (2nd Cir. 2004). 

9 Hamilton v. Love, 328 F. Supp. 1182, 1192 (D.C. Ark. 1971); City of Newark, supra, at 268; Cf. Commonwealth v. Milice,

584 A.2d 997 (Pa. Super. 1991)(least restrictive means in mental health commitment). 

Sect 1.30 Quarantine under The Disease Prevention and Control Law  pg 2

C. What Is The Procedure Of Obtaining A Court Order For Quarantine?

1. Filing a Petition

There is no Pennsylvania case law, statute or court rule establishing specifically who can bring a
petition to compel a quarantine or what procedure to follow under the DPCL. However, support
for the proposition that The Pennsylvania Department of Health, a County/Municipal health
department or any local health authority
can bring an action to enforce quarantine
under the DPCL is implied in numerous
statutes.10

Note: If the public health authority is not
The Pennsylvania Department of Health 
or a County/Municipal health department, the
authority must receive approval from The
Pennsylvania Department of Health before 
taking any disease control measure.  
28 Pa. Code §§ 27.1, 27.60(c). 

The respondent will be the person suspected
of being infected with, or carrying, a 
communicable disease. 

It is suggested that the procedure for obtaining a quarantine order would be by petition, similar
to the procedures for other public health actions under the DPCL.  35 P.S. §§ 521.7(2) and
521.11(a.2); 35 P.S. § 2140.301(b)(1).

2. Jurisdiction  

Pennsylvania law does not address this point. 

By analogy, the court of common pleas of the county where an individual is present would have
jurisdiction to adjudicate quarantine petitions.  35 P.S. §§ 521.7(2) and 521.11(a.2); 28 Pa. Code
§§ 27.82(b), and 27.87(b).11 

The DPCL does not address venue, other than what is stated in the preceding section on 
jurisdiction. Accordingly, the general rules governing venue presumably apply.  Pa. R. Civ. P. 1006.

3. Venue 

4.  Service and Notice   

The DPCL does not identify service requirements,12 nor does it specify the form of notice in 
public health petitions beyond requiring that the respondent be served with a copy of the 
petition seeking court action. 35 P.S. § 521.7(2). Presumably the general rules governing service

10 35 P.S. § 521.3 (responsibility for disease prevention and control), § 521.5 (control measures), § 521.7 (medical examinations),

§ 521.11 (involuntary treatment).

11 The courts of common pleas arguably have original jurisdiction pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S. § 931. Accord, 35 P.S. § 521.11(2)

(court of common pleas has jurisdiction to order medical treatment). The Commonwealth Court may have concurrent 
jurisdiction if a petition is brought by The Pennsylvania Department of Health.  42 Pa. C.S. §§ 761(a)(2) and 761(b).

12 “Service of process is a mechanism by which a court obtains jurisdiction of a defendant, and therefore, the rules concerning
service of process must be strictly followed . . . Thus, improper service is not merely a procedural defect that can be ignored
. . . ” (internal citations omitted). Mayer v. Garman, __ Pa. __ ; __A.2d. __; 2006 WL 2252067, citing Cintas Corp. v. Lee’s
Cleaning Services, Inc., 91 700 A.2d 915 (1997). See also Fraisar v. Gillis, 892 A.2d 74, 77-78 (Pa. Commw. 2006) 
(discussing process service rules).

Sect 1.30 Quarantine under The Disease Prevention and Control Law  pg 3

and notice apply13 and presumably both
should be provided to the respondent 
consistent with petition practice under Pa.
R. Civ. P. 206 and local rule.14 If the respon-
dent is incapacitated or an unemancipated
minor, that person’s parents or legal
guardian(s) are generally entitled to notice.  

5.  Hearings   

Under the DPCL for medical testing, a 
non-jury trial is required to be held on 
petitions within 24 hours after service on
the respondent.  35 P.S. § 521.7(2). By 
analogy, petitions to compel quarantine 
presumably should be heard within 24
hours after service on the 
respondent.  

a. Burden and Standard of Proof 

Note: If the petitioner is not The
Pennsylvania Department of Health or a
County/Municipal health department, a copy of
the petition and any hearing notices and court
orders should be served upon The Pennsylvania
Department of Health since that entity has the
ultimate authority to protect the health of the
citizens of Pennsylvania.  35 P.S. § 521.3(c); 71
.S. § 532(a).  
P

Note: Presumably, petitions to compel a
quarantine under the DPCL should be
heard within 24 hours after service on the
respondent

There is no Pennsylvania law on this point. By analogy to involuntary civil commitment under
the Mental Health Procedures Act, the public health authority has the burden of proving the
statutory elements by clear and convincing evidence. See In re Hancock, 719 A.2d 1053,
1056-58 (Pa. Super. 1998).15

Furthermore, persuasive authority from other jurisdictions and legal scholars suggest the ADA
is applicable to governmental orders compelling liberty restrictions resulting from public
health orders. “The ADA and its regulations require that a health officer seeking to infringe
upon a diseased person’s liberty by imposing detention, confinement, isolation or quarantine,
must first establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that the person poses a significant risk
of transmitting disease to others with serious consequences.” 16

13 Under the DPCL a hearing must be held on petitions for medical testing and treatment within 24 hours of service. 35 P.S.
§§ 521.7(2) and 521.11(a.2).  Accordingly, expedited service may be appropriate. Additionally, the Court may consider 
alternative means of service and notice given the allegation that the respondent may be infected with, or a carrier of, a
highly contagious communicable disease. The legislature contemplated this in the Counterterrorism Planning, Preparedness
and Response Act,  (“Counterterrorism Act”) 35 P.S. § 2140.301(b)(3) (notice may be oral or written). For alternative service,
Pa. R. Civ. P. 430. With the notice, it is suggested the respondent be advised of the right to counsel. See § C.5.b, infra.

14 See Pa. R. Civ. P. 440 for service of process under Rule 206.

15 See also Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (1979) (standard of proof in civil commitment proceedings); City of Newark, 652

A. 2d at 271-72 (standard of proof required for involuntary commitment of tuberculosis patient).

16 See e.g., City of Newark, 652 A. 2d at 274; see also Lawrence O. Gostin, The Law and the Public’s Health: A Study of

Infectious Disease Law in the United States, 99 Colum. L. Rev. 59 (Jan. 1999). 

Sect 1.30 Quarantine under The Disease Prevention and Control Law  pg 4

b.  Right to Counsel  

c.  Conduct of Hearing 

The DPCL does not address the right to counsel or appointed counsel. However, due
process and case law from other jurisdictions suggest respondents are entitled to be 
represented by counsel, and appointing counsel for the indigent may be necessary.17

1. Hearings would be conducted according to the Rules of Civil Procedure. The Rules do
not address taking testimony by telephone or advanced communication technology.
However, in a public health case where the respondent is alleged to have a potentially
dangerous communicable disease, or may already be in isolation or quarantine, the
court may wish to conduct hearings with the aid of a telephone or by using other 
communication technology (such as two-way simultaneous audio-visual communica-
tion).18 This method of conducting hearings is contemplated by the Counterterrorism
Act.  35 P.S. § 2140.301(b)(3). See City of Newark v. J.S., 652 A.2d 265, 268 n.1 (N.J.
Super. 1993).19

2. The DPCL does not dictate that hearings be held on the record, but persuasive authority

from other jurisdictions suggests hearings should be on the record.20

D. What Remedies Are Available To The Court?

Under the DPCL, the court may order the respondent to submit to medical testing if the petitioning
authority meets its burden.  35 P.S. § 521.7(2). Similarly, by analogy, the court may order the
respondent quarantined if the petitioning authority meets its burden. There are no guidelines
under Pennsylvania law for the duration of a quarantine order. The court may need to determine
this on a case-by-case basis. Under the statutory definition of quarantine, 35 P.S. § 521.2(i), it
should be for “a period of time equal to the longest usual incubation period of the disease in such
manner as to prevent effective contact with those not so exposed.” 21

17 The court may need to appoint a public defender to represent indigent respondents.  16 P.S. § 9960.6(a)(11) (appointment
when representation is constitutionally required). Cf. 16 P.S. § 9960.6(c) (appointment of public defender for persons who
may be subject to commitment under the Mental Health and Mental Retardation Act of 1966). Also, under the
Counterterrorism Act, individuals subject to isolation or quarantine are entitled to be represented by counsel and if an 
individual is without the financial resources or otherwise unable to employ counsel, the court must appoint counsel.  
35 P.S. § 2140.301(b)(4). 

18 Many courthouses, magisterial district judge offices, state and county prisons, and health care facilities have simultaneous

audio-visual communication equipment.

certain circumstances).

19 Accord 42 Pa. C.S. § 5985 (child victims or material witnesses may testify through the use of closed circuit television in 

20 See e.g. Greene v. Edwards, 263 S.E.2d 661, 663 (W. Va. 1980). Cf. 50 P.S. § 7304(e)(5) (“On the record” hearings are

required in involuntary treatment petitions under Section 304 of the Mental Health Procedures Act).

21 Under the Counterterrorism Act, the governor’s order of isolation or quarantine may be continued for not more than thirty

(30) days, then further judicial review is required. 35 P.S. § 2140.301(b)(5)-(6).

Sect 1.30 Quarantine under The Disease Prevention and Control Law  pg 5

Legal commentators have reasoned that the
public health authority must utilize policies
that achieve the public health objective with 
the least intrusion on personal rights and 
freedoms”22 The rules and regulations
employed to combat contagious or infectious
diseases must not be unreasonable, nor may
they be enforced unreasonably.23 Quarantine,
isolation and involuntary medical treatment
orders must be “reasonable, humane and 
not cruel.”24

In addition, to enforce court orders, common
pleas court judges may issue preliminary/
special or permanent injunctions.  Pa. R. 
Civ. P. 1531.29

Note: If ordering a restraint on an 
individual’s liberty the court may wish to
consider the least restrictive means (“LRM”).25
1. Effective non-invasive forms of testing are

less-restrictive than invasive forms of testing.

2. If treatment is ordered, the least restrictive

but effective means should be considered.26
3. If a period of isolation alone will cause the
person to become non-communicable, 
isolation without treatment may be 
appropriate as an LRM.27

4. In the quarantine context, the LRM may

involve ordering someone quarantined at
home rather than at a facility, unless there is
evidence that the individual will not obey a
court order.28 

E.  What Enforcement Mechanisms Are Available To The Court?

1.  Prosecution 

While there is no case law for guidance, by statute, any person who violates any provision of the
DPCL, or any regulation issued by the State Advisory Board or ordinances, rules or regulations
issued by a public health authority (including The Pennsylvania Department of Health, any
County/Municipal health department or local health authority),30 commits a summary offense,

22 Lawrence O. Gostin, Public Health Law: Power, Duty, Restraint (Berkely: University of California Press & Milbank Memorial

Fund)(2000).

23 See Allentown v. Wagner, 27 Pa. Super. 485 (1905).

24 See Commonwealth ex rel. Ogden v. Cairns, 20 Pa. D. 453, 1911 WL 3741 (Pa. Quar. Sess. 1911). 

25 See City of Newark, 652 A. 2d at 272-74; Best, 2003 WL 21518829 at *7-8. If ordering quarantine or isolation, the court

may wish to consider the least restrictive means. See City of Newark, supra, at 272-74; Best, supra, at *7-8. This may involve
ordering someone restricted to their home rather than at a facility, unless there is evidence that the individual will not obey a
court order. See e.g. City of New York v. Antoinette R., 630 N.Y.S.2d 1008, 1011-12 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1995). Quarantine may
have several levels.  35 P.S. § 521.2 Quarantine may be complete or modified. It may involve surveillance or segregation in a
facility or at home.

26 For example, would voluntary or mandatory “directly observed treatment” be appropriate for involuntary treatment, or is

commitment to an institution necessary?

27 If isolation is required, for how long will the respondent be isolated? Must the person be isolated for the full course of 

treatment? Can the person be isolated at home, or is a more restrictive environment, such as a facility or hospital required?
See Antoinette R., supra, at note 14; City of Newark, 652 A. 2d at 272-74; Best, 2003 WL 21518829 at *7-8.

28 If quarantine is required, for how long will the respondent be quarantined? Can the person be quarantined at home, or is a
more restrictive environment required  See e.g., Antoinette R., supra, at note 14; City of Newark, 652 A. 2d at 272-74; Best,
2003 WL 21518829 at *7-8.

29 Injunctive relief may be appropriate in the public health context. See e.g. Commonwealth ex. rel. Preate v. Danny’s New

Adam and Eve Bookstore, 625 A.2d 119 (Pa Commw. 1993) (preliminary injunction issued because of on going threat to
public health).

30 The DPCL defines local health authority as the board of health or the department of public health of a city, borough, incorporated
town or township of the first class, or a county department of health, or joint county department of health.  35 P.S. § 521.2. 

Sect 1.30 Quarantine under The Disease Prevention and Control Law  pg 6

punishable by a fine of not less than twenty-five dollars ($25.00), nor more than three hundred
dollars ($300.00), plus costs.  In default of payment, the offender may be sentenced to county
jail for thirty (30) days.  35 P.S. § 521.20(a).  Prosecutions may be initiated by The Pennsylvania
Department of Health, a County/Municipal health department or a local health authority, or by
any person having knowledge of a violation of any provision of the DPCL or its accompanying
regulations.   35 P.S. § 521.20(b).31

2. Contempt  

Violation of a court order, such as an order of quarantine, and violation of an injunction, may
expose the violator to contempt. The court possesses the inherent authority to enforce court
orders by way of the power of contempt. See generally, Commonwealth v. Bowden, 576 Pa.
151, 184-86, 838 A.2d 740 (2003). 

. May The Court Order Pre-Hearing Detention?
F

A public health authority may seek an order authorizing the quarantine of an individual or group
under the DPCL pending a hearing. There is no case law to offer guidance on this question. 

By analogy, the Counterterrorism Act contemplates pre-hearing quarantine.  35 P.S. § 2140.301(a).

Also, Pennsylvania statutes authorize a public health authority to order individuals quarantined
without court approval.  35 P.S. § 521.7(1) and 28 Pa. Code § 27.82(a) (the public health 
authority may cause an individual who has refused to submit to an examination for a communicable
disease to be quarantined “until it is determined that the person does not pose a threat to the
public health”). 

Neither the statutes nor the regulations above have been tested in the courts, however they may
provide some guidance, or a basis for the court to order pre-hearing quarantine.

Presumably, if the public health authority has made a prima facie showing of the existence of a
dangerous communicable disease and a substantial threat to others or the community if the 
individual is not quarantined, and if there are no lesser-restrictive means of protecting the public’s
health, the court may order the respondent quarantined pending hearing and disposition of 
the petition.32

31 In addition, under the Local Health Administration Law, 16 P.S. §§ 12001 - 12028, any person who violates this law, or 

any rule or regulation of the County/Municipal health departments or who interferes with a health director or any agent of
a County/Municipal health department in the discharge of official duties, convicted of a second or subsequent offense,
commits a misdemeanor, and upon conviction, may be fined not less than five hundred dollars ($500.00), nor more than
one thousand dollars ($1,000.00), imprisoned for up to one year, or both. 16 P.S. § 12027(b). Also, separate penalty 
provisions exist for communicable tuberculosis.  35 P.S. § 521.19(a). 

32 For cases from other jurisdictions discussing limitations on personal freedom in a public health context and due process

requirements, see Best v. St. Vincent’s Hosp., 2003 W.L. 21518829 (S.D.N.Y. 2003), Report and Recommendations adopted
by district court at 2003 WL 21767656, remanded on other grounds at 2004 WL 2166316 (Second Cir. 2004); New York v.
Antoinette R., 630 N.Y.S.2d 1008 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1995); City of Newark v. J.S., 652 A.2d 265 (N.J. Super. 1993); Greene v.
Edwards, 263 S.E.2d 661 (W. Va. 1980); Reynolds v. McNichols, 488 F.2d 1378 (10th Cir. 1973). See also 7 McQuillin Mun.
Corp. § 24.235 (Third Ed).

Sect 1.30 Quarantine under The Disease Prevention and Control Law  pg 7

G. Who Is Responsible For Costs?

Regarding the costs potentially associated with quarantines, three provisions of the DPCL 
address costs. 

35 P.S. § 521.7(2) provides that the respondent must pay the expenses related to having the 
physician of his or her choice conduct an examination. 

35 P.S. § 521.9 requires The Pennsylvania Department of Health to provide or designate facilities
for the free diagnosis, testing and treatment of venereal disease. County/Municipal health 
departments and local health authorities can undertake these expenses with the approval of 
The Pennsylvania Department of Health, and they may do so, with or without financial assistance
from The Pennsylvania Department of Health. 

35 P.S. § 521.11(b) provides that public health authorities must reimburse institutions that receive
individuals who are ordered isolated or quarantined for safekeeping and treatment for a venereal
disease.  

Presumably, the governmental authority seeking the quarantine must pay expenses related to the
quarantine.33

33 See e.g. Commonwealth v. Irwin, 1904 WL 2601 (CCP Venango, 1904) and Zellner v. Allentown, 18 C.C. 162; 1896 WL
3663 (Lehigh County C.C.P. 1896) (the governmental unit ordering isolation or quarantine has a duty to furnish food and
other necessities during the period of quarantine if the individuals so restricted cannot afford these items themselves). 

Sect 1.30 Quarantine under The Disease Prevention and Control Law  pg 8

SECTION 1.00 BENCH GUIDE

SECTION
1.40

Isolation1
The Disease Prevention and Control Law Of 19552

For isolation petitions brought under the Counterterrorism Planning, Preparedness and
Response Act, see Section 1.50.

Summary 

Pennsylvania law authorizes public health authorities3 to order isolation to inhibit the
spread of communicable diseases. No statute, regulation or case law addresses the 
procedures or standards to be used if an individual refuses to comply with a public
health isolation order. Public health authorities may petition the courts to order isolation.
This bench guide is intended to assist common pleas court judges faced with a public
health petition to order isolation.

Generally, isolation, in the public health context, separates persons infected with a 
communicable disease, in a communicable state, from those not infected.

A. Under What Circumstances May Individuals Be Ordered Isolated?

The Disease Prevention and Control Law of 1955 (“DPCL”), authorizes public health authorities to
order an individual isolated if he or she has been infected with a communicable disease and when
isolation is necessary to protect the public from the spread of the communicable disease.4 35 P.S.
§§ 521.5, 521.11(a.1) and 521.16(a)(3)-(5); 28 Pa. Code § 27.60-61. It is likely court action will be
sought if an individual refuses to abide by the public health order for isolation. Pennsylvania law
does not address the procedures or standards to be applied if the public health authority petitions
the court to order isolation.

Note: There is no Pennsylvania law 
establishing what must be alleged or proven

for a court ordered public health isolation.5

1 Isolation: The separation for the period of communicability of infected persons or animals from other persons or animals in

such places and under such conditions as will prevent the direct or indirect transmission of the infectious agent from infected
persons or animals to other persons or animals who are susceptible or who may spread the disease to others. See 35 P.S. §
521.2(e) (definitions). This is distinguished from “quarantine” defined at 35 P.S. § 521.2(i). 

2 The purpose of the Disease Prevention and Control Law of 1955 is “to assign primary responsibility for the prevention and
control of diseases to local health departments, and to institute a system of mandatory reporting, examination, diagnosis,
and treatment of communicable diseases.” Commonwealth v. Moore, 526 Pa. 152, 159, 584 A.2d 936, 940 (1991).

3 For purposes of the Pennsylvania Public Health Law Bench Book, the term “public health authority” includes The

Pennsylvania Department of Health, all County/ Municipal health departments (the health departments authorized by The
Local Health Administration Law (Act 315-16 P.S. § 12001 et seq.) and all local health authorities (the 237 local boards or
departments of health that operate outside of The Local Health Administration Law (Act 315) structure and funding). 

4 Isolation and quarantine are historically-recognized public health techniques used to contain the spread of infectious disease.
See, e.g, Compagnie Francaise de Navigation a Vapeur v. State Board of Health, 186 U.S. 380 (1902) (recognizing the power
of states to institute quarantine to protect their citizens from infectious diseases); Craig v. Kline, 65 Pa. 399 (Pa. 1870). (The
passage of health and quarantine laws is within the reserved power of the states).

Sect 1.40 Isolation under The Disease Prevention and Control Law  pg 1

B. What Must Be Proven To Obtain A Court Ordered Isolation?

There is no Pennsylvania law establishing what must be proven for a court ordered isolation.
Analogy to other provisions of the DPCL may be helpful. For example, to obtain an order for 
involuntary treatment for a communicable disease, the health authority must show:

The person named in the petition is infected with a communicable disease, the person has refused
to be treated and has no valid reason for refusing.6

35 P.S. § 521.11(a.2).

By analogy, it is suggested for a public health authority to obtain a court order for isolation, 
it must show:

1. The person named in the petition has been infected with a communicable disease; and

2. The person refused to be isolated and had no valid reason for refusing.

Although not statutorily required in Pennsylvania, courts in other jurisdictions have only permitted
quarantine when because of the exposure to the disease the person poses a significant threat to
the health and safety of others and there are no lesser restrictive means of protecting the public’s
health.7 Some courts have stated that when a person has not been convicted of a crime, “any
deprivation of his liberty by the state must be the least restrictive means of achieving the purpose
of the deprivation.”8

C. What Is The Procedure Of Obtaining A Court Order For Isolation?

1. Filing a Petition 

There is no Pennsylvania case law, statute or court rule establishing specifically who can bring a
petition to compel isolation or what procedure to follow under the DPCL. However, support 
for the proposition that The Pennsylvania Department of Health, a County/Municipal health

5 However, statutes explicitly or implicitly authorize isolation authority: 16 P.S. §§ 12010-12 (County/Municipal health departments);
16 P.S. § 2185-92 (Third Class counties); 35 P.S. §§ 521.3, 521.5 (State or local health department or board of health); 53
P
.S. §§ 14401-02 (First Class cities); 53 P.S. §§ 24661-75 (Second Class cities); 53 P.S. § 37307 (Third Class cities); 53 P.S. §§
46202(6),(74) and 48105-06 (Boroughs); 53 P.S. §§ 56605-08 (First Class townships); 53 P.S. §§ 68001- 06 (Second Class
townships). Authority may also appear in regulations or ordinances at the local level. See, e.g. Philadelphia Code § 6-204
(isolation and quarantine).

6 This provision is used for analogy because if a public health authority orders an individual to undergo treatment and the 

individual refuses, the public health authority may order that individual isolated. 35 P.S. § 521.11(a.1).

7 See City of Newark v. J.S., 652 A.2d 265, 271-72 (N.J. Super. 1993); Best v. St. Vincent’s Hosp., 2003 W.L. 21518829 at 

* 7-8 (S.D.N.Y. 2003), Report and Recommendations adopted by district court at 2003 WL 21767656, remanded on other
grounds at 2004 WL 2166316 (2nd Cir. 2004). 

8 Hamilton v. Love, 328 F. Supp. 1182, 1192 (D.C. Ark. 1971); City of Newark, 652 A. 2d at 268; Cf. Commonwealth v. Milice,

584 A.2d 997 (Pa. Super. 1991)(least restrictive means in mental health commitment). 

Sect 1.40 Isolation under The Disease Prevention and Control Law  pg 2

department or any local health authority
can bring an action to enforce isolation
under the DPCL is implied in numerous
statutes.9

The respondent will be the person suspected
of being infected with, or carrying, a 
communicable disease.  

Note: If the public health authority is not
The Pennsylvania Department of Health 
or a County/Municipal health department, the
authority must receive approval from The
Pennsylvania Department of Health before 
taking any disease control measure.  28 Pa.
Code §§ 27.1, 27.60(c). 

It is suggested that the procedure for 
obtaining an isolation order would be by petition, similar to the procedures for other public
health actions under the DPCL.  35 P.S. §§ 521.7(2), 521.11(a.2); 35 P.S. § 2140.301(b)(1).

Pennsylvania law does not address this point. By analogy, the court of common pleas of the 
county where an individual is present would have jurisdiction to adjudicate isolation petitions.  
35 P.S. §§ 521.7(2), 521.11(a.2); 28 Pa. Code §§ 27.82(b), 27.87(b).10

2. Jurisdiction  

3. Venue 

The DPCL does not address venue, other than what is stated in the preceding section on 
jurisdiction. Accordingly, the general rules governing venue presumably apply.  Pa. R. Civ. P. 1006.

4. Service and Notice 

The DPCL does not identify service requirements,11 nor does it specify the form of notice in 
public health petitions beyond requiring that the respondent be served with a copy of the 
petition seeking court action. 35 P.S. § 521.11(a.2). Presumably the general rules governing 
service and notice apply,12 and presumably both should be provided to the respondent 
consistent with petition practice under Pa. R. Civ. P. 206 and local rule.13 If the respondent is
incapacitated or an unemancipated minor, that person’s parents or legal guardian are generally
entitled to notice. 

9 35 P.S. §§ 521.3 (Responsibility for disease prevention and control), 521.5 (control measures), 521.7 (medical examinations),

521.11 (involuntary treatment).

10 The courts of common pleas arguably have original jurisdiction pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S. § 931. Accord 35 P.S. § 521.7(2)

(court of common pleas has jurisdiction to order medical testing). The Commonwealth Court may have concurrent 
jurisdiction if a petition is brought by The Pennsylvania Department of Health. 42 Pa. C.S. §§ 761(a)(2) and 761(b).

11 “Service of process is a mechanism by which a court obtains jurisdiction of a defendant, and therefore, the rules concerning

service of process must be strictly followed . . . Thus, improper service is not merely a procedural defect that can be
ignored.” (internal citations omitted). Mayer v. Garman, __ Pa. __ ; __A.2d. __; 2006 WL 2252067,  citing Cintas Corp. v.
Lee’s Cleaning Services, Inc., 549 Pa. 84, 91, 700 A.2d 915 (1997). See also Fraisar v. Gillis, 892 A.2d 74, 77-78 (Pa.
Commw. Ct. 2006) (discussing process service rules).

12 Under the DPCL a hearing must be held on petitions for medical testing and treatment within 24 hours of service. 35 P.S.
§§ 521.7(2) and 521.11(a.2).  Accordingly, expedited service may be appropriate. Additionally, the court may consider 
alternative means of service and notice given the allegation that the respondent may be infected with, or a carrier of, a
highly contagious communicable disease. The legislature contemplated this in the Counterterrorism Planning, Preparedness
and Response Act, (“Counterterrorism Act”) 35 P.S. § 2140.301(b)(3) (notice may be oral or written). For alternative service,
Pa. R. Civ. P. 430. With the notice, it is suggested the respondent be advised of the right to counsel. See § C.5.b, infra.

13 See Pa. R. Civ. P. 440 for service of process under Rule 206.

Sect 1.40 Isolation under The Disease Prevention and Control Law  pg 3

5.  Hearings 

Under the DPCL, to compel medical treat-
ment, a non-jury trial is required to be held
on petitions within 24 hours after service 
on the respondent.  35 P.S. § 521.11(a.2). 
By analogy, petitions to compel isolation
presumably should be heard within 24
hours after service on the respondent.  

a. Burden and Standard of Proof 

Note: If the petitioner is not The
Pennsylvania Department of Health or a
County/Municipal health department, a copy of
the petition and any hearing notices and court
orders should be served upon The Pennsylvania
Department of Health since that entity has the
ultimate authority to protect the health of the
citizens of Pennsylvania.  35 P.S. § 521.3(c); 
71 P.S. § 532(a).  

There is no Pennsylvania law on this
point. By analogy to involuntary civil
commitment under the Mental Health
Procedures Act, the public health 
authority has the burden of proving 
the statutory elements by clear and 
convincing evidence. See In re Hancock, 719 A.2d 1053, 1056-58 (Pa. Super. 1998).14

Note: Presumably, petitions to compel 
isolation under the DPCL should be heard
within 24 hours after service on the respondent

Furthermore, persuasive authority from other jurisdictions and legal scholars suggest the
ADA is applicable to governmental orders compelling liberty restrictions resulting from
public health orders. “The ADA and its regulations require that a health officer seeking to
infringe upon a diseased person’s liberty by imposing detention, confinement, isolation or
quarantine, must first establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that the person poses a
significant risk of transmitting disease to others with serious consequences.”15

b. Right to Counsel  

The DPCL does not address the right to counsel or appointed counsel. However, due
process and case law from other jurisdictions suggest respondents are entitled to be 
represented by counsel, and appointing counsel for the indigent may be necessary.16

c.  Conduct of Hearing 

1. Hearings would be conducted according to the Rules of Civil Procedure. The Rules do
not address taking testimony by telephone or advanced communication technology.
However, in a public health case where the respondent is alleged to have a potentially
dangerous communicable disease, or may already be in isolation or quarantine, the
court may wish to conduct hearings with the aid of a telephone or by using other com-
munication technology (such as two-way simultaneous audio-visual communication).17

14 See also Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (1979) (standard of proof in civil commitment proceedings); City of Newark, 

652 at 271-72 (standard of proof required for involuntary commitment of tuberculosis patient).

15 See e.g., City of Newark, 652 A.2d at 274; see also, Lawrence O. Gostin, The Law and the Public’s Health: A Study of

Infectious Disease Law in the United States, 99 Colum. L. Rev. 59 (Jan. 1999). 

16 The court may need to appoint a public defender to represent indigent respondents. 16 P.S. § 9960.6(a)(11) (appointment

when representation is constitutionally required). Cf. 16 P.S. § 9960.6(c) (appointment of public defender for persons who may
be subject to commitment under the Mental Health and Mental Retardation Act of 1966). Also, under the Counterterrorism
Act, individuals subject to isolation or quarantine are entitled to be represented by counsel and if an individual is without the
financial resources or otherwise unable to employ counsel, the court must appoint counsel. 35 P.S. § 2140.301(b)(4). 

17 Many courthouses, magisterial district judge offices, state and county prisons and health care facilities have simultaneous

audio-visual communication equipment.

Sect 1.40 Isolation under The Disease Prevention and Control Law  pg 4

This method of conducting hearings is contemplated by the Counterterrorism Act.  35 P.S.
§ 2140.301(b)(3). See City of Newark v. J.S., 652 A.2d 265, 268 n.1 (N.J. Super. 1993).18

2. The DPCL does not dictate that hearings be held on the record, but persuasive authority
from other jurisdictions suggests hearings should be on the record.19

D. What Remedies Are Available To The Court?

Under the DPCL, the court may order the respondent to submit to medical treatment if the 
petitioning authority meets its burden.  35 P.S. § 521.11(a.2). Similarly, by analogy, the court may
order the respondent isolated if the petitioning authority meets its burden. There are no guidelines
under Pennsylvania law for the duration of 
an isolation order. The court may need to
determine this on a case-by-case basis. Under
the statutory definition of isolation, 35 P.S. 
§ 521.2(e), it should be for “the period of 
communicability.”20

Note: If ordering a restraint on an 
individual’s liberty the court may wish to 
consider the least restrictive means (“LRM”).24
1. Effective non-invasive forms of testing are

less-restrictive than invasive forms of testing.

Legal commentators have reasoned that the
public health authority must utilize policies that
achieve the public health objective with the
least intrusion on personal rights and free-
doms.21 The rules and regulations employed 
to combat contagious or infectious diseases
must not be unreasonable, nor may they be
enforced unreasonably.22 Quarantine, isolation
and involuntary medical treatment orders must
be “reasonable, humane and not cruel.”23

2. If treatment is ordered, the least restrictive

but effective means should be considered.25
3. If a period of isolation alone will cause the
person to become non-communicable, 
isolation without treatment may be 
appropriate as an LRM.26

4. In the quarantine context, the LRM may

involve ordering someone quarantined at
home rather than at a facility, unless there is
evidence that the individual will not obey a
court order.27 

18 Accord 42 Pa. C.S.. § 5985 (child victims or material witnesses may testify through the use of closed circuit television in 

certain circumstances).

19 See e.g. Greene v. Edwards, 263 S.E.2d 661, 663 (W. Va. 1980). Cf. 50 P.S. § 7304(e)(5) (“On the record” hearings are

required in involuntary treatment petitions under Section 304 of the Mental Health Procedures Act).

20 Under the Counterterrorism Act, the governor’s order of isolation or quarantine may be continued for not more than thirty

(30) days, then further judicial review is required. 35 P.S. § 2140.301(b)(5)-(6).

21 Lawrence O. Gostin, Public Health Law: Power, Duty, Restraint (Berkely: University of California Press & Milbank Memorial

Fund)(2000).

22 See Allentown v. Wagner, 27 Pa. Super. 485 (1905).

23 See Commonwealth ex rel. Ogden v. Cairns, 20 Pa. D. 453, 1911 WL 3741 (Pa. Quar. Sess. 1911). 

24 See City of Newark, 652 A.2d at 272-74; Best, 2003 WL 21518829 at *7-8. If ordering quarantine or isolation, the court
may wish to consider the least restrictive means. This may involve ordering someone restricted to their home rather than 
at a facility, unless there is evidence that the individual will not obey a court order. See e.g. City of New York v. Antoinette R.,
630 N.Y.S.2d 1008, 1011-12 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1995). Quarantine may have several levels. 35 P.S. § 521.2. Quarantine may be
complete or modified. It may involve surveillance or segregation in a facility or at home.

25 For example, would voluntary or mandatory “directly observed treatment” be appropriate for involuntary treatment, or is

commitment to an institution necessary?

Sect 1.40 Isolation under The Disease Prevention and Control Law  pg 5

In addition, to enforce court orders, common pleas court judges may issue preliminary/special or
permanent injunctions.  Pa. R. Civ. P. 1531.28

E.  What Enforcement Mechanisms Are Available To The Court?

1. Prosecution 

While there is no case law for guidance, by statute, any person who violates any provision of the
DPCL, or any regulation issued by the State Advisory Board or ordinances, rules or regulations issued
by a public health authority (including The Pennsylvania Department of Health, any County/Municipal
department of health or local health authority),29 commits a summary offense, punishable by a fine of
not less than twenty-five dollars ($25.00), nor more than three hundred dollars ($300.00), plus costs.
In default of payment, the offender may be sentenced to county jail for thirty (30) days.  35 P.S. §
521.20(a).   

Prosecutions may be initiated by The Pennsylvania Department of Health, a County/ Municipal health
department or a local health authority, or by any person having knowledge of a violation of any 
provision of the DPCL or its accompanying regulations. 35 P.S. § 521.20(b).30

2. Contempt  

Violation of a court order, such as an order of quarantine, and violation of an injunction, may
expose the violator to contempt. The court possesses the inherent authority to enforce court
orders by way of the power of contempt. See generally, Commonwealth v. Bowden, 576 Pa.
151, 184-86, 838 A.2d 740 (2003). 

. May The Court Order Pre-Hearing Detention?
F

A public health authority may seek an order authorizing the isolation of an individual or group
under the DPCL pending a hearing. There is no case law to offer guidance on this question. 

26 If isolation is required, for how long will the respondent be isolated? Must the person be isolated for the full course of 

treatment? Can the person be isolated at home, or is a more restrictive environment, such as a facility or hospital required?
See, e.g., Antoinette R., supra, at note 12; City of Newark, 652 A.2d at 272-74; Best, 2003 WL 21518829 at *7-8.

27 If quarantine is required, for how long will the respondent be quarantined? Can the person be quarantined at home, or is a
more restrictive environment required  See e.g., Antoinette R., supra, at note 12; City of Newark, 652 A. 2d at 272-74; Best,
2003 WL 21518829 at *7-8.

28 Injunctive relief may be appropriate in the public health context. See e.g. Commonwealth ex. rel. Preate v. Danny’s New

Adam and Eve Bookstore, 625 A.2d 119 (Pa. Commw. 1993) (preliminary injunction issued because of on going threat to
public health).

29 The DPCL defines local health authority as the board of health or the department of public health of a city, borough, 

incorporated town or township of the first class, or a county department of health, or joint county department of health. 
35 P.S. § 521.2. 

30 In addition, under the Local Health Administration Law, 16 P.S. §§  12001 - 12028, any person who violates this law, or 
any rule or regulation of the County/Municipal health departments or who interferes with a health director or any agent 
of a County/Municipal health department in the discharge of official duties, convicted of a second or subsequent offense,
commits a misdemeanor, and upon conviction, may be fined not less than five hundred dollars ($500.00), nor more than
one thousand dollars ($1,000.00), imprisoned for up to one year, or both. 16 P.S. § 12027(b). Also, separate penalty 
provisions exist for communicable tuberculosis. 35 P.S. § 521.19(a). 

Sect 1.40 Isolation under The Disease Prevention and Control Law  pg 6

By analogy, the Counterterrorism Act contemplates pre-hearing isolation.  35 P.S. § 2140.301(a).
Also, Pennsylvania statutes authorize a public health authority to order individuals isolated 
without court approval.  35 P.S. § 521.11(a.1) and 28 Pa. Code § 27.87(a) (the public health
authority may cause an individual who has refused to submit to treatment for a communicable
disease to be isolated “until the disease has been rendered non-communicable.”).

Neither the statutes nor the regulations above have been tested in the courts, however they may
provide some guidance, or a basis for the court to order pre-hearing isolation.

Presumably, if the public health authority has made a prima facie showing of the existence of 
a dangerous communicable disease and a substantial threat to others or the community if the
individual is not isolated, and if there is no lesser-restrictive means of protecting the public’s health,
the court may order the respondent isolated pending hearing and disposition of the petition.31

G. Who Is Responsible For Costs?

Regarding the costs potentially associated with isolation, three provisions of the DPCL address costs. 

35 P.S. § 521.7(2) provides that the respondent must pay the expenses related to having the 
physician of his or her choice conduct an examination. 

35 P.S. § 521.9 requires The Pennsylvania Department of Health to provide or designate facilities for
the free diagnosis, testing and treatment of venereal disease. County/Municipal health departments
and local health authorities can undertake these expenses with the approval of The Pennsylvania
Department of Health, and they may do so, with or without financial assistance from The Pennsylvania
Department of Health. 

35 P.S. § 521.11(b) provides that public health authorities must reimburse institutions that 
receive individuals who are ordered isolated or quarantined for safekeeping and treatment for a
venereal disease.  

Presumably, the governmental authority seeking isolation must pay expenses related to the isolation.32

31 For cases from other jurisdictions discussing limitations of personal freedom in a public health context and due process
requirements, see Best v. St. Vincent’s Hosp., 2003 W.L. 21518829 (S.D.N.Y. 2003), Report and Recommendations 
adopted by district court at 2003 WL 21767656, remanded on other grounds at 2004 WL 2166316 (2nd Cir. 2004); New
York v. Antoinette R., 630 N.Y.S.2d 1008 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1995); City of Newark v. J.S., 652 A.2d 265 (N.J. Super. 1993);
Greene v. Edwards, 263 S.E.2d 661 (W.Va. 1980); Reynolds v. McNichols, 488 F.2d 1378 (10th Cir. 1973). See also 7
McQuillin Mun. Corp. § 24.235 (3rd Ed).

32 See e.g. Commonwealth v. Irwin, 1904 WL 2601 (CCP Venango, 1904) and Zellner v. Allentown, 18 C.C. 162; 1896 WL
3663 (Lehigh County C.C.P. 1896) (the governmental unit ordering isolation or quarantine has a duty to furnish food and
other necessities during the period of quarantine if the individuals so restricted cannot afford these items themselves.

Sect 1.40 Isolation under The Disease Prevention and Control Law  pg 7

SECTION 1.00 BENCH GUIDE

SECTION
1.50

Quarantine and Isolation1
The Counterterrorism Planning, Preparedness and Response Act

For quarantine petitions brought under the Disease Prevention and Control Law of 1955,
see Section 1.30.
For isolation petitions brought under the Disease Prevention
and Control Law of 1955, see Section 1.40.

Summary 

The Counterterrorism Planning, Preparedness and Response Act2 (“Counterterrorism
Act”) enacted in 2002, gives the Governor the authority to order the temporary isolation
or quarantine of individuals or groups in certain circumstances. The Counterterrorism 
Act provides judicial review of the Governor’s order.3 No cases have been decided under
the Counterterrorism Act. This bench guide is intended to offer suggestions to judges
deciding petitions filed under the Counterterrorism Act.

A. Under What Circumstances May Individuals Be Ordered Quarantined?

Under the Counterterrorism Act, the Governor4 may order an individual or group of individuals
temporarily isolated or quarantined if: (1) There is an actual or suspected outbreak of a contagious

1 Quarantine: “The limitation of freedom of movement of persons or animals who have been exposed to a communicable 

disease for a period of time equal to the longest usual incubation period of the disease in such manner as to prevent 
effective contact with those not so exposed. Quarantine may be complete . . . modified . . . or it may consist merely of 
surveillance or segregation.” 35 P.S. § 521.2(i) (definitions).  

Isolation: The separation for the period of communicability of infected persons or animals from other persons or animals in
such places and under such conditions as will prevent the direct or indirect transmission of the infectious agent from infect-
ed persons or animals to other persons or animals who are susceptible or who may spread the disease to others. 35 P.S. §
521.2(e) (definitions). 

Under the Counterterrorism Act, quarantine or isolation may be sought or ordered for one or more individuals, or arguably
for an entire geographic area. 35 P.S. § 2140.301(a).  For a general discussion of large scale quarantines, see Joseph
Barbera, MD, et al., Large-Scale Quarantine Following Biological Terrorism in the United States: Scientific Examination,
Logistic and Legal Limits, and Possible Consequences, 286 JAMA 2711, 2712 (December 5, 2001). See also Commonwealth
ex re. Ogden v. Cairns, 20 Pa. D. 453, 1911 WL 3741 (Philadelphia Clerk of Quar. Sess., 1911), aff’d 46 Pa. Super 96
(1911)(habeas corpus challenging quarantine of a district of the city of Philadelphia denied).

A “cordon sanitaire” is the quarantining of an entire geographic area, such as a city or a town. See Lawrence O. Gostin,
Symposium Article: Part 1: Public Health: Pandemic Influenza: Public Health Preparedness for the Next Global Health
Emergency, 32 J.L. Med. & Ethics 565 (Winter 2004); Daniel Markovits, Symposium: Expert Testimony: Bridging Bioethics
and Evidence Law: Independent Article: Quarantine and Distributive Justice, 33 J.L. Med. & Ethics 323, 324 (Summer 2005). 

2 35 P.S. § 2140.301.

3 35 P.S. § 2140.301(b).

4 The Counterterrorism Act gives authority to the Governor, “in consultation with the Secretary of Health.”  35 P.S. § 2140.301(a).

Sect 1.50 Quarantine and Isolation under The Counterterrorism Planning, Preparedness and Response Act pg 1

disease or epidemic due to an actual or suspected bioterrorist or biohazardous event;5 and, (2) if 
a delay in imposing isolation or quarantine through judicial proceedings available to public health
authorities would significantly jeopardize The Pennsylvania Department of Health’s ability to 
prevent or limit the transmission of the disease to others. A declaration of a disaster emergency 
is not necessary for the Governor’s order to be effective.6

To continue the Governor’s order for quarantine or isolation, judicial review is required. There is no
Pennsylvania case law or regulations interpreting the Counterterrorism Act.

B. What Must Be Proven For The Court To Continue The Governor’s

Quarantine Or Isolation Order?

Nothing in the Counterterrorism Act provides guidance to the court to help determine if an 
isolation or quarantine order should be continued. Likewise, there is no Pennsylvania case law
establishing what must be proven for a court-ordered quarantine or isolation under the Disease
Prevention and Control Law of 1955 (“DPCL”), 35 P.S. § 521.1, et seq.

By analogy to DPCL provisions, to obtain an order for involuntary testing or involuntary treatment
for communicable diseases, the public health authority must show:

The person named in the petition was exposed to (or infected with) a communicable disease, 
the person has refused to be tested (or treated) and has no valid reason for refusing.7

Based on this analogy, it is suggested for a public health authority to obtain a court-order to 
continue an isolation or quarantine under the Counterterrorism Act, it must show:

The person or persons named in the petition have been exposed to or infected with a 
communicable disease.8

5 The Counterterrorism Act only becomes effective if there is a suspected bioterrorist or biohazardous event. It is not clear if
this Act would be triggered in the event of a natural outbreak of pandemic influenza or severe acute respiratory syndrome
(SARS). Biohazardous event is not defined in the statute. The court may need to decide if this statute is implicated when
there is no actual or suspected terrorist activity. For the court’s information: “Biohazard: A biological or chemical agent or
substance that is harmful or endangers life; this includes pathogenic organism (i.e., organisms which cause disease). A
Dictionary of Public Health (J.M. Last ed., 2007). 

6 35 P.S. § 2140.301(a).

7 These provisions are used for analogy because if a public health authority orders an individual to undergo testing and the
individual refuses, the public health authority may order that individual quarantined.  35 P.S. § 521.7(1). If a public health
authority orders an individual to undergo treatment and the individual refuses, the public health authority may order that
individual isolated.  35 P.S. § 521.11(a.1).

8 The Counterterrorism Act makes no mention of refusal to cooperate with an isolation or quarantine order being a prerequisite

to court action. Compare with 35 P.S. §§ 521.7(1) and 521.11(a.1) (prior refusal to cooperate with public health orders is an
implied prerequisite to court action).

Sect 1.50 Quarantine and Isolation under The Counterterrorism Planning, Preparedness and Response Act pg 2

Although not statutorily required in Pennsylvania, courts in other jurisdictions have only permitted
quarantine or isolation when because of illness with or exposure to the disease the person poses a
significant threat to the health and safety of others and there are no lesser restrictive means of
protecting the public’s health.9 Some courts have stated that when a person has not been convict-
ed of a crime, “any deprivation of his liberty by the state must be the least restrictive means of
achieving the purpose of the deprivation.”10

C. What Is The Procedure For Obtaining A Court Order To Continue 

Isolation Or Quarantine Under The Counterterrorism Act?

1. Filing a Petition 

Under the Counterterrorism Act, authority to petition to maintain an isolation or quarantine is
vested in The Pennsylvania  Department of Health and in County/Municipal health departments.11 

The respondent will be the person or group suspected of being infected with, or carrier(s) of, a
communicable disease.12

The Counterterrorism Act does not address this point. It only directs that petitions be filed “with
the court.”  By analogy, the court of common pleas of the county where an individual is present
has jurisdiction to adjudicate petitions for involuntary medical testing and treatment under the
DPCL.13

2. Jurisdiction 

3. Venue 

The Counterterrorism Act does not address venue, accordingly the general rules governing
venue apply.  Pa. R. Civ. P. 1006.

9 See City of Newark v. J.S., 652 A.2d 265, 271-72 (N.J. Super. 1993); Best v. St. Vincent’s Hosp., 2003 W.L. 21518829 at 

* 7-8 (S.D.N.Y. 2003), Report and Recommendations adopted by district court at 2003 WL 21767656, remanded on other
grounds at 2004 WL 2166316 (2nd Cir. 2004). 

10 Hamilton v. Love, 328 F. Supp. 1182, 1192 (D.C. Ark. 1971); City of Newark, supra at 268; Cf. Commonwealth v. Milice,

584 A.2d 997 (Pa. Super. 1991)(least restrictive means in mental health commitment). 

11 Based on the language of the Counterterrorism Act and the definitions in 35 P.S. § 2140.102, only The Pennsylvania

Department of Health and health departments created or authorized under the Local Health Administration Law, 16 P.S. 
§§ 12001 - 12028 (i.e., the County/Municipal health departments) may file a petition to continue the Governor’s isolation or
quarantine order. 

12 The Counterterrorism Act does not address incapacitated persons or minors as parties.

13 35 P.S. §§ 521.7(2) and 521.11(a.2). In addition, the courts of common pleas presumably have original jurisdiction pursuant

to 42 Pa. C.S. § 931. The Commonwealth Court may have concurrent jurisdiction if a petition is brought by The
Pennsylvania Department of Health.  42 Pa. C.S. §§ 761(a)(2) and 761(b).

Sect 1.50 Quarantine and Isolation under The Counterterrorism Planning, Preparedness and Response Act pg 3

4. Service and Notice   

The Counterterrorism Act does not identify service requirements,14 nor does it specify the form
of notice other than requiring that the respondent(s) receive “[r]easonable notice, either oral or
written, stating the time, place and purpose of the hearing.”15

The general rules governing service and notice apply16 and both should be provided to the
respondent consistent with petition practice under Pa. R. Civ. P. 206 and local rule.17 If the
respondent is incapacitated or an unemancipated minor, that person’s parents or legal
guardian(s) are generally entitled to notice.  

5. Hearings   

A hearing must be held on a petition to isolate or quarantine within 72-hours after the filing of
the petition to continue the isolation or quarantine.  35 P.S. § 2140.301(b)(2). 

a. Burden and Standard of Proof 

There is nothing in the Counterterrorism Act or in Pennsylvania law on this point.  By 
analogy to involuntary civil commitment under the Mental Health Procedures Act, the
public health authority has the burden of proving the statutory elements by clear and 
convincing evidence. See In re Hancock, 719 A.2d 1053, 1056-58 (Pa. Super. 1998).18

Furthermore, persuasive authority from other jurisdictions and legal scholars suggest the
ADA is applicable to governmental orders compelling liberty restrictions resulting from
public health orders. “The ADA and its regulations require that a health officer seeking to
infringe upon a diseased person’s liberty by imposing detention, confinement, isolation or
quarantine, must first establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that the person poses 
a significant risk of transmitting disease to others with serious consequences.”19

14 “Service of process is a mechanism by which a court obtains jurisdiction of a defendant, and therefore, the rules concerning
service of process must be strictly followed . . . Thus, improper service is not merely a procedural defect that can be ignored
. . . ” (internal citations omitted). Mayer v. Garman, __ Pa. __ ; __A.2d. __; 2006 WL 2252067, citing Cintas Corp. v. Lee’s
Cleaning Services, Inc., 549 Pa. 84, 91 700 A.2d 915 (1997). See also Fraisar v. Gillis, 892 A.2d 74, 77-78 (Pa. Commw.
2006) (discussing process service rules).

15 35 P.S. § 2140.301(b)(3). In addition, the court may consider alternative means of service and notice given the allegation

that the respondent may be infected with, or a carrier of, a highly contagious communicable disease. For alternative service,
Pa. R. Civ. P. 430. With the notice, the respondent should be advised of the right to counsel.  35 P.S. § 2140.301(b)(4).

16 Under the Counterterrorism Act, petitions to continue a quarantine or isolation order must be filed within 24 hours or the

next business day after the issuance of the Governor’s order.  35 P.S. § 2140.301(b)(1). A hearing must be held on petitions
within 72 hours after the filing of the petition.  35 P.S. § 2140.301(b)(2). Accordingly, expedited service may be appropriate.
Additionally, the court may consider alternative means of service and notice given the allegation that the respondent may be
infected with, or a carrier of, a highly contagious communicable disease. For alternative service,  Pa. R. Civ. P. 430. With the
notice, it is suggested the respondent be advised of the right to counsel.  See § C.5.b, infra.

17 See Pa. R. Civ. P. 440 for service of process under Rule 206.

18 See also Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (1979) (standard of proof in civil commitment proceedings); City of Newark, 

652 A.2d at 271-72 (standard of proof required for involuntary commitment of tuberculosis patient).

19 See e.g., City of Newark, 652 A.2d at 274 see also, Lawrence O. Gostin, The Law and the Public’s Health: A Study of

Infectious Disease Law in the United States, 99 Colum. L. Rev. 59 (Jan. 1999). 

Sect 1.50 Quarantine and Isolation under The Counterterrorism Planning, Preparedness and Response Act pg 4

b. Right to Counsel  

c.  Conduct of Hearing 

The Counterterrorism Act provides that isolated or quarantined individuals have the right
to counsel or appointed counsel.  35 P.S. § 2140.301(b)(4).20

1. The Counterterrorism Act states hearings may be conducted through the use of closed

circuit television.  35 P.S. § 2140.301(b)(3). There is no case law on this point. 

Hearings would be conducted according to the Rules of Civil Procedure. The Rules do
not address taking testimony by telephone or advanced communication technology.
However, in a public health case where the respondent is alleged to have a potentially
dangerous communicable disease, or may already be in isolation or quarantine, the court
may wish to conduct hearings with the aid of a telephone or by using other communica-
tion technology (such as two-way simultaneous audio-visual communication).21 This
method of conducting hearings is contemplated by the Counterterrorism Act.  35 P.S. §
2140.301(b)(3). See City of Newark v. J.S., 652 A.2d 265, 268 n.1 (N.J. Super. 1993).22

2. The DPCL does not dictate that hearings be held on the record, but persuasive authority

from other jurisdictions suggests hearings should be on the record.23

D. What Remedies Are Available To The Court?

Under the Counterterrorism Act, the court may continue the governor’s order of isolation or 
quarantine for up to thirty (30) days before additional judicial review is required.  35 P.S. §
2140.301(b)(5)-(6).

If quarantine or isolation is ordered, the public health authority must provide the court with 
ongoing reports.24

Under the DPCL, the court may order the respondent to submit to medical testing or treatment
if the public health authority meets its burden.25 Similarly, by analogy, the court may order the
respondent quarantined or isolated under the Counterterrorism Act if the petitioning authority

20 The court may need to appoint a public defender to represent indigent respondents.  16 P.S. § 9960.6(a)(11) (appointment
when representation is constitutionally required). Cf. 16 P.S. § 9960.6(c) (appointment of public defender for persons who
may be subject to commitment under the Mental Health and Mental Retardation Act of 1966). 

21 Many courthouses, magisterial district judge offices, state and county prisons and health care facilities have simultaneous

22 Accord 42 Pa. C.S. § 5985 (child victims or material witnesses may testify through the use of closed circuit television in 

23 See e.g. Greene v. Edwards, 263 S.E.2d 661, 663 (W. Va. 1980). Cf. 50 P.S. § 7304(e)(5) (“On the record” hearings are

required in involuntary treatment petitions under Section 304 of the Mental Health Procedures Act).

audio-visual communication equipment.

certain circumstances).

24 35 P.S. § 2140.301(b)(7).

25 35 P.S. §§ 521.7(2) and 521.11(a.2).

Sect 1.50 Quarantine and Isolation under The Counterterrorism Planning, Preparedness and Response Act pg 5

meets its burden. There are no guidelines under Pennsylvania law for the duration of a quarantine
or isolation order. The court may need to determine this on a case-by-case basis. Under the 
statutory definition of quarantine in the DPCL, 35 P.S. § 521.2(i), it should be for “a period of time
equal to the longest usual incubation period of the disease in such manner as to prevent effective
contact with those not so exposed.” Similarly, isolation should be continued for the “period of
communicability.”  35 P.S. § 521.2(e). 

Legal commentators have reasoned that the
public health authority must utilize policies
that achieve the public health objective with 
the least intrusion on personal rights and 
freedoms.”26 The rules and regulations
employed to combat contagious or infectious
diseases must not be unreasonable, nor may
they be enforced unreasonably.27 Quarantine,
isolation and involuntary medical treatment
orders must be “reasonable, humane and 
not cruel.”28

In addition, to enforce court orders, common
pleas court judges may issue preliminary/
special or permanent injunctions.  Pa. R. 
Civ. P. 1531.33

Note: If ordering a restraint on an individ-
ual’s liberty the court may wish to consider

the least restrictive means (“LRM”).29
1. Effective non-invasive forms of testing may be
less-restrictive than invasive forms of testing.
2.If treatment is ordered, the least restrictive but

effective means should be considered.30
3.If a period of isolation alone will cause the
person to become non-communicable, 
isolation without treatment may be 
appropriate as an LRM.31

4.In the quarantine context, the LRM may

involve ordering someone quarantined at
home rather than at a facility, unless there is
evidence that the individual will not obey a
court order.32

26 Lawrence O. Gostin, Public Health Law: Power, Duty, Restraint (Berkely: University of California Press & Milbank Memorial

Fund)(2000). 

27 Allentown v. Wagner, 27 Pa. Super. 485 (1905).

28 See Commonwealth ex rel. Ogden v. Cairns, 20 Pa. D. 453, 1911 WL 3741 (Pa. Quar. Sess. 1911). 

29 See City of Newark, 652 A.2d at 272-74; Best, 2003 WL 21518829 at *7-8. If ordering quarantine or isolation, the court

may wish to consider the least restrictive means. This may involve ordering someone restricted to their home rather than at
a facility, unless there is evidence that the individual will not obey a court order. See, e.g. City of New York v. Antoinette R.,
630 N.Y.S.2d 1008, 1011-12 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1995). Quarantine may have several levels.  35 P.S. § 521.2 Quarantine may be
complete or modified. It may involve surveillance or segregation in a facility or at home.

30 For example, would voluntary or mandatory “directly observed treatment” be appropriate for involuntary treatment, or is

commitment to an institution necessary?

31 If isolation is required, for how long will the respondent be isolated? Must the person be isolated for the full course of 

treatment? Can the person be isolated at home, or is a more restrictive environment, such as a facility or hospital required?
See, e.g., Antoinette R., supra, at note 14; City of Newark, supra at 272-74; Best, 2003 WL 21518829 at *7-8.

32 If quarantine is required, for how long will the respondent be quarantined? Can the person be quarantined at home, or 

is a more restrictive environment required  See, e.g., Antoinette R., supra, at note 14; City of Newark, 652 A.2d at 272-74;
Best, 2003 WL 21518829 at *7-8.

33 Injunctive relief may be appropriate in the public health context. See e.g. Commonwealth ex. rel. Preate v. Danny’s New

Adam and Eve Bookstore, 625 A.2d 119 (Pa. Commw. 1993) (preliminary injunction issued because of ongoing threat to
public health).

Sect 1.50 Quarantine and Isolation under The Counterterrorism Planning, Preparedness and Response Act pg 6

E. What Enforcement Mechanisms Are Available To The Court?

The Counterterrorism Act does not provide any special enforcement mechanisms. Enforcement
mechanisms generally available to the courts include: 

Contempt  

Violation of a court order, such as an order of quarantine, and violation of an injunction, may
expose the violator to contempt. The court possesses the inherent authority to enforce court
orders by way of the power of contempt. See generally, Commonwealth v. Bowden, 576 Pa.
151, 184-86, 838 A.2d 740 (2003).34

. Who Is Responsible For Costs?
F

The Counterterrorism Act does not address this question. 

The DPCL however, addresses costs for isolation and quarantine in the following provisions: 

35 P.S. § 521.7(2) provides that the respondent must pay the expenses related to having the 
physician of his or her choice conduct an examination. 

35 P.S. § 521.9 requires The Pennsylvania Department of Health to provide or designate facilities
for the free diagnosis, testing and treatment of venereal disease. County/Municipal health 
departments and local health authorities can undertake these expenses with the approval of The
Pennsylvania Department of Health, and they may do so, with or without financial assistance from
The Pennsylvania Department of Health. 

35 P.S. § 521.11(b) provides that public health authorities must reimburse institutions that receive
individuals who are ordered isolated or quarantined for safekeeping and treatment for a venereal
disease.  

Presumably, the public health authority seeking the isolation or quarantine must pay expenses
related to these measures.35

34 For cases from other jurisdictions discussing limitations on personal freedom in a public health context and due process
requirements, see Best v. St. Vincent’s Hosp., 2003 W.L. 21518829 at (S.D.N.Y. 2003), Report and Recommendations 
adopted by district court at 2003 WL 21767656, remanded on other grounds at 2004 WL 2166316 (2nd Cir. 2004); New
York v. Antoinette R., 630 N.Y.S.2d 1008 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1995); City of Newark v. J.S., 652 A.2d 265 (N.J. Super. 1993);
Greene v. Edwards, 263 S.E.2d 661 (W.Va. 1980); Reynolds v. McNichols, 488 F.2d 1378 (10th Cir. 1973). See also 7
McQuillin Mun. Corp. § 24.235 (3rd Ed).

35 See e.g. Commonwealth v. Irwin, 1904 WL 2601 (CCP Venango, 1904) and Zellner v. Allentown, 18 C.C. 162; 1896 WL
3663 (Lehigh County C.C.P. 1896) (the governmental unit ordering isolation or quarantine has a duty to furnish food and
other necessities during the period of quarantine if the individuals so restricted cannot afford these items themselves.

Sect 1.50 Quarantine and Isolation under The Counterterrorism Planning, Preparedness and Response Act pg 7

SECTION 1.00 BENCH GUIDE

SECTION
1.60

Searches of Property

Summary 

Government authorities may wish to conduct inspections of property for public health
purposes.  Pursuant to the Disease Prevention and Control Law of 1955 (“DPCL”), health
authorities may wish to inspect property during the course of investigating a suspected
case or outbreak of a communicable disease.  In addition, a government agency may
wish to inspect property to ensure compliance with sanitary standards.  General health
statutes provide health authorities with authorization to enter and inspect property.
However, the Fourth Amendment and Pennsylvania Constitution article I, section 8 
apply and if an individual refuses consent or prevents a public health authority from
conducting a search, a warrant supported by probable cause is required.

A. Under What Circumstances May The Court Order A Search Of Private

Property For Public Health Purposes?

Pennsylvania statues give public health authorities broad powers to search private property.  
There may be situations, such as when a property owner refuses permission to search, when 
public health authorities may come to court to seek a search warrant or court order authorizing
the search.  

1. DPCL Searches: In the course of investigating a suspected case or outbreak1 of a 

communicable disease,2 a nuisance, or “questions affecting the security of life and health,”
public health authorities3 may enter and inspect private property. 71 P.S. § 532(b) (describing
the general inspection powers of The Pennsylvania Department of Health); 28 Pa. Code §
27.152 (describing the investigation powers of public health authorities regarding cases or 
outbreaks of communicable diseases pursuant to the DPCL).4

1 “Case” and “outbreak” are defined at 28 Pa. Code § 27.1. 

2 “Communicable disease” defined at 35 P.S. § 521.2. 

3 For purposes of the Pennsylvania Public Health Law Bench Book, the term “public health authorities” include The

Pennsylvania Department of Health, all County/Municipal departments of health (the health departments authorized by 
The Local Health Administration Law (Act 315 – 16 P.S. § 12001 et seq.) and all local health authorities (the 237 local boards
or departments of health that operate outside of the Local Health Administration Law (Act 315) structure and funding).

4 These inspection powers also extend to the review of medical records. 28 Pa. Code § 27.152(c).

Sect 1.60 Searches of Property  pg 1

Neither the DPCL nor its companion regulations refer to an administrative search warrant5 or to
a procedure for obtaining a warrant.6 While there is no case law imposing a warrant requirement
within the context of the DPCL specifically,7 the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and
article I, section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution require a warrant supported by probable
cause before searching private property8 in the absence of consent or emergency circumstances.9

2. Sanitary Standards Searches: Inspections to ensure compliance with sanitary standards are
usually governed by the specific statutes authorizing them.  Some statutes make reference to 
a warrant while others do not.  Regardless of whether or not a specific provision mentions a 
warrant, since inspections are searches of private property conducted by government actors,
Fourth Amendment and article I, section 8 analysis is appropriate.10 Conversely, even where 
a provision contains directions for obtaining a warrant and includes criteria for determining 
probable cause, it does not necessarily follow that the statutory scheme meets constitutional
requirements.11

3. Injunctions. Another possible way that a public health search issue might come before the
court is if a health authority seeks an injunction to compel an individual to allow a search.  

B. What Is The Procedure For Issuing A Warrant/Order To Search Private

Property For Public Health Purposes?

DPCL Searches. Neither the DPCL nor its accompanying regulations provide any procedure for
obtaining a search warrant. Accordingly, the court may find it useful to borrow from the Rules of
Criminal Procedure or other heath and safety related statutes for guidance.12

5 An administrative search warrant allows government officials to inspect premises for health and safety purposes.  See

Commonwealth v. Tobin, 828 A.2d 415, 419 (Pa. Commw. 2003).

6 Since neither the DPCL nor its regulations provide any procedure for obtaining an administrative warrant, the following 
procedure has been adapted from criminal warrant procedures and statutes governing inspections to ensure compliance
with sanitary standards that contain administrative warrant procedures.

7 If a court finds that a statutory provision provides a lower standard than that provided by constitutional law it may find that

provision invalid.  See Commonwealth v. Ickes, 582 Pa. 561, 568, 873 A.2d 698 (2005) (invalidating a provision of the 
Game Code that gave Game Officers the power to stop any person at any time and demand identification without 
reasonable suspicion).

8 See Camara v. Municipal Court of San Francisco, 387 U.S. 523, 528-29 (1967) (“[E]xcept in certain carefully defined classes

of cases, a search of private property without proper consent is ‘unreasonable’ unless it has been authorized by a valid 
search warrant.”); Maffucci v. City of Philadelphia, 1999 WL 320940, *3 - 5 (administrative searches of homes must first be
validated by a warrant, and a violation of the warrant requirement under Camara would also constitute a violation of Pa.
Const. art. I, § 8). See also 28A Standard Pennsylvania Practice 2d, §§ 139:34 - 36 (administrative search and seizure).

9 See Camara, 387 U.S. at 539-40 (warrant may not be required in emergency situations).

10 See generally Camara, 387 U.S at 534-40; Maffucci, 1999 WL 320940 at *3. See also Smith v. Borough of Glenolden, 1994

WL 672618 (E.D. Pa. 1994).

constitutionality.

11 See Ickes, 582 Pa. at 568. To date, none of the administrative search provisions have been tested in court to determine their

12 35 P.S. § 780-124(d) (administrative inspection warrants under the Controlled Substances, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act). 

Sect 1.60 Searches of Property  pg 2

Sanitary Standards Searches. Presumably, if the search is to be conducted pursuant to a specific
sanitary standards statute authorizing the issuance of a warrant, the procedural requirements 
outlined in that statute would be followed.  While a few sanitary standards inspection statutes
provide some guidance for the court, many do not contain procedures on matters such as the
content of the application for the warrant and the warrant itself, execution and return of the 
warrant, inventory, etc.  For these reasons, the court may find it useful to look to the Rules of
Criminal Procedure for guidance.13

If the court chooses to look to the Rules of Criminal Procedure or other safety related statutes for
guidance, these authorities, as applied to public health cases, may need to be adapted to the 
particular exigencies such cases may present.  Some of the criminal and administrative requirements
in other statutes may not be practicable in the public health setting, particularly during a rapidly-
developing emergency.

1. Filing The Application For The Warrant

Under the DPCL, the public health authority will be the party seeking to search private property
to investigate a suspected case or outbreak of a communicable disease.  28 Pa. Code § 27.152.

In the sanitary standards search context, the entity with authority to seek an administrative 
warrant will vary depending upon the statute authorizing the search.14 For this reason, the 
court may wish to require the entity seeking the warrant to cite the statute under which it is
proceeding so the court can verify that it is the proper party.

2. Notice  

Although in the criminal context a search warrant may be issued ex parte, in the absence of
emergency or extraordinary circumstances, the court may wish to order an adversarial hearing to
determine the necessity of a search for public health purposes, and to afford the property owner
notice and an opportunity to object.15 The reasons for an ex parte proceeding before issuing a
warrant in the criminal context may not exist in a public health case.

13 But see cautionary comment in note 7, supra.

14 In some instances the Department of Environmental Resources is the proper party.  35 P.S. § 721.1. (Safe Drinking Water

Act); 35 P.S. § 4013.1 (Air Pollution Control Act); 35 P.S. § 6018.609 (Solid Waste Management Act); 35 P.S. § 6020.1106
(Hazardous Site Cleanup Act).  In other instances it may be the Secretary of The Pennsylvania Department of Health or his or
her designated officers or employees. 35 P.S. § 780-101. (Controlled Substances, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act.)

15 In discussing searches of an uncharged person, it has been held that a pre warrant hearing is required. See e.g. Matter of
Lavigne, 641 N.E.2d 1328 (Mass. 1994)(uncharged person from whom state sought blood sample as evidence of a crime
was entitled to a pre-search hearing); State v. Lawson, 453 A.2d 556 (N.J. Super 1982)(adversarial hearing conducted before
court-ordered removal of a bullet from a criminal suspect). Accord Maffucci, 1999 WL 320940 *1-2 (when Philadelphia
License and Inspection officers were denied entry into a private residence because they did not obtain a prior warrant, an
adversarial hearing was conducted to determine whether a court order compelling the inspection should issue). 

Sect 1.60 Searches of Property  pg 3

3. Content of the Application for a Warrant 

The statute governing the search may set forth what the application must contain. For example,
an application for a search warrant under the Controlled Substances, Drug, Device and Cosmetic
Act should contain a sworn affidavit from a designated officer or employee of the particular
agency seeking the warrant having knowledge of the facts alleged, sworn before the issuing
authority establishing grounds for the warrant.16 In the absence of explicit guidance, the court
may wish to borrow from this statute or the Rules of Criminal Procedure to fill in these gaps.17

There is no provision in the DPCL stating who may issue a warrant; however, by analogy to the
rules governing the issuance of criminal search warrants, it would appear to be any issuing
authority18 within the judicial district where the person or place that is the subject of the search 
is located.19

Neither the DPCL nor the other public health search provisions specify a particular venue,
accordingly general rules governing venue should apply.  Pa. R. Civ. P. 1006.

In the absence of an emergency or extraordinary situation, the court may wish to conduct an
adversarial hearing to determine if a search warrant should issue.20

In emergency situations, an application for a search warrant may presumably be brought ex
parte as in the criminal context.21 Any oral testimony in support of the application should be
reduced to an affidavit prior to issuance of the warrant.22 

4. Jurisdiction 

5. Venue 

6. Hearing 

16 35 P.S. § 780-124(d)(2) (stating requirements for application for warrant under the (Controlled Substances, Drug, Device and

Cosmetic Act.)

17 Pa. R. Crim. P. 200-211; but see cautionary comment in note 7, supra.

18 Under the criminal rules an “issuing authority” is defined as “[a]ny public official having the authority of a magistrate, a

Philadelphia bail commissioner, or a magisterial district judge.”  Pa. R. Crim. P. 103.  Justices of the Supreme Court, Judges
of the Superior and Commonwealth Courts, and common pleas Judges all have the power to issue search warrants.  Pa. R.
Crim. P. 200 Comment.  Appellate Court Justices and Judges have the power to issue search warrants anywhere within
Pennsylvania while common pleas Judges may issue search warrants within their judicial district.  Id.  A magisterial district
judge may issue a warrant to search a person or place outside of his or her magisterial district as long as the person or place
is within the judicial district.  See Commonwealth v. Ryan, 484 Pa. 602, 400 A.2d 1264 (1979).

19 Pa. R. Crim. P. 200 (stating who may issue a search warrant).  Support for the foregoing interpretation is also provided in
sanitary standards statutes. 35 P.S. § 721.5(g) (Safe Drinking Water Act); 35 P.S. § 780-124(d)(1) (Controlled Substances,
Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act); 35 P.S. § 4013.1 (Air Pollution Control Act); 35 P.S. § 6018.609 (Solid Waste Management
Act); 35 P.S. § 6020.1106 (Hazardous Site Cleanup Act).

20 See § B.2, supra and n.15.

21 Pa. R. Crim. P. 203.

22 Pa. R. Crim. P. 203 Comment.

Sect 1.60 Searches of Property  pg 4

a. Burden and Standard of Proof

The party seeking the warrant has the burden of proving that probable cause exists to
issue the warrant.  U.S. Const. amend. IV; Pa. Const. art. I, § 8; compare Pa. R. Crim. P.
203(B) (setting forth the requirements for issuance of a criminal search warrant).

(i) Probable Cause, Generally

Probable cause is the standard by which a decision to search is tested against the 
constitutional mandate of reasonableness.23 To apply this standard it is first necessary to
focus on the government interest which is alleged to justify the official intrusion upon
the constitutionally protected rights of the private citizen.24 Probable cause as used in
the criminal context is not necessarily identical to probable cause in the administrative
search context.25

For purposes of an administrative search warrant, particularly in the sanitary standards
context, probable cause justifying a warrant “may be based not only on specific 
evidence of an existing violation but also on a showing that ‘reasonable legislative or
administrative standards for conducting an . . . inspection are satisfied with respect to 
a particular [establishment.]”26

(ii) Statutory Probable Cause Standards

Certain statutes provide their own standards for evaluating probable cause sufficient 
to issue a warrant for certain sanitary standards inspections.27 There is no case law
determining whether these provisions are consistent with the probable cause 
requirements of the Fourth
Amendment of the United States
Constitution or article I, section 8
of the Pennsylvania Constitution.  

Note: The court may need to determine
not only whether the party seeking the
warrant has satisfied the statutory probable
cause standard but also whether the statutory
probable cause standard is consistent with the
United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions.28

23 See Camara, 387 U.S at 534-35.  

24 See id. at 534-35.

25 See Marshall v. Barlow’s, Inc., 436 U.S. 307, 320 (1978), citing Camara, 387 U.S. 523, 538 (1967)

26 See Marshall, 436 U.S. at 320; Camara, 387 U.S. at 538; Commonwealth v. Tobin, 828 A.2d 415, 420 (Pa. Commw.

2003).

27 See e.g. the Safe Drinking Water Act, 35 P.S. § 721.5(g); the Controlled Substances, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act, 35 P.S.
§ 780-124(d)(1), the Air Pollution Control Act, 35 P.S. § 4013.1, and the Hazardous Site Cleanup Act, 35 P.S. § 6020.1106.

28 See Ickes, 582 Pa. at 568 (invalidating a provision of the Game Code that gave Game Officers the power to stop any person

at any time and demand identification without reasonable suspicion).

Sect 1.60 Searches of Property  pg 5

b. Right to counsel 

If the court determines a hearing is required prior to the issuance of a search warrant, the
court may wish to decide if counsel should be appointed to represent indigent respondents.

In determining whether appointed counsel is necessary, the court may wish to balance the
presumption that there is no absolute right to appointed counsel unless the litigant may lose
his or her liberty28 against: (1) The private interest at stake; (2) the government interest at
stake; and (3) the likelihood of an erroneous decision.30

C. What Remedies Are Available To The Court?

If the court finds sufficient probable cause it shall issue the warrant.  The DPCL does not discuss
what the warrant must contain and how it should be executed.  Some administrative search
statutes discussed in this bench guide address the content, execution and return of warrants while
others do not.  Therefore, the court may have to turn to the statutes that have detailed provisions
in this regard31 or the Rules of Criminal Procedure for guidance.

29 See Lassiter v. Dep’t of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 26-27 (1981).

30 See Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (setting forth the three factors a court should weigh in determining if

appointed counsel is required in a civil proceeding); Commonwealth v. $9,847.00 United States Currency, 704 A.2d 612,
615 (Pa. 1997) (finding no right to appointed counsel in a civil forfeiture proceeding).

31 35 P.S. § 780-124(d) of the Controlled Substances, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act contains perhaps the most detail of any

administrative search statute on this issue.

Sect 1.60 Searches of Property  pg 6

SECTION 1.00 BENCH GUIDE

Temporary Closures or Evacuations 

SECTION
1.70

Summary 

Under exigent circumstances, the court may be presented with a request from a public
health authority to temporarily close a public or private area (such as a school, a sports
venue or a mall), or to evacuate an area. Additionally, the court may be presented with 
a request to stop a government-ordered closure or evacuation.

There are no specific statutory or regulatory provisions under the Pennsylvania public
health laws that expressly authorize such measures by a public health authority.
However, Pennsylvania law does vest public health authorities with the responsibility to
protect the public health, and are given the authority to use appropriate disease control
measures to do so. To carry out this mandate, a public health authority may petition the
court to order one or more of the above actions as an appropriate disease control measure.

A. Background

1. Pennsylvania Public Health Statutes

Pursuant to the Disease Prevention and Control Law of 1955 (“DPCL”), 35 P.S. § 521.1, et seq.,
and other Pennsylvania laws,1 public health authorities2 are responsible for disease prevention
and control in the Commonwealth.3 When a public health authority becomes aware of a report
of a disease subject to isolation, quarantine or any other control measure, it must carry out
“appropriate control measures.” 35 P.S. § 521.5; 28 Pa. Code § 27.152.4 Public health 

1 71 P.S. § 532(a) (powers and duties of The Pennsylvania Department of Health); 16 P.S. § 2192(3)(county code); 16 P.S. §§
12010(c) and 12012(c) (County/Municipal health departments); 53 P.S. § 14401 (First Class cities); 53 P.S. § 24664 (Second
Class cities); 53 P.S. § 37308(3) (Third Class cities); 53 P.S. § 48106 (Boroughs); 53 P.S. §§ 56605-07 (First Class townships).
This authority may also appear in local ordinances or regulations. See e.g. Philadelphia Code §§ 6-203 - 206.

2 For purposes of the Pennsylvania Public Health Law Bench Book, the term “public health authority” includes the

Pennsylvania Department of Health, all County/ Municipal departments of health (the health departments authorized by The
Local Health Administration Law (Act 315- 16 P.S. §12001 et seq.) and all local health authorities (the 237 local boards or
departments of health that operate outside of the Local Health Administration Law (Act 315) structure and funding). Note:
Local health authorities must receive approval from The Pennsylvania Department of Health before taking any disease control
measure. 28 Pa. Code §§ 27.1, 27.60(c). 

3 35 P.S. §§ 521.3, 521.5; 28 Pa. Code §§ 27.60 and 27.152. See also supra note 1.

4 The term “appropriate control measures” has not been defined by Pennsylvania statutes, regulations, or case law.

Sect 1.70 Temporary Closures or Evacuations  pg 1

authorities have broad powers5 to “determine and employ the most effective and practical
means for the prevention and suppression of disease.”6

2. Emergency Management Services Code

The Governor may commandeer property and compel evacuations under the Emergency
Management Services Code, (“EMS Code”).  35 Pa. C.S. § 7301. However, since the emergency
provisions in these laws do not address judicial review of the governor’s emergency decisions,
this bench guide merely highlights this authority for the court’s information.7

B. Under What Circumstances May A Court Issue An Order To Temporarily

Close Or Evacuate Public Or Private Properties Or Areas? 8

There is no Pennsylvania statutory or case law on point. However, general authorization for public
health authorities to institute appropriate disease control measures appears in statutes, The
Pennsylvania Department of Health Regulations and possibly local ordinances or regulations.9
Conceivably, a public health authority may determine that “the most efficient and practical means

5 The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held, “the state possesses inherently a broad police power, which transcends all other

powers of government.” Commonwealth v. Stofchek, 322 Pa. 513, 519, 185 A. 840 (1936). See also National Wood
Preservers, Inc. v. Commonwealth Dept. of Environmental Resources, 489 Pa. 221, 414 A.2d 37 (1980) (collecting cases 
and discussing police powers). The police power is the greatest and most powerful attribute of government; on it the very
existence of the state depends.”  Stofchek, 322 Pa. at 520,  quoting Commonwealth v. Widovich, 295 Pa. 311 (1929). 
“One of [the] well-known objects [of a state’s police power] is the protection of public health . . . ” Id. Cf. Moore v. Lumpkin,
630 N.E.2d 982, 995 (Ill. App. 1 Div. 1994) (holding that “governmental action to restrict and suppress the spread of 
contagious diseases falls within the scope of a State’s police powers”; Matter of Juveniles A, B, C, D, E, 847 P.2d 455 (Wash.
1993) (“Control of a communicable disease is a valid and compelling exercise of the State’s police power”); Love v. Superior
Court, 226 Cal. App.3d 736, 740 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990).

6 71 P.S. § 532(a). Public health authorities may enter and examine “all grounds, vehicles, apartments, buildings and places . . . ”

71 P.S. § 532(b); 28 Pa. Code §§ 27.60 and 27.152.

7 Under the EMS Code, the Governor is responsible for, among other things, “meeting the dangers to this Commonwealth 

. . . ”  35 Pa. C.S. § 7301(a). In order to fulfill this duty, the Governor can commandeer property or use any private, public or
quasi-public property necessary to cope with a disaster emergency. 35 Pa. C.S. § 7301(f)(2) and (4).  This includes the use of
schools and school vehicles by local, county and State officials.  35 Pa. C.S. § 7701(d) and (e). The Governor can direct and
compel the evacuation of all or part of the population from any stricken or threatened area within the Commonwealth,
including prescribing the routes, modes of transportation, and destinations. 35 Pa. C.S. § 7301(f)(5)-(6). The Governor also
has the authority to suspend laws during disaster emergencies.  35 Pa. C.S. §§ 7301(b), 7301(f) (1) and 7502(a) (2).

8 Similarly, a public health authority could petition a court to take or destroy property as a disease control measure. Presumably

the taking of property would be governed by a takings analysis under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and
article I, section10 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. See Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623, 668-69 (1887); Machipongo Land
and Coal Co. Inc. v. Commonwealth, 799 A.2d 751 (Pa. 2002). See also Appeal of White, 287 Pa. 259, 263-66, 134 A. 409
(1926)(distinguishing “police power” from eminent domain); 29A C.J.S. § 8 (police and other related powers in general). 

9 35 P.S. §§ 521.2(a) and 521.5; 28 Pa. Code § 27.60(b). Additional authority may appear in local regulations or ordinances.

See e.g. Philadelphia Code § 6-205. See also Commonwealth v. Moore, 526 Pa. 152, 159, 584 A.2d 936, 940  (1991)
(explaining the purpose of the DPCL). Cf. Commonwealth v. Stotland, 251 A.2d 701 (Pa. 1969)(Spaulding, J., concurring)(city
may invoke emergency powers to limit public gatherings when, among other things, the health and safety of citizens is 
seriously and substantially endangered) and Commonwealth v. Flexer, 2 Bucks 180, 1953 WL 4631 at *9-10 (discussing
emergency powers of The Department of Health).

Sect 1.70 Temporary Closures or Evacuations  pg 2

for the prevention and suppression of disease” requires the closure of a school, public or private
areas, or the evacuation of an area, and may order these disease control measures. Presumably, if
an individual or group of individuals refuse to abide by the public health authority’s order, the 
public health authority may seek a court order to compel such control measures.10

C. What Must Be Proven For A Court To Issue An Order To Temporarily Close

Or Evacuate Public Or Private Properties Or Areas?

There is no law on point. 

A public health authority would have the burden of proving that a condition is present which 
significantly threatens the public’s health and that the requested action is necessary as a 
reasonable11 and appropriate disease control measure.12

D. What Is The Procedure For Obtaining A Court Order To Close Or Evacuate

Public Or Private Properties Or Areas?

1. Filing A Petition Or Other Civil Action

Pennsylvania law does not address this question. When seeking court orders in other public
health matters, the action is brought before the court by petition.13 It is also possible an action
may be initiated by a request for an 
injunction.  Pa. R. Civ. P. 1531.

Note: If the public health authority is not
The Pennsylvania Department of Health or

a County/Municipal health department, the
authority must receive approval from The
Pennsylvania Department of Health before 
taking any disease control measure.  28 Pa.
Code §§ 27.1, 27.60(c). 

10 See e.g. Commonwealth ex re. Ogden v. Cairns, 20 Pa. D. 453, 1911 WL 3741 (Philadelphia Clerk of Quar. Sess., 1911)

(board of health may establish quarantine in a district of the city); Aspinwall Borough v. Aspinwall School Board, 1910 WL
3618 (Allegheny County CCP 1910) (public health authorities, under prior law, may order schools closed during an 
epidemic). 

11 Historically public health authorities have been afforded broad discretion to determine appropriate disease control measures.
Courts have reviewed these decisions to ensure reasonableness. See e.g. Allentown v. Wagner, 27 Pa. Super. 485 (1905)
(the rules and regulations employed to combat contagious or infectious diseases must not be unreasonable, nor may they
be enforced unreasonably); Ogden, 20 Pa. D. at 453, (decision of the board of health must be “reasonable, humane and
not cruel”); Boehm v. Philadelphia, 1914 WL 4412 at * 4-5 (Philadelphia CCP 1914) (decision of the board of health must
not be “manifestly mistaken, or [taken] in obvious disregard of reason”), aff’d 59 Pa. Super 441 (1914).

12 35 P.S. §§ 521.3 and 521.5; 28 Pa. Code § 27.60(b).

13 This presumption is made because when public health authorities seek court orders in other public health matters, those
actions are initiated by way of a petition.  35 P.S. §§ 521.7(2) and 521.11(a.2); 35 P.S. § 2140.301(b) (petition practice 
contemplated by the Counterterrorism Planning, Preparedness and Response Act (“Counterterrorism Act”)).

Sect 1.70 Temporary Closures or Evacuations  pg 3

Pennsylvania law does not address this question.  As courts of general jurisdiction, the courts of
common pleas would have jurisdiction.14 42 Pa. C.S. § 931.  

There are no specific venue rules governing public health authority petitions to close or evacuate
areas, therefore the general rules governing venue presumably apply.   Pa. R. Civ. P.  1006. 

2. Jurisdiction 

3. Venue

4. Service and Notice   

Neither the DPCL, nor other relevant public heath statutes identify service requirements for 
public health petitions,16 nor do they specify the form of notice in public health actions beyond
requiring that the respondent be served with a copy of the petition seeking court action.  
e.g. 35 P.S. § 521.7(2). Presumably the general rules governing service and notice apply, and
presumably both should be provided to the respondent consistent with petition practice under
Pa. R. Civ. P. 206 and local rule.17

The court may consider alternative means
of service and notice if there are allegations
that the respondent or respondents may 
be infected with, or carriers of, a highly
contagious communicable disease. The 
legislature contemplated this in the
Counterterrorism Act,  35 P.S. §
2140.301(b)(3) (notice may be oral or 
written). For alternative service,  Pa. R. 
Civ. P. 430.18

Note: If the petitioner is not The
Pennsylvania Department of Health or a
County/Municipal health department, a copy of
the petition and any hearing notices and court
orders should be served upon The Pennsylvania
Department of Health since that entity has the
ultimate authority to protect the health of the
citizens of Pennsylvania.  35 P.S. § 521.3(c); 71
.S. § 532(a).  
P

14 By analogy, other public health petitions are brought in the courts of common pleas.  35 P.S. §§ 521.7(2) and 521.11(a.2).

35 P.S. § 2140.301(b) (petitions under the Counterterrorism Act are filed in the courts of common pleas).

15 If The Pennsylvania Department of Health is the petitioner, the Commonwealth Court presumably would have concurrent

jurisdiction.   42 Pa. C.S. § 761(a)(1). 

16 “Service of process is a mechanism by which a court obtains jurisdiction of a defendant, and therefore, the rules concerning
service of process must be strictly followed . . . Thus, improper service is not merely a procedural defect that can be ignored
. . . ” (internal citations omitted). Mayer v. Garman, __ Pa. __ ; __A.2d. __ ; 2006 WL 2252067 (Aug. 4, 2006), citing Cintas
Corp. v. Lee’s Cleaning Services, Inc., 549 Pa. 84, 91, 700 A.2d 915 (1997). See also Fraisar v. Gillis, 892 A.2d 74, 77-78 (Pa.
Commw. Ct. 2006) (discussing process service rules).

17 See Pa. R. C. P. 440 for service of process under Rule 206.

18 Under usual circumstances, a property owner is entitled to a hearing before his/her property is taken, however, there are

some extraordinary situations in which a valid governmental interest justifies postponing the hearing until after the depriva-
tion. See Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 90 (1972) (the seizure of the property must (1) be necessary to secure an important
governmental or general public interest; (2) there must be a special need for prompt action; and, (3) the person initiating
the seizure must be responsible for determining that the seizure was necessary and justified in the particular instance).
Where governmental interests permit seizure before notice is given or a hearing is held, notice and a hearing should be 
provided within a meaningful time thereafter. Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 542-43 (1985).

Sect 1.70 Temporary Closures or Evacuations  pg 4

5. Hearings

Under the DPCL a hearing must be held on petitions for medical testing and treatment within
24 hours of service.  35 P.S. §§ 521.7(2) and 521.11(a.2).  It is not clear that an expedited  
hearing would be required to order the closure or evacuation of a public or private property 
or area.19 The court may need to determine whether an expedited hearing is required on a case
by case basis.

a. Burden and Standard of Proof 

There is no Pennsylvania law on either of these points. The burden of proof would 
presumably be on the public health authority as the entity seeking to impose the disease
control measures. 

Authority from other jurisdictions suggests if the public health authority seeks to restrict
the liberty of an individual or group, the “clear and convincing” standard may apply. See
Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (1979) (standard of proof required in civil commitment
proceedings); City of Newark v. J.S., 652 A.2d 265, 271-72 (N.J. Super 1993) (standard of
proof required for involuntary commitment of tuberculosis patient).20 If the physical liberty
of the respondent is not at issue, the standard of proof may be less. See generally
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334-335 (1976); Commonwealth v. Maldonado, 576 Pa.
101, 838 A.2d 710  (2003) (discussing applicable standards of proof in various contexts).

b. Right to Appointed Counsel  

There is no Pennsylvania law on this point.21 In determining whether appointed counsel is
necessary, the court may wish to balance the presumption that there is no absolute right
to appointed counsel unless the litigant may lose his or her liberty22 against: (1) The private
interest at stake; (2) the government interest at stake; and (3) the likelihood of an 
erroneous decision.23

19 Compare with 35 P.S. § 2140.301(b)(2) (for isolation or quarantine petitions filed under the Counterterrorism Act, hearings

must be held not more than 72 hours after the filing of the petition). 

20 “Clear and convincing evidence” is also the standard for involuntary civil commitment under the Pennsylvania Mental

Health Procedures Act. In re Hancock, 719 A.2d 1053, 1056-58 (Pa. Super. 1998).

21 By analogy, under the Counterterrorism Act, when individuals or groups have been ordered isolated or quarantined, 

individuals are entitled to be represented by counsel and if the individual is without the financial resources or otherwise
unable to employ counsel, the court must appoint counsel.  35 P.S. § 2140.301(b)(4). The court may be permitted to
appoint a public defender to represent indigent respondents if it is determined representation is constitutionally required.  
16 P.S. § 9960.6(a)(11). 

22 See Lassiter v. Dep’t of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 26-27 (1981).

23 See Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (setting forth the three factors a court should weigh in determining if

appointed counsel is required in a civil proceeding); Commonwealth v. $9,847.00 United States Currency, 704 A.2d 612,
615 (Pa. 1997) (finding no right to appointed counsel in a civil forfeiture proceeding).

Sect 1.70 Temporary Closures or Evacuations  pg 5

c. Conduct of the Hearing 

1. Hearings would be conducted according to the Rules of Civil Procedure. The Rules do
not address taking testimony by telephone or advanced communication technology.
However, in a public health case where the respondent is alleged to have a potentially
dangerous communicable disease, or may already be in isolation or quarantine, the
court may wish to conduct hearings with the aid of a telephone or by using other 
communication technology (such as two-way simultaneous audio-visual communication).24
This method of conducting hearings is contemplated by the Counterterrorism Act.  
35 P.S. § 2140.301(b)(3). See City of Newark v. J.S., 652 A.2d 265, 268 n.1 (N.J. Super.
1993).25

2. The DPCL does not dictate that hearings be held on the record, but persuasive authority

from other jurisdictions suggests hearings should be on the record.26

E. What Remedies Are Available To The Court?

Injunction. To enforce court orders, common pleas court judges may issue preliminary/special or
permanent injunctions.  Pa. R. Civ. P. 1531.27

. What Enforcement Mechanisms Are Available To The Court?
F

1. Contempt 

Violation of a court order, such as an order of quarantine, and violation of an injunction, may
expose the violator to contempt. The court possesses the inherent authority to enforce court
orders by way of the power of contempt. See generally, Commonwealth v. Bowden, 576 Pa.
151, 184-86, 838 A.2d 740 (2003). 

24 Many courthouses, magisterial district judge offices, state and county prisons and health care facilities have simultaneous

audio-visual communication equipment.

certain circumstances).

25 Accord 42 Pa. C.S. § 5985 (child victims or material witnesses may testify through the use of closed circuit television in 

26 See e.g. Greene v. Edwards, 263 S.E.2d 661, 663 (W. Va. 1980). Cf. 50 P.S. § 7304(e)(5) (“On the record” hearings are

required in involuntary treatment petitions under Section 304 of the Mental Health Procedures Act).

27 Injunctive relief may be appropriate in the public health context. See e.g. Commonwealth ex. rel. Preate v. Danny’s New

Adam and Eve Bookstore, 625 A.2d 119 (Pa. Commw. 1993) (preliminary injunction issued because of ongoing threat to
public health).

Sect 1.70 Temporary Closures or Evacuations  pg 6

2. Prosecution 

While there is no case law for guidance, by statute, any person who violates any provision of the
DPCL, or any regulation issued by the State Advisory Board or ordinances, rules or regulations
issued by a public health authority (including The Pennsylvania Department of Health, any
County/Municipal department of health or local health authority),28 commits a summary offense,
punishable by a fine of not less than twenty-five dollars ($25.00), nor more than three hundred
dollars ($300.00), plus costs.  In default of payment, the offender may be sentenced to county
jail for thirty (30) days.  35 P.S. § 521.20(a). Prosecutions may be initiated by The Pennsylvania
Department of Health, a County/Municipal health department or a local health authority, or by
any person having knowledge of a violation of any provision of the DPCL or its accompanying
regulations.   35 P.S. § 521.20(b).29

28 The DPCL defines local health authority as the board of health or the department of public health of a city, borough, 

incorporated town or township of the first class, or a county department of health, or joint county department of health. 
35 P.S. § 521.2. 

29 In addition, under the Local Health Administration Law, 16 P.S. §§  12001 - 12028, any person who violates this law, or any
rule or regulation of the County/Municipal health departments or who interferes with a health director or any agent of a
County/Municipal health department in the discharge of official duties, convicted of a second or subsequent offense, 
commits a misdemeanor, and upon conviction, may be fined not less than five hundred dollars ($500.00), nor more than
one thousand dollars ($1,000.00), imprisoned for up to one year, or both. 16 P.S. § 12027(b). Also, separate penalty 
provisions exist for communicable tuberculosis.  35 P.S. § 521.19(a). 

Sect 1.70 Temporary Closures or Evacuations  pg 7

SECTION 1.00 BENCH GUIDE

SECTION
1.80

Habeas Corpus

Summary 

The Disease Prevention and Control Law of 1955 (“DPCL”) provides that the public 
health authorities1 may order public health “control measures,” including, among others,
isolation and quarantine, if an individual has been exposed to or infected with a 
communicable disease and when control measures are necessary to protect the public
from the spread of the communicable disease.  35 P.S. §§ 521.5 and 521.16(a)(3)-(5); 
28 Pa. Code §§ 27.60-61 and 27.65. 

In addition, pursuant to the Counterterrorism Planning, Preparedness and Response Act
(“Counterterrorism Act”) in the event of an actual or suspected outbreak of a contagious
disease due to an actual or suspected bioterrorist or biohazardous event, the Governor
may temporarily order individuals or groups of individuals quarantined or isolated. 

35 P.S. § 2140.301(a).

Judicial review is provided in the Counterterrorism Act,2 and the legislature has provided
some procedures to be followed when a public health authority seeks a court order to
compel medical testing or treatment for a communicable disease under the DPCL,3 but
otherwise there is no prescribed procedure for challenging the legality of public health
orders that restrict an individual’s liberty. Conceivably, individuals challenging public
health orders may seek to do so by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.4

1 For purposes of the Pennsylvania Public Health Law Bench Book, the term “public health authority” includes The

Pennsylvania Department of Health, all County/ Municipal health departments (the health departments authorized by The
Local Health Administration Law (Act 315 -16 P.S. § 12001 et seq.) and all local health authorities (the 237 local boards or
departments of health that operate outside of the Local Health Administration Law (Act 315) structure and funding). Note:
Local health authorities must receive approval from The Pennsylvania Department of Health before taking any disease control
measure.  28 Pa. Code §§ 27.1, 27.60(c).

2 35 P.S. § 2140.301(b).

3 35 P.S. §§ 521.7(2) and 521.11(a.2).

4 Habeas corpus relief may not be available in all cases, as appellate remedies may exist to challenge a court order. See

Commonwealth Dept. of Corrections v. Reese, 774 A.2d 1255, 1260 (Pa. Super. 2001); 18 Standard Pennsylvania Prac. §§
98:3, 98:4. There is no case law under either the DPCL or the Counterterrorism Act on the availability of habeas corpus relief
in the context of public health law. Conceivably, petitions may be filed if an individual initially consents to medical testing or
treatment under 35.P.S. §§ 521.7(1) or 521.11(a.1), or voluntary isolation or quarantine, and that person  subsequently
refuses to consent; if an individual has been involuntarily committed by a public health authority pursuant to 35 P.S. §§
521.7(1) or 521.11(a.1) and wishes to challenge that confinement; or someone may allege he or she received no notice and
opportunity to be heard at a judicial review hearing under 35 P.S. § 2140.301(b). 

Sect 1.80 Habeas Corpus  pg 1

A. Under What Circumstances May an Individual Petition For a Writ of

Habeas Corpus in a Public Health Context?

In Pennsylvania, the government may not suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
unless such suspension is required to preserve the public safety in the event of rebellion or 
invasion.  Pa. Const. art. I, § 14; 42 Pa. C.S. § 6501. 

Application for a writ of habeas corpus may be brought by or on behalf of any person restrained
of his or her liberty under any pretense whatsoever. 42 Pa. C.S. § 6503(a). However, habeas 
corpus may only be invoked when other remedies have been exhausted or are unavailable.5
“Habeas corpus is a civil remedy, regardless of whether the prisoner has been detained under civil
or criminal process.”6 Habeas corpus may be available to challenge restrictions on liberty pursuant 
to public health commitment or detention orders.7

B. Jurisdiction and Venue

By statute, any judge of a court of record may issue a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the
cause of detention of any person or for any other lawful purpose.  42 Pa. C.S. §§ 721(1), 741,
761(c), § 931(a) and 6502(a).8 While appellate court judges have original jurisdiction to issue writs of
habeas corpus, generally, that jurisdiction will only be exercised when there is a necessity to do so.9

Venue in habeas corpus actions is determined by general rule. 42 Pa. C.S. § 6502(b).  See 
generally Pa. R. Civ. P. 1006.   

C. What Information Must The Application For a Writ of Habeas Corpus Contain?

While strict pleading requirements generally do not apply to a petition for a writ of habeas corpus,
some specificity is required.12 A petition must aver facts which, if true, would entitle the petitioner

5 See Commonwealth v. McNeil, 665 A.2d 1247, 1250 (Pa. Super. 1995).

6 Commonwealth ex rel. Paylor v. Claudy, 366 Pa. 282, 77 A.2d 350 (1951).

7 See Commonwealth ex rel. Odgen vs Carnes, 20 Pa. D 453, 1911 WL 3741 (Phila. Quar. Sess. 1911), aff’d 46 Pa. Super. 96,

and appeal dismissed at 48 Pa. Super. 265 (1911). See also 39 C.J.S. Habeas Corpus § 234. Cf. Commonwealth ex rel.
Finken v. Roop, 339 A.2d 764 (Pa. Super. 1975) (habeas petition brought to challenge civil commitment under the Mental
Health and Mental Retardation Act of 1966).

8 Writs issued by a judge of an appellate court are returnable to the court on which that judge sits.  42 Pa. C.S. §§ 741 and

761(c). 

9 Commonwealth ex rel. Tiscio v. Martin, 120 A.2d 307, 308 (Pa. Super. 1956).

10 Venue provisions in Pa. R. Crim. P. 108 would not apply to habeas petitions challenging civil confinement. See Comment 
following Rule 108; Commonwealth ex rel. Rivers v. Myers, 414 Pa. 439, 444, 200 A.2d 303 (1964)(“[a] petition for a writ
of habeas corpus is a civil action and the procedural rules of criminal court do not apply to civil actions”).

11 See also Pa. R. App. P. 106 (original jurisdiction matters in appellate courts).

12 Commonwealth ex rel. Kennedy v. Mingle, 388 Pa. 54, 57, 130 A.2d 161 (1957).

Sect 1.80 Habeas Corpus  pg 2

to an award of a writ of habeas corpus and a hearing thereon.13 An application for a writ of
habeas corpus should include:

1. The name or description of the individual being restrained;

2. The name or identity of the individual or agency restraining that person’s liberty;

3. The place where the applicant is being held; and

4. Allegations of facts which, if true, show the detention or restraint is illegal.14

If the application fails to make a prima facie case for the issuance of the writ, it may be summarily
dismissed.15 Similarly, as a general rule, a writ of habeas corpus may not issue if the individual’s
confinement has ended.16

D. What is The Procedure For Bringing a Habeas Corpus Petition in a 

Public Health Case?

1. Filing a Petition: 

Habeas corpus is a civil remedy. The Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure would govern 
petitions based on non-criminal confinement.17 (By its terms, Pa. R. Crim. P. 108 addresses
habeas corpus petitions filed in criminal matters). A writ of habeas corpus, or a rule to show
cause why the writ should not issue, should be filed with the court, and directed to the 
person having custody of the person confined or detained.  42 Pa. C.S. § 6504. The writ or
rule to show cause should be served personally and immediately, whenever possible.18

2. Return on Writ or Rule to Show Cause and Hearing

The writ or rule to show cause should be returned within three days unless additional time,
not to exceed twenty (20) days is allowed for good cause shown.  42 Pa. C.S. § 6504.

The person to whom the writ or rule to show cause is directed must make a return certifying
the cause of the detention and, unless otherwise prescribed by general rule or order of the
court, shall produce at the hearing the body of the person detained.  42 Pa. C.S. § 6504.
However, there is no absolute right to be present at a habeas corpus hearing.19

13 Balsamo v. Mazurkiewicz, 611 A.2d 1250, 1253 (Pa. Super. 1992).

14 See generally 18 Standard Pennsylvania Prac. 2d. §§ 98:59 and 98:61.

15 Balsamo, 611 at 2d. at 1253.

16 See Commonwealth v. Smith, 486 A.2d 445, 448 (Pa. Super. 1984); 18 Standard Pennsylvania Prac. § 98.5.

17 See Commonwealth ex rel. Rivers v. Myers, 414 Pa. 439, 444, 200 A.2d 303 (1964).

18 18 Standard Pennsylvania Prac., 2d § 98:68.

19 See Commonwealth ex rel. Herge v. Martin, 6 Pa. D.& C.2d 589, aff’d at 387 Pa. 117, 126 A.2d 711 (1956); 18 Standard

Pennsylvania Prac. 2d § 98:77. See also § D.6, infra.

Sect 1.80 Habeas Corpus  pg 3

3. Service and Notice   

The general rules governing service and notice apply in civil actions,20 and both should be
provided to the respondent consistent with petition practice under Pa. R. Civ. P. 206 and 
local rule.21

4. Burden of Proof and Persuasion

It is not clear what the standard of proof is in a habeas proceeding challenging a public
health order. Legal authorities suggest the standard is at least by a preponderance of the 
evidence.22 The petitioner or the individual acting on his or her behalf bears the initial burden
of proving the facts entitling the individual to relief in a habeas proceeding.23 Specifically, that
the individual is being unlawfully detained. Some courts have held that once the petitioner
accomplishes this, the burden shifts to the governmental entity restraining the individual of
his or her liberty to show such detention, such as isolation or quarantine, is lawful.24

Due process jurisprudence and case law from other jurisdictions suggest habeas petitioners
are entitled to be represented by counsel and appointing counsel for the indigent may be
necessary.25

5. Right to Counsel  

6. Conduct of Hearing

The Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure do not address conducting hearings by telephone
or advanced communication technology. However, in a public health case where the 
respondent is alleged to have a potentially dangerous communicable disease, or may already
be in isolation or quarantine, the court may wish to conduct hearings with the aid of a 
telephone or by using other communication technology (such as two-way simultaneous
audio-visual communication). This method of conducting hearings is contemplated by the
Counterterrorism Act.  35 P.S. § 2140.301(b)(3).26

20 The court may consider alternative means of service and notice given the allegation that the respondent may be infected
with, or a carrier of, a highly contagious communicable disease. The legislature contemplated this in the Counterterrorism
Act,  35 P.S. § 2140.301(b)(3) (notice may be oral or written). For alternative service,  Pa. R. Civ. P. 430. With the notice, it is
suggested the respondent be advised of the right to counsel. See § D.5, infra.

21 See Pa. R. Civ. P. 440 for service of process under Rule 206.

22 See 39A C.J.S. Habeas Corpus § 336.

23 See Commonwealth ex rel. Dion v. Tees, 118 A.2d 756 (Pa. Super. 1956); 18 Standard Pennsylvania Prac. 2d § 98:79.

24 See e.g. Ex parte Fowler, 184 P.2d 814 (Okla. Crim. App. 1947); Ex parte Arata, 198 P. 814 (Cal. App. 1921); 39 C.J.S.

Habeas Corpus §§ 234, 330.

25 Under the Counterterrorism Act, individuals are entitled to be represented by counsel and if the individual is without the

financial resources or otherwise unable to employ counsel, the court must appoint counsel.  35 P.S. § 2140.301(b)(4). The
court may be permitted to appoint a public defender to represent indigent respondents.  16 P.S. § 9960.6(a)(4)(appointment
of public defender in state habeas proceedings); 16 P.S § 9960.6(a)(11)(appointment when representation is constitutionally
required). 

26 See also City of Newark v. J.S., 652 A.2d 265, 268 n.1 (N.J. Super. 1993).

Sect 1.80 Habeas Corpus  pg 4

E. What Remedies Are Available to The Court?

If the court finds the individual’s confinement is illegal, the court must order the individual to 
be released.

Injunction: To enforce court orders, common pleas court judges may issue preliminary, special or
permanent injunctions.  Pa. R. Civ. P. 1531.27

.  What Enforcement Mechanisms Are Available to The Court?
F

Any person who shall fail or refuse to respond to a writ or to an order issued under this chapter,
or who shall change the place of detention of any person for the purpose of defeating the 
writ, or shall, without express authorization from a judge of a court of record, recommit on 
substantially the same facts and circumstances any person set at large upon a habeas corpus, 
or shall do any act for the purpose of defeating the writ or the order, commits a misdemeanor
of the second degree.   42 Pa. C.S. § 6505 (Interference with writ prohibited).

1. Prosecution 

2. Contempt  

Violation of a court order and violation of an injunction may expose the violator to contempt. In
addition to statutory authority to punish for contempt, courts possess the inherent authority to
enforce court orders by way of the power of contempt.28

27 Injunctive relief may be appropriate in the public health context. See e.g. Commonwealth ex. rel. Preate v. Danny’s New

Adam and Eve Bookstore, 625 A.2d 119 (Pa. Commw. 1993) (preliminary injunction issued because of ongoing threat to
public health).

28 See Commonwealth v. Bowden, 576 Pa. 151, 184-86, 838 A.2d 740 (2003).

Sect 1.80 Habeas Corpus  pg 5

SECTION 2.00 LEGAL ISSUES IN A PUBLIC HEALTH CONTEXT

Pennsylvania Public Health Infrastructure

SECTION
2.10 

§ 2.11  Introduction

There are three different authorized public health entities in the Commonwealth: The Pennsylvania
Department of Health; County/Municipal health departments; and, local health authorities. For the
purposes of this bench book, these three entities collectively are referred to as public health
authorities. Each of these health departments have separate statutory authority, and distinct
(although sometimes overlapping) powers and duties.

§ 2.12  The Pennsylvania Department Of Health

A. Structure

The Pennsylvania Department of Health was created by the Act of April 27, 1905, (P.L. 312),
(71 P.S. §§ 1401-1411) and modified subsequently through the Administrative Code of 1929
(71 P.S. §§ 531-555) and its ancillary provisions (71 P.S. §§ 1412 -1435). The Pennsylvania
Department of Health is part of the Commonwealth’s Executive Department. 71 P.S. §§ 11
and 61. See Pennsylvania Public Health Law Bench Book Section 4.10: The Pennsylvania
Department of Health Organizational Chart 9/23/05 and Section 4.11: Contact Information:
The Pennsylvania Department of Health

The Pennsylvania Department of Health is comprised of three entities: (1) The Secretary; (2)
the Advisory Health Board; and (3) the Physician General. 71 P.S. § 1401(a). 

The Secretary is the department head and must be either a physician or an individual with
professional experience in public health or the health services. 71 P.S. §§ 66 and 1401(b).  

The Advisory Health Board is comprised of the Secretary (who acts as the Chair), physicians,
various health care professionals, and additional members. 71 P.S. § 158. It is responsible for
approving rules and regulations necessary for the prevention of disease, immunization stan-
dards, and local health services. The Advisory Health Board can also declare certain diseases
to be communicable. 35 P.S. § 521.4(d); 71 P.S. §§ 536 and 541. 

The Physician General is appointed by the Governor and must be a physician.  Among his or
her other duties, the Physician General advises the Governor and the Secretary on health poli-
cy, participates in decision making, and consults with recognized experts on medical and pub-
lic health matters. 71 P.S. § 1401(c).

Pennsylvania is divided into six community health districts which provide public health servic-
es. Each community health district has a district office which operates as a branch of The
Pennsylvania Department of Health. See Pennsylvania Public Health Law Bench Book Section
4.12: Contact Information: Community Health District Offices. 

Sect 2.10 Pennsylvania Public Health Infrastructure  pg 1

B. Duties

The Pennsylvania Department of Health must protect the health of the people of the
Commonwealth and determine and employ the most efficient and practical means for the
prevention and suppression of disease. 71 P.S. § 532(a). The Secretary can take charge of a
County/Municipal health department or a local health authority if the department or authori-
ty oversteps its jurisdiction or fails to comply with certain enumerated requirements. 16 P.S. §
12026 (pertaining to County/Municipal health departments); 71 P.S. §§ 532(f),(h), and (i) and
1406 (pertaining to local health authorities). The term “local health authority” is not defined
in statutes, however, under the Pennsylvania Code, “local health authorities” includes both
County/Municipal health departments and local health authorities. 28 Pa. Code § 27.1.

§ 2.13  County/Municipal Health Departments

A. Structure

The Local Health Administration Law (16 P.S. §§ 12001-12028) authorizes the creation and
state funding of two different forms of local health departments in Pennsylvania:  (1) County
health departments (either single or joint); and, (2) certain municipal departments of health.
16 P.S. § 12002(c). A health department in Pennsylvania that falls into either of these cate-
gories is often referred to as an Act 315 health department. For the purposes of this bench
book, the health departments authorized by The Local Health Administration Law are
referred to as County/Municipal health departments. 

There are currently 10 single County/Municipal health departments and no joint county
health departments. See Pennsylvania Public Health Law Bench Book Section 4.13: Contact
Information: County/Municipal Health Departments.

Each County/Municipal health department has a board of health which appoints a health
director. 16 P.S. §§ 12007 and 12008. The health director is responsible for the administra-
tion of the County/Municipal health department and has certain other enumerated powers,
such as the authority to inspect premises and abate nuisances. 16 P.S. § 12012. 

B. Duties

The duties of the County/Municipal health departments are very similar to those of The
Pennsylvania Department of Health. By Code, County/ Municipal health departments must pro-
vide administrative, personal health, and environmental health services. See Pennsylvania Code:
Title 28: Chapters 13, 15, and 17. County/Municipal health departments provide these services
through comprehensive programs of disease reporting, surveillance and outbreak investigation
as well as environmental programs. However, unlike the state wide authority of The
Pennsylvania Department of Health, the County/Municipal health departments’ jurisdiction is
generally limited to the geopolitical boundary of the entity forming the department (single or
joint counties, or townships of the second class). 16 P.S. § 12013. A municipality can be exempt
from the jurisdiction of the County/Municipal health department if: (1) It had its own depart-
ment or board of health at the time the County/Municipal health department was established;
(2) The Pennsylvania Department of Health was not performing the local administration of

Sect 2.10 Pennsylvania Public Health Infrastructure  pg 2

health laws in the municipality when the County/Municipal health department was created;
and, (3) the exempt municipality had not, by ordinance, opted to become subject to the jurisdic-
tion of the County/Municipal health department. 16 P.S. §§ 12014 and 12015. 

§ 2.14  Local Health Authorities

A. Structure

There are approximately 237 local boards or departments of health that operate outside of
the Act 315 structure and funding. For the purposes of this bench book, these local boards
or departments of health are referred to as local health authorities. The specific structure of
each local health authority is determined by local regulations and ordinances. Usually, a
health officer (commonly referred to as the director of public health) or other individual is
appointed to supervise the public health activities of a local health authority.  53 P.S. §§
12291 and 12294 (First Class cities); § 24561 (Second Class cities); §§ 37305 and 37306
(Third Class cities); §§ 48101 and 48105 (Boroughs); §§ 56601 and 56605 (First Class town-
ships); §§ 68003 and 68005 (Second Class townships). 

B. Duties

Local health authorities provide limited public health services. The specific duties performed
by local health authorities are determined by city codes and by local rules and ordinances.
However, a Local Health Officer Manual created by The Pennsylvania Department of Health in
2004 states that in addition to the responsibilities listed in municipal codes, local health per-
sonnel duties and responsibilities may include: inspections, assessments of community health
needs, food service inspections, training and consultation for operators and personnel of
food establishments, investigation and follow-up of public health complaints, communicable
disease investigation and reporting, implementation of timely, effective and efficient control
measures, participation in epidemiologic studies, and providing information to the community
which promotes disease prevention and health promotion. 

None of the 237 local health authorities are Local Morbidity Reporting Offices (LMRO). An
LMRO is a district office of The Pennsylvania Department of Health or a County/Municipal
health department. 28 Pa. Code § 27.1. This is significant because, since they are not LMROs,
local health authorities must obtain approval from The Pennsylvania Department of Health
prior to taking certain actions, such as ordering quarantines, isolations or taking other appro-
priate disease control measures to protect the public from the spread of disease.  28 Pa.
Code §§ 27.60-61, 27.65, 27.67-68.

Sect 2.10 Pennsylvania Public Health Infrastructure  pg 3

§ 2.15  Other Entities Performing Public Health Duties

There are other state agencies with jurisdiction that supplements that of the public health officials
referenced above. For example, the Department of Agriculture works in consort with The
Pennsylvania Department of Health regarding outbreaks of domestic animal diseases that may
threaten human health. 3 P.S. § 2321. This includes determining the risk associated with the out-
break and the appropriate action that should be taken to manage the risk. Id. Also, the
Department of Environmental Resources and The Pennsylvania Department of Health share some
nuisance abatement functions. 71 P.S. § 510-17. 

Sect 2.10 Pennsylvania Public Health Infrastructure  pg 4

SECTION 2.00 LEGAL ISSUES IN A PUBLIC HEALTH CONTEXT

SECTION
2.20

Jurisdiction

§ 2.21  The Role Of The Federal Government 

A. The United States Constitution 

The preamble to the Constitution speaks generally to the Federal government’s interest 
in promoting the general welfare of its citizens. More specifically, Article I, § 8 of the
Constitution contains two provisions allowing the Federal government to regulate activities
that directly impact public health. First, the Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to
regulate commerce with foreign nations, between the states, and with Indian tribes. U.S.
Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3. Second, the General Welfare Clause empowers Congress to levy 
and collect taxes for the general welfare of the United States. U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 1. 
It is through these express Constitutional provisions that Congress enacts laws affecting 
public health. 

B. Federal Constitution Generally Silent 

The preamble’s stated purpose of promoting the “general Welfare” is the closest the Federal
Constitution comes to addressing public health. The remainder of the Constitution, including
the Amendments, provides no role for the Federal government in matters of public health.
This silence, viewed in conjunction with the Tenth Amendment’s reservation of undelegated
powers to the states, indicates that the Federal government’s public health powers extend
only to the boundaries permitted by its defense, interstate commerce, and tax powers. See,
e.g., Carolene Products Co. v. Evaporated Milk Assn., 93 F.2d 202, 204 (7th Cir. 1937).
(“While the police power is ordinarily said to be reserved by the states, it is obvious that it
extends fully likewise to the federal government in so far as that government acts within 
its constitutional jurisdiction . . . The police power referred to extends to all the great public
needs . . . Its dimensions are identical with the dimensions of the government’s duty to 
protect and promote the public welfare.” (Internal citations omitted.)). In addition, the
Federal government is responsible for protecting the public health in discrete geographic
areas directly under its control (e.g., military bases).

C. Exemplary Federal Public Health Powers

Pursuant to its itemized powers, the Federal government may, for example, assume 
responsibility for public health emergencies precipitated by acts of war or terrorism.

Sect 2.20 Jurisdiction  pg 1

§ 2.22  The Role Of The Commonwealth 

Powers not specifically delegated to the Federal government by the United States Constitution, 
nor prohibited by it, are reserved to the States. U.S. Const. amend. X . All laws enacted in the
Commonwealth are presumed to be constitutional, including those impacting public health. With
regard to public health laws, “A statute enacted for the protection of the public health, safety, 
or morals, can be set aside by the courts only when it plainly has no real or substantial relation 
to those subjects, or is a palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law.” 
Nolan v. Jones, 106 A. 235, 236 (Pa. 1919). 

A. The Pennsylvania Constitution 

The Pennsylvania Constitution does not specifically address the role the State is to have
regarding public health laws. However, the Pennsylvania Constitution references a general
duty to protect its citizens’ inherent and indefeasible rights. Pa. Const. art. I, § 1.

B. States Have Historically Assumed a Primary Role In Public Health Issues 

States have historically borne much of the responsibility for preventing and responding to
public health threats. In Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), the plaintiff objected
to a small pox vaccine mandated by the State. The Supreme Court not only upheld the 
constitutionality of the vaccine requirement, but emphasized that “The safety and health of
the people . . . [are] for [the] Commonwealth to guard and protect. They are matters that do
not ordinarily concern the National Government.” Jacobson, 197 U.S. at 38. In another case,
the Supreme Court recognized the well-established principle that States have the authority to
enact public health laws, including those involving quarantine. “[U]ntil Congress has exercised
its power on the subject, such state quarantine laws and state laws for the purpose of 
preventing, eradicating, or controlling the spread of contagious or infectious diseases, are 
not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States . . . “ Compagnie Francaise de
Navigation a Vapeur v. State Bd. Of Health, 186 U.S. 380, 387 (1902).

In the event of a public health crisis, State, county, and local agencies would most likely be
required to work in conjunction with the Federal government. In the Commonwealth, the
Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency is responsible for coordinating Federal, State,
and local disaster emergency management activities. 35 Pa. C.S. § 7313(1).

C. Sources of the State’s Public Health Authority

1. Police Power 

Police power gives the government the right to protect the public’s safety, health and
morals by restraining and regulating the use of liberty and property. See Medtronic, Inc. 
v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470, 475 (1996). The invocation of the Commonwealth’s police power
extends to the care and preservation of the public health. See Zeuger Milk Co v. Pittsburgh
Sch. Dist., 5 A.2d 885, 886 (Pa. 1939). “In order to serve the public welfare, the State,
under its police power, may lawfully impose such restrictions upon private rights . . . ”
Nolan, 106 A. at 236. When a law is enacted for the protection of the public health, “it
must be assumed that the legislature proceeded after full examination and on reasonable
grounds.” Id. (citation omitted).

Sect 2.20 Jurisdiction  pg 2

To justify using police power, a State (a) must be acting in the interests in general (as
opposed to a particular class of people) and (b) must be using means that are reasonably
necessary to accomplish its goal and are not unduly oppressive. See Lawton v. Steele, 152
U.S. 133, 137 (1894).

2. The Doctrine Of Parens Patriae 

The phrase parens patriae literally means “parent of the country.” The doctrine is derived
from the English constitutional system wherein the King retained certain powers in his
capacity as the “father” of his country. See Commonwealth v Philip Morris, Inc., 736 A 2d
693, 701 (Pa. Commw. 1999). It is one of the most essential and least limitable powers in
the Commonwealth. See Adams Sanitation Co., Inc. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
Dep’t of Environmental Protection, 715 A.2d 390, 395 (Pa. 1998).

Parens patriae imposes an affirmative duty upon a State to protect its citizens. See Morris,
736 A.2d at 701. Under parens patriae, the Commonwealth can act to protect the health,
safety and welfare of the public at large. As with police powers, the State must act on
behalf of all of its citizens rather than to protect the interest of a specific individual or 
particular group of individuals. See Lieberman v. Howard Johnson’s, Inc., 68 Pa. D. & C.2d
179, 181 (1973). 

§ 2.23  Structure And Jurisdiction Of Pennsylvania Courts

The Pennsylvania Constitution provides for a unified judicial system. Pa. Const. art. V, § 1. A 
unified judicial system is a hierarchical scheme where the Supreme Court has supervision over all
of the other courts. The jurisdiction of each court is established by the legislature. 42 Pa. C.S. §§
721-26, 741-42, 761-64, 931-34, 1123, 1302 and 1515. The General Assembly may establish
additional courts as needed. Pa. Const. art. V, § 8. There are very few specific statutory references
to jurisdiction for public health issues.

A. The Court of Common Pleas 

Most actions involving public health issues are initiated in the court of common pleas. Except
as otherwise provided by law, the jurisdiction of the court of common pleas is exclusive. Pa.
Const. art. V, § 5; 42 Pa. C. S. § 931(a)-(b).

The statutory provisions which expressly vest jurisdiction for public health issues in the court
of common pleas include the following:

1. Actions to compel an individual to submit to a physical examination to determine whether
the person is infected with a communicable disease. 35 P.S. § 521.7(2) and 28 Pa. Code 
§ 27.82(b).

2. Actions to compel treatment for an individual with a communicable disease. 35 P.S. 

§ 521.11(a.2) and 28 Pa. Code § 27.87(b). 

Sect 2.20 Jurisdiction  pg 3

3. Certain types of water contamination actions. 53 P.S. § 14464.

4. Actions involving a person aggrieved by a health department order in a Second Class City

relative to the vacancy or destruction of unhealthy buildings. 53 P.S. § 24616.

5. Contempt hearings when a witness refuses to obey a subpoena issued by The

Pennsylvania Department of Health. 71. P.S. § 200.

The court of common pleas has appellate jurisdiction over the appeals from final orders of
certain governmental agencies, including County/Municipal health departments and local
health authorities, but does not have jurisdiction over appeals from final orders of The
Pennsylvania Department of Health. 42 Pa. C.S. § 933(a)(2). 

B. The Commonwealth Court 

The Commonwealth Court has limited original jurisdiction. Pa. Const. art. V, § 4. The
Commonwealth Court would only have original jurisdiction over matters initiated by The
Pennsylvania Department of Health or over suits filed against The Pennsylvania Department 
of Health (except for proceedings relative to a writ of habeas corpus, post-conviction relief,
eminent domain proceedings, and a few other noted exceptions). 42 Pa. C.S. § 761(a)(1)(i)-
(v). The court of common pleas has concurrent jurisdiction over matters initiated by The
Pennsylvania Department of Health. 42 Pa. C.S. § 761(b).

C. Other Courts

Magisterial district judges and the Philadelphia Municipal Court can adjudicate violations of
nuisance laws which constitute a summary offense. 42 Pa. C.S. §§ 1123(a)(1) and 1515(a)(1).
These courts would have concurrent jurisdiction with the courts of common pleas to adjudicate
violations of public health laws that constitute summary offenses. 35 P.S. § 521.20(a).

The Supreme Court may, upon its own motion or upon petition of any party, assume plenary
jurisdiction and enter a final order in any matter pending before any court involving an issue
of immediate public importance. 42 Pa. C.S. § 726; See Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v.
Jerome, 434 U.S. 241, 243 (1978).

A judge of any court of record can issue search warrants in criminal matters, and presumably
also in the civil context. See Pa. R. Crim. P. 103 and 200 Comment. Any judge of a court of
record can also issue a writ of habeas corpus. 42 Pa. C.S. § 6502(a).

Sect 2.20 Jurisdiction  pg 4

§ 2.24  Venue 

There are a limited number of references to proper venue involving public health issues. For 
example, when a public health authority seeks a court order to quarantine a person who refuses
medical treatment for a suspected contagious disease, the petition is filed in the court of common
pleas in the county where the person is present. 35 P.S. § 521.7. Similarly, the Secretary of Health
or the local health officer can file a petition to isolate a person refusing to submit to treatment for
a communicable disease in the court of common pleas of the county where the person is present.
35 P.S. § 521.11(a.2). In general, an action involving a person who violates a provision of the
Disease Control and Prevention Law is to take place in the county where the offense was 
committed. 35 P.S. § 521.20(a). Abatement actions taken by County/Municipal health departments
must be instituted by the county commissioners in the county where the nuisance is located. 
16 P.S. § 12012(d).

A. General Rules

In other actions, the following general rules governing venue apply.

1. An action against an individual. Venue is proper in any county where the individual can be
served, in the county where the cause of action arose or a transaction or occurrence took
place out of which the cause of action arose, Pa. R. Civ. P. 1006(a)(1), or in the county
where the individual’s property made the subject matter of the action is located, Pa. R. 
Civ. P. 1006(a)(2).

2. An action against multiple individuals. Venue is proper in any county where venue is 
proper as to any one of the individuals (except when The Pennsylvania Department of
Health is a named defendant). Pa. R. Civ. P. 1006(c).

3. An action with more than one cause of action. Venue is proper in any county where any

of the causes of action can properly be brought. Pa. R. Civ. P. 1006(f)(1).

4. An action against The Pennsylvania Department of Health. Venue is proper where the
principal or a local office of The Pennsylvania Department of Health is located, in the
county where the cause of action arose, or where the transaction or occurrence took
place out of which the cause of action arose. 42 Pa. C.S. § 8523(a).

A strong presumption is given to the plaintiff’s choice of forum. See Cheeseman v. Lethal
Exterminator, Inc., 701 A.2d 156 (Pa. 1997). If there is a conflict between the appropriate
venue for a Commonwealth party and a local agency, the conflict will be resolved in favor
of the Commonwealth. See Simons v. State Correctional Inst. at Camp Hill, 615 A.2d 924,
927 (Pa. Commw. 1992).

Sect 2.20 Jurisdiction  pg 5

§ 2.25  The Administrative Process 

A litigant may be required to exhaust administrative remedies before seeking judicial review. See
Jackson v. Centennial School District, 501 A.2d 218, 221 (Pa. 1985). 

In the public health context, there is statutory authority mandating administrative hearings for 
persons aggrieved by health department orders concerning the abatement of nuisances in Third
Class Counties and Third Class Cities. 16 P.S. § 2199 and 53 P.S. § 37323. 

In addition, County/Municipal health departments and local health authorities have the power to
promulgate rules and regulations. 16 P.S. §§ 2193 and 12010(c); 53 P.S. §§ 14401, 23158, 37308,
48106, 56606, and 68006. Therefore, public health authorities may have regulations that require
the exhaustion of administrative procedures prior to filing suit. For example, Allegheny County
Health Department regulations require a person aggrieved by the department to first file a Notice
of Appeal. The Director then holds a hearing and renders his/her decision. If the person is
aggrieved by the Director’s decision, he/she may appeal to the court of common pleas in
Allegheny County. See Allegheny County Health Dept. Rules and Regulations Art. XI, §§ 1103,
1105, 1106 and 1110. 

When an administrative remedy is prescribed, a court is without jurisdiction to hear the action until
the administrative process is exhausted. See Pennsylvania Soc. Serv. Union v. Department of Public
Welfare, 699 A.2d 807, 813 (Pa. Commw. 1997). In other words, a failure to exhaust administrative
remedies without good cause precludes a court from entertaining the matter. See Lilian v.
Commonwealth, 354 A.2d 250 (Pa. 1976).

Sect 2.20 Jurisdiction  pg 6

SECTION 2.00 LEGAL ISSUES IN A PUBLIC HEALTH CONTEXT

SECTION
2.30 

Costs And Compensation

§ 2.31  Pennsylvania Statutes 

The following is a summary of the Pennsylvania statutes which specifically address costs in a public
health context:

A. Abatement

Public health authorities have the right to enforce a claim against the property owner for
costs it incurred in an abatement proceeding: The Pennsylvania Department of Health, 71 P.S.
§ 532(e); County/Municipal health departments, 16 P.S. § 12012(c); the board of health in
Third Class counties, 16 P.S. § 2199.1; the bureau of health in a First Class city, 53 P.S. §
24568; the board of health in Boroughs, 53 P.S. § 37324; Incorporated towns, 53 P.S. §
53175. There are also provisions for punitive damages that the court can order against the
property owner (10% penalty in boroughs under 53 P.S. § 48108 and 15% penalty in 
incorporated towns under 53 P.S. § 53175). 

B. Diagnosis, Testing and Treatment of Venereal Disease

The Disease Prevention and Control Law (“DPCL”) requires The Pennsylvania Department 
of Health to provide or designate facilities for the free diagnosis, testing and treatment of
venereal disease. County/Municipal health departments and local health authorities can
undertake these expenses with the approval of The Pennsylvania Department of Health, and
they may do so, with or without financial assistance from The Pennsylvania Department of
Health. 35 P.S. § 521.9.

The DPCL also mandates that any county jail or other appropriate institution that receives
persons to be isolated or quarantined by a public health authority because of a venereal 
disease for the purpose of safekeeping and treatment will be reimbursed by the public health
authority at the rate of maintenance that prevails in such institution, and shall furnish the
necessary medical treatment to the persons committed to such institution. 35 P.S. § 521.11.

C. Involuntary Medical Testing 

If an individual chooses to select his or her own physician, he or she is responsible for any
incurred expenses. 35 P.S. § 521.7.

D. Temporary Closures Of Private Property And Commandeering Property 

By The Governor 
Under the Emergency Management Services Code, The Pennsylvania Emergency
Management Agency (“PEMA”) can arrange for the payment for the use of any private 
facility or property commandeered by the Governor during a declared disaster emergency. 
35 Pa. C.S. § 7313(10).

Sect 2.30 Costs and Compensation  pg 1

E. The Right To Appointed Legal Counsel For Individuals Quarantined 

Or Isolated Under The Counterterrorism, Preparedness and Response Act
Persons who are isolated or quarantined during a bioterrorist or biohazardous event have the
right to be represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings. If a person is unable to
afford or obtain counsel, the court must appoint counsel. 35 P.S. § 2140.301(b)(4).

§ 2.32  Costs Incurred During The Taking Of Property

A. Property Is The Danger

When the property itself is a danger, the government’s action to abate or destroy the property is
not a taking and the property owner is usually not entitled to financial compensation. See
Lucas v South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 1029 (1992); Muglar v. Kansas, 123
U.S. 623, 668-69 (1887). Whether a taking has occurred must be determined in light of the
particular facts and circumstances of the case. See U.S. v. Pewee Coal Co., 341 U.S. 114, 
117 (1951). 

B. Temporary Closure

It is likely that a temporary closure of private property or the commandeering of property
would be considered to be a governmental taking. A taking is the government’s removal of
unoffending property from an innocent owner (as opposed to the removal of property which
itself constitutes a danger). See Muglar, 123 U.S. at 668-69. 

C. Physical Invasion

If a regulation authorizes the physical invasion of private property, no matter how slight, a
taking has occurred. See Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419, 
422 (1982). 

§ 2.33  Compensation

A. Fifth Amendment

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects persons from a governmental
taking of property without just compensation. This provision of the Fifth Amendment is 
applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. See Chicago B & O R. Co. v. Chicago,
166 U.S. 226 (1897). The Constitutional guarantee of compensation is designed to temper
the government from forcing some people alone from shouldering burdens which should be
borne by the public as a whole. See Penn Cental Transp. Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S.
104, 123-24 (1978). Similarly, article I, section 10 of the Pennsylvania Constitution prohibits
the taking of private property for public use without just compensation. Pennsylvania case
law has consistently relied on federal precedent for its taking jurisprudence. See Machipongo
Land and Coal Co., Inc. v. Commonwealth, 799 A.2d 751 (Pa. 2002). 

Sect 2.30 Costs and Compensation  pg 2

B. Emergency or Wartime

In emergency and wartime situations, a property owner may not be entitled to compensation
from the government when a taking occurs. See, e.g., U.S. v. Caltex, 344 U.S. 149 (1952) (oil
companies were not entitled to compensation for oil terminal facilities destroyed by the Army
during wartime since the destruction was necessary to thwart the approaching enemy);
National Bd. of YMCA v. U.S., 395 U.S. 85 (1969) (rioting occurred in Panama resulting in the
destruction of some of the petitioner’s buildings. The petitioner’s claim was denied since the
Constitution does not require compensation every time violence against the government
damages or destroys private property); and, Juragua Iron Co. v. U.S., 212 U.S. 297 (1909)
(during war with Spain, the United States government destroyed property suspected of 
containing “yellow fever germs” that was owned by an American company in Cuba. Cuba
was a territory of Spain. No compensation was required since the American company was an
enemy of the United States with respect to the Cuban property.)

C. Reasonable Value

Ordinarily, compensation for a temporary possession of a business enterprise is the reasonable
value of the property’s use. See Pewee Coal Co., 341 U.S. at 117.

§ 2.34  Costs Incurred During Quarantines And Isolations

A. Food, Medicine and Necessities

The governmental unit ordering isolation or quarantine has been recognized as having a 
duty to furnish food and other necessities during the period of confinement if the restricted
individual cannot afford the items. See Commonwealth v. Irwin, 29 Pa. C.C. 587, 1904 WL
2601 (CCP Venango, 1904) and Zellner v. Allentown, 18 Pa. C.C. 162, 1896 WL 3663 (CCP
Lehigh County, 1896). See also Hutchinson v. Carthage, 73 A. 825 (Me. 1909)(a town was
obligated to pay the expenses of a man who took care of a quarantined family); Loudoun v.
Merrimack County, 53 A. 906 (N.H. 1902)(a county was liable for reimbursing a town for the
costs of medicine, medical assistance, and “necessaries” furnished to “paupers” who were
quarantined with diphtheria) and, Hudgins v. Carter County, 72 S.W. 730 (Ky. App.
1903)(where the court held that a physician could recover from the county money for the
services he rendered to individuals who were quarantined with small pox).

B. Loss of Income and Other Support

In addition to expenses connected with food, medicine and other necessities, confined 
individuals could experience financial challenges due to loss of income, childcare expenses
and eldercare costs. See Phelps v. School District, 221 Ill. App. 500, (Ill. Ct. App. 4th Cir.
1921) (where a teacher was awarded compensation for her salary when a school was closed
for two months due to an influenza epidemic). 

Sect 2.30 Costs and Compensation  pg 3

SECTION 2.00 LEGAL ISSUES IN A PUBLIC HEALTH CONTEXT

SECTION
2.40 

Emergency Declaration

§ 2.41  Authority To Declare An Emergency

By law, officials of the various political subdivisions, the Secretary of Health and Human Services,
the Governor, and the President of the United States are each authorized to declare emergencies
in Pennsylvania. There is no specific reference to the definition or declaration of a public health
emergency in the Pennsylvania statutory or regulatory provisions. However, in Rohm and Haas Co.
v. Continental Casualty Company, 732 A.2d 1236 (Pa. 1999), a public health emergency was
found to exist when huge amounts of arsenic waste were dumped into the soil, groundwater, 
and a creek. The actual phrase, though, was not defined. See Rohm, 732 A.2d at 1258.

Statutory authority to respond to an emergency is given to the Governor, political subdivisions, and
the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency (“PEMA”) under the Emergency Management
Services Code (35 Pa. C.S. §§ 7101-7707) and The Counterterrorism Planning, Preparedness and
Response Act (35 P.S. §§ 2140.101- 2140.303). The President of the United States has authority to
respond to an emergency through The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance
Act, P.L. 100-707, 42 U.S.C. §§ 5121 et seq. (“The Stafford Act”).

During a widespread disaster or emergency, Federal, State and local laws could be simultaneously
invoked in the name of public health and safety. Federal law authorizes cooperation between the
States and the Federal governments. 42 U.S.C. § 243. PEMA is responsible for cooperating with
the Federal government to implement programs for disaster response and for accepting assistance
under The Stafford Act. 35 Pa. C.S. §§ 7313(12) and (14).

A. Emergency Declared By The Governor

The Governor can declare a disaster emergency upon finding that a disaster occurred or that
the occurrence or threat of a disaster is imminent. 35 Pa. C.S. § 7301(c).  Disasters include
man-made, natural (such as hurricanes, tornadoes, storms, floods, high water, landslides,
snowstorms, droughts, fire explosions, or other catastrophes which result in substantial 
damage to property, hardship, suffering or possible loss of life), and war-caused disasters. 
35 Pa. C.S. § 7102. 

A disaster emergency includes conditions which may be found to actually or likely:

1. Seriously affect the safety, health or welfare of a substantial number of Pennsylvania 

citizens or preclude the operation or use of essential public facilities; and,

2. Be of such severity as to render essential State supplementation of county and local efforts

to alleviate the danger, damage, suffering or hardship; and,

Sect 2.40 Emergency Declarations  pg 1

3. Have been caused by forces beyond the control of man, by reason of civil disorder, riot or
disturbance, or by factors not foreseen and not known to exist when appropriation bills
were enacted. See 35 Pa C.S. § 7102. 

A local emergency is a condition declared by the local governing body when the threat 
or actual occurrence of a disaster is of sufficient severity to warrant coordinated local 
government action to prevent or alleviate the damage, loss, hardship, or suffering. 35 Pa.
C.S. § 7102. Upon petition by a local governing body, the Governor can declare a local
disaster emergency arising wholly or substantially from a resource shortage. See id. A
resource shortage occurs when the supply of any raw or processed natural resource, or
any commodity, goods or services that bear a substantial relationship to the health, safety,
welfare and economic well-being of the Commonwealth’s citizenry, is absent, unavailable,
or reduced. 35 Pa. C.S. § 7102.

The Governor uses an executive order or a proclamation to declare a disaster emergency.
The order or proclamation must be disseminated promptly and, unless circumstances 
do not permit, filed with PEMA. According to statute, the order or proclamation must
contain:  (1) The nature of the disaster; (2) the threatened area(s); and (3) the conditions
which brought the disaster about. The disaster emergency will continue until the Governor
finds that the threat or danger has passed or that the disaster has been dealt with to the
extent that emergency conditions no longer exist. Unless renewed by the Governor, the
disaster emergency will not continue longer than 90 days. The General Assembly can 
terminate a disaster emergency at any time. 35 Pa. C.S. § 7301(c).  

The sufficiency of an emergency declaration was tested in the Pennsylvania
Commonwealth Court when a candidate’s petition to run for office was filed past the
statutorily mandated deadline. The petition was accepted, though, because the Governor
had declared a disaster emergency and, as a result, the filing date was extended. The
complainant averred that no legitimate emergency existed so the Governor was in error in
extending the deadline.  Numerous state offices remained open, Amtrak and bus service
were running, and a State of Emergency was not expressly declared in the Governor’s
executive order. The court recognized that even though the Executive Order did not specify
that the Governor was declaring a “State of Emergency,” it contained all the necessary
requirements: (1) A disaster emergency existed in the form of a winter storm; (2) as a result
of the storm, it was necessary to extend the filing deadline; (3) the Executive Order had 
an effective date for the declaration and a time it was ending; and, (4) the order was dis-
seminated to the public by a news release. See In re Farrow, 754 A.2d 33 (Pa. Commw. 2000).

Sect 2.40 Emergency Declarations  pg 2

B. Emergency Declared By A Political Subdivision

The governing body of a political subdivision (i.e., any county, city, borough, incorporated
town or township) can declare a local disaster emergency upon finding that a disaster has
occurred or is imminent. 35 Pa. C.S. §§ 7102, and 7501(b).

A local disaster emergency is declared through an order or proclamation which must be given
prompt and general publicity and filed with PEMA. It cannot be continued or renewed for
more than 7 days except with the consent of the governing body. 35 Pa. C.S. § 7501(b). 

C. Emergency Declared By The President Of The United States

The Stafford Act provides for assistance by the Federal government to State and local 
governments to alleviate suffering and damages resulting from disasters. 42 U.S.C. § 5121. 
A Governor must first ask the President to issue a declaration that an emergency or a major
disaster exists. An emergency is defined as any occasion that the President determines Federal
assistance is needed to supplement State and local efforts to save lives, to protect property,
public health and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in any part of the
United States. 42 U.S.C. § 5122(1). A major disaster includes any natural catastrophe, fire,
flood, or explosion in any part of the United States which, in the determination of the
President, causes damage to warrant major disaster assistance under The Stafford Act. 
42 U.S.C. § 5122(2). 

The Governor’s request must describe the severity of the disaster (i.e., that an effective
response is beyond the capabilities of the State and local governments and that Federal 
assistance is necessary), include that the Governor has taken appropriate response action
under State law and the State’s emergency plan, and contain information concerning the
nature and amount of State and local resources committed to the disaster. 42 U.S.C. § 5170.

The President can also determine that an emergency exists when it involves a subject area
under which the United States exercises exclusive or preeminent responsibility and authority
(such as a Federal building). 42 U.S.C. § 5191(b).

D. Emergency Declared By The Secretary Of Health And Human Services

If the Secretary of Health and Human Services determines, after consultation with public
health officials, that a disease or disorder presents a public health emergency or if a public
health emergency exists (including a significant outbreak of an infectious disease or 
bioterrorist attack), the Secretary can take appropriate action to respond. 42 U.S.C. 
§ 247d(a). This term is not statutorily defined. 

Sect 2.40 Emergency Declarations  pg 3

§ 2.42  Changes In Governmental Powers During A State Of Emergency

The following is a summary of changes in governmental powers during a state of disaster emergency: 

A. Suspension of Laws 

The Governor can issue, amend, and rescind executive orders, proclamations, and regulations.
35 Pa. C.S. § 7301(b). The Governor can also suspend any regulatory statute prescribing 
procedures for the conduct of any Commonwealth business, or the regulations of any
Commonwealth agency (including The Pennsylvania Department of Health) if strict compliance
with them would prevent, hinder or delay necessary action in coping with the emergency. 
35 Pa. C.S. § 7301(f)(1). Also, The Pennsylvania Department of Health and other
Commonwealth agencies can implement their emergency assignments without regard to
procedures required by other laws (except for mandatory constitutional requirements) relative
to the performance of public work, entering into contracts, incurring obligations, employing
temporary workers, renting equipment, and purchasing supplies and materials, and 
expenditures of public funds. 35 Pa. C.S. § 7308.

B. The Temporary Suspension Of Formal Requirements 

A political subdivision included in a disaster emergency can exercise its powers without regard
to time-consuming procedures and formalities prescribed by law (except for mandatory 
constitutional requirements) relative to performing public work, entering into contracts, 
incurring obligations, employing temporary workers, renting equipment, purchasing supplies
and materials, levying taxes, and appropriating/expending public funds. 35 Pa. C.S. § 7501(d).

C. The Governor as Commander in Chief 

The Governor is the Commander in Chief of the Pennsylvania military forces. 35 Pa. C.S. §
7301(e).

D. Using Commonwealth Resources 

The Governor can use all available resources of the Commonwealth government and political
subdivisions that are reasonably necessary to cope with the disaster emergency. 35 Pa. C.S. §
7301(f)(2).

E. Using Commonwealth Personnel 

The Governor can transfer the direction, personnel and functions of Commonwealth agencies,
such as The Pennsylvania Department of Health, or their entities to perform emergency 
services. 35 Pa. C.S. § 7301(f)(3).

.  Commandeering Property 
F

The Governor can commandeer or utilize any private, public or quasi-public property necessary
to cope with a disaster emergency. PEMA can provide payment for the commandeered 
property. 35 Pa. C.S. §§ 7301(f)(4) and 7313(10).

Sect 2.40 Emergency Declarations  pg 4

G. Evacuation 

The Governor can compel the evacuation of all or part of the population if necessary to 
preserve life or for other disaster mitigation, response or recovery, including the prescription
of routes, modes of transportation and destinations. 35 Pa. C.S. §§ 7301(f)(5)-(6).

H. Ingress and Egress 

The Governor can control the movement of persons within the disaster area and the occupancy
of the premises therein. 35 Pa. C.S. § 7301(f)(7).

I. Alcoholic Beverages, Firearms, Explosives And Combustibles 

The Governor can suspend or limit the sale, dispensing, and transportation of these items. 
35 Pa. C.S. § 7301(f)(8).

J. Schools and School Vehicles 

Publicly funded universities, colleges, elementary schools, and secondary schools must be
made available to local, county and State officials for emergency planning and exercises, as
well as serving as mass care facilities during an emergency. School buses and other vehicles
owned or leased by universities, colleges, and school districts must be made available to 
local, county, and State officials for the same purposes. 35 Pa. C.S. § 7701(d)-(e). 

K. Specific Enumerated Responsibilities Of The Pennsylvania Department Of Health 
During a disaster emergency, this agency is responsible for reporting to PEMA damage to
medical facilities, supplying technical advice and assistance during emergency nuclear incidents,
providing medical services through Pennsylvania Department of Health installations, and
assisting in the procurement and distribution of medical equipment. 4 Pa. Code §
3.25(p)(3)(ii), (iv)-(vi).

Sect 2.40 Emergency Declarations  pg 5

§ 2.43  The Role Of PEMA

PEMA was created to assure the prompt, proper and effective discharge of basic Commonwealth
responsibilities relating to civil defense and disaster preparedness, operations and recovery. 35 Pa.
C.S. § 7311. PEMA is comprised of The Pennsylvania Emergency Management Council. The
Council is primarily responsible for the overall policy and direction of a statewide civil defense and
disaster program. The Secretary of The Pennsylvania Department of Health sits as a member. 
35 Pa. C.S. § 7312(a). 

The following is a summary of PEMA’s powers and duties:

A. Preparing a Pennsylvania Emergency Management Plan.  35 Pa. C.S. § 7313(1).
B. Rulemaking Authority

PEMA can promulgate, adopt and enforce rules, regulations and orders necessary to carry out
its powers and duties. 35 Pa. C.S. § 7313(3).

C. Stockpiling Supplies And Emergency Equipment.  35 Pa. C.S. § 7313(19) 
D. Suspending bidding And Other Contract Procedures 

For the period during which a disaster emergency is declared, PEMA can incur obligations 
for and purchase materials and supplies necessary to combat the disaster, to protect the
health and safety of persons and property, and to provide emergency assistance to the 
victims without complying with formal bidding or other time-consuming contract procedures.
35 Pa. C.S. § 7313(20).

E. Hazardous Sites

PEMA is to work with The Pennsylvania Department of Health, the Departments of
Environmental Protection, Agriculture, and others, as well as the Pennsylvania State Police 
to develop a hazardous material safety program for incorporation into the Commonwealth
Emergency Operations Plan. 35 P.S. § 6022.204. 

Sect 2.40 Emergency Declarations  pg 6

SECTION 3.00 PETITION CHECKLISTS AND MODEL ORDERS

SECTION
3.10 

Actions Filed Under The Disease Prevention 
And Control Law Of 1955

For petitions under the Disease Prevention and Control Law of 1955 (“DPCL”), 35 P.S. § 521.1, 
et seq., to compel involuntary medical examinations and treatment, hearings must be held within
24 hours after service of the petition on the respondent. The court may order hearings to compel
isolation or quarantine within 24 hours after service of the petition. The court may also hold a
hearing on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus for an individual whose liberty has been 
restricted pursuant to a public health order.

§ 3.11  Checklist

The court may wish to consider some or all of the following:

A. Is there a request to serve the respondent by means other than those provided in the rules of
civil procedure?  If so, how may respondent be served with a copy of the petition and any
other notices?

B. Given the nature of the petition and the relief requested, is respondent entitled to appointed
counsel (either because the respondent cannot afford counsel or cannot otherwise obtain
counsel because of restrictions on his or her liberty)?  If so: 

1. How will the respondent be advised of the right to counsel?

2. Who will be appointed to represent the respondent?

3. How will counsel be advised of the appointment?

4. How and when will the respondent and counsel be provided with contact information 

for the other?

Sect 3.10 Actions filed under The Disease Prevention Control Law  pg 1

C. If the petitioner makes a prima facie showing that respondent is infected with a highly 
contagious communicable disease, will the court order the hearing to be conducted by 
alternative means (such as by telephone or video-conference)? If so:

1. How will the parties, counsel, witnesses and court staff be advised of this?

2. What steps must be taken to facilitate the hearing (ie., equipment brought to the 

courtroom, notify the court reporter, teleconference scheduled, etc.)?

D. Is there a request to isolate or quarantine the respondent pending the hearing? If so:

1. How will respondent (and counsel) be served with the pre-hearing detention order?

E. Will the court seal the record or order the caption amended to protect the identity or 

confidentiality of the respondent? See generally R.W. v. Hampe, 626 A.2d 1218, 426 Pa.
Super. 305 (Pa. Super. 1993), Commonwealth v. Milice, 584 A.2d 997, 401 Pa. Super. 96 
(Pa. Super. 1991).

Sect 3.10 Actions filed under The Disease Prevention Control Law  pg 2

§ 3.12  Pre-Hearing Model Order For Public Health Cases

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF _________________ COUNTY

_______ JUDICIAL DISTRICT

PRE-HEARING ORDER
Public Health Cases

________________________

DOCKET NO.

:

:

:

: :

: :

:

:

:

:

________________________ 

________________________

Petitioner

vs.

________________________

________________________

________________________

Respondent

AND NOW, this _____ day of _______________, 200__, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

__________________________ (health authority) has filed a petition pursuant to the Disease
Prevention and Control Law of 1955, 35 P.S. §521.1 et seq.,  on __________________, 200__  
to compel the _______________ (medical examination / treatment / isolation / quarantine) of
respondent.

Respondent is suspected of being infected with or a carrier of ________________________.

Sect 3.10 Actions filed under The Disease Prevention Control Law  pg 3

Petitioner has made a prima facie showing that respondent is infected with or a carrier of the
aforementioned disease in a communicable stage. If proven, respondent would pose significant
threat to the health of others if exposed to said disease. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ordered as follows:

___  Respondent be detained at the following location pending a hearing on this matter, which
shall be within 24 hours after service of the petition. Respondent to be detained at:
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________.

___  Respondent shall be advised of the right to consult with and be represented by an attorney. 
If respondent cannot afford or otherwise obtain counsel, representation will be provided by:

Name of attorney:_________________________________________

Address of attorney:_______________________________________

Telephone number of attorney:______________________________

___ Because of the possibility that respondent is infected with a highly contagious communicable
disease, hearings in this matter shall be conducted by alternative means, specifically:
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________.

A copy of this Order shall be served upon Respondent, and if so indicated, on counsel, forthwith
as follows: ____________________________________.

A copy of this Order shall be served forthwith on the following by: __________________________.

Pennsylvania Department of Health
Attention: Office of the Secretary of Health
Health and Welfare Building
7th & Forster Streets 
Harrisburg, PA 17120
Phone: 717-787-0190
Fax: 717-787-6436

____________________________________________ 

BY THE COURT

J.

Sect 3.10 Actions filed under The Disease Prevention Control Law  pg 4

§ 3.13  Pre-Hearing Model Order For Habeas Corpus

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF _________________ COUNTY

_______ JUDICIAL DISTRICT

PRE-HEARING ORDER
Habeas Corpus

________________________

DOCKET NO.

:

:

:

: :

: :

:

:

:

:

________________________ 

________________________

Petitioner

vs.

________________________

________________________

________________________

Respondent

AND NOW, this _____ day of _______________, 200__, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

__________________________ has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging he or she
has been unlawfully restrained of his or her liberty by ______________________(public health
authority).

The order under which respondent has been restrained of his or her liberty asserts respondent is
infected with, or is suspected of being infected with or a carrier of ________________________.

Sect 3.10 Actions filed under The Disease Prevention Control Law  pg 5

Because of the potentially significant threat to the health of others if exposed to said disease, it is
hereby ordered as follows:

___ Because of the possibility that respondent is infected with a highly contagious communicable
disease, hearings in this matter shall be conducted by alternative means, specifically:
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________.

___ Respondent shall be advised of the right to consult with and be represented by an attorney. If
respondent cannot afford or otherwise obtain counsel, representation will be provided by:

Name of attorney:_________________________________________

Address of attorney:_______________________________________

Telephone number of attorney:______________________________

A copy of this Order shall be served on respondent, and if so indicated, on counsel, forthwith by
_____________________.

____________________________________________ 

BY THE COURT

J.

Sect 3.10 Actions filed under The Disease Prevention Control Law  pg 6

§ 3.14  Model Order For Involuntary Medical Examination

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF _________________ COUNTY

_______ JUDICIAL DISTRICT

ORDER
Public Health - Medical Examination

________________________

DOCKET NO.

:

:

:

: :

: :

:

:

:

:

________________________ 

________________________

Petitioner

vs.

________________________

________________________

________________________

Respondent

__________________________ (health authority) filed a petition pursuant to the Disease Prevention
and Control Law of 1955, 35 P.S. § 521.1 et seq., on __________________, 200__  to compel the
medical examination of respondent.

A hearing was held on ____________, 200__.

Sect 3.10 Actions filed under The Disease Prevention Control Law  pg 7

After conducting a hearing on this matter, the court finds:

1. Respondent is reasonably suspected of being infected with, or a carrier of, the communicable

disease ____________________, in a communicable stage.

2. Respondent was ordered by petitioner to submit to a medical examination for the presence of

said disease, has refused to be examined and had no valid reason for refusing. 

Therefore, it is hereby ordered that respondent shall:

___ Submit to a medical examination for the aforementioned disease. The examination may be per-
formed by a physician of respondent’s own choice at respondent’s own expense. The examination
shall include physical and laboratory tests performed in a laboratory approved by the Secretary of
The Pennsylvania Department of Health, and shall be conducted in accordance with accepted pro-
fessional practices. The results of the examination shall be reported to the petitioner on forms fur-
nished by The Pennsylvania Department of Health. If respondent refuses to undergo an examina-
tion, he / she may be committed by the court to an institution in this Commonwealth determined
by the Secretary of The Pennsylvania Department of Health to be suitable for the care of such cases.

___ Not be required to submit to an involuntary medical examination, but shall be quarantined at
the following location for ______________ days, or until the disease is no longer in a communica-
ble stage, as determined by petitioner. Respondent is ordered quarantined at:

___________________________________.

___ Provisions for food, water, medical care, and other necessities:
________________________________________________.

___ Allocation of costs of isolation or quarantine:
________________________________________________.

___ Other conditions: ________________________________________________.

___ This matter shall be re-listed for ____________________. 

A copy of this Order shall be served forthwith on the following by: ___________________.

Pennsylvania Department of Health
Attention: Office of the Secretary of Health
Health and Welfare Building
7th & Forster Streets 
Harrisburg, PA 17120
Phone: 717-787-0190
Fax: 717-787-6436

____________________________________________ 

BY THE COURT

J.

Sect 3.10 Actions filed under The Disease Prevention Control Law  pg 8

§ 3.15  Model Order For Involuntary Medical Treatment

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF _________________ COUNTY

_______ JUDICIAL DISTRICT

ORDER
Public Health - Medical Treatment

________________________

DOCKET NO.

:

:

:

: :

: :

:

:

:

:

________________________ 

________________________

Petitioner

vs.

________________________

________________________

________________________

Respondent

__________________________ (health authority) filed a petition pursuant to the Disease Prevention
and Control Law of 1955, 35 P.S. § 521.1 et seq., on __________________, 200__  to compel the
medical treatment of respondent.

A hearing was held on ____________, 200__.

Sect 3.10 Actions filed under The Disease Prevention Control Law  pg 9

After conducting a hearing on this matter, the court finds:

1. It has been proven to the Court, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent is infected

with the communicable disease ____________________, in a communicable stage.

2. Respondent was ordered by petitioner to submit to treatment for said disease, has refused to be

treated and had no valid reason for refusing. 

3. Because of this communicable disease, the respondent poses a significant threat to the health
and safety of others and there are no less restrictive means of protecting the public’s health
other than involuntary treatment.

Therefore, it is hereby ordered that respondent shall:

___ Submit to medical treatment for the aforementioned disease at a location approved by peti-
tioner for the safekeeping and treatment of respondent until such time as the disease is rendered
non-communicable. 

___ Not be required to submit to involuntary treatment, but shall be isolated at the following loca-
tion for ________________ days, or until the disease is no longer in a communicable stage.
Respondent is ordered isolated at: ________________________________________________.

___ Provisions for food, water, medical care, and other necessities:
________________________________________________.

___ Allocation of costs of isolation or quarantine:
________________________________________________.

___ Other conditions: ________________________________________________.

___ This matter shall be re-listed for ____________________. 

A copy of this Order shall be served forthwith on the following by ________________.

Pennsylvania Department of Health
Attention: Office of the Secretary of Health
Health and Welfare Building
7th & Forster Streets 
Harrisburg, PA 17120
Phone: 717-787-0190
Fax: 717-787-6436

____________________________________________ 

BY THE COURT

J.

Sect 3.10 Actions filed under The Disease Prevention Control Law  pg 10

§ 3.16  Model Order For Quarantine

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF _________________ COUNTY

_______ JUDICIAL DISTRICT

ORDER
Public Health - Quarantine

________________________

DOCKET NO.

:

:

:

: :

: :

:

:

:

:

________________________ 

________________________

Petitioner

vs.

________________________

________________________

________________________

Respondent

__________________________ (health authority) filed a petition pursuant to the Disease Prevention
and Control Law of 1955, 35 P.S. § 521.1 et seq., on __________________, 200__  to compel the
quarantine of respondent.

A hearing was held on ____________, 200__.

Sect 3.10 Actions filed under The Disease Prevention Control Law  pg 11

After conducting a hearing on this matter, the court finds:

1. It has been proven to the Court, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent is 

reasonably suspected of being exposed to, infected with, or a carrier of, the communicable 
disease ____________________, in a communicable stage.

2. Respondent was ordered by petitioner to remain in quarantine for the period of 

communicability.

3. Respondent has refused to remain in quarantine and had no valid reason for refusing. 

4. Because of this communicable disease, the respondent poses a significant threat to the health
and safety of others and there are no less restrictive means of protecting the public’s health
other than quarantine.

Therefore, it is hereby ordered that respondent shall be quarantined at the following location for
__________________ days, or until the disease is no longer in a communicable stage, as determined
by the petitioner. Petitioner to be quarantined at: __________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________.

___ Provisions for food, water, medical care, and other necessities:
________________________________________________.

___ Allocation of costs of isolation or quarantine:
________________________________________________.

___ Other conditions: ________________________________________________.

___ This matter shall be re-listed for ____________________. 

A copy of this Order shall be served forthwith on the following by: ___________________.

Pennsylvania Department of Health
Attention: Office of the Secretary of Health
Health and Welfare Building
7th & Forster Streets 
Harrisburg, PA 17120
Phone: 717-787-0190
Fax: 717-787-6436

____________________________________________ 

BY THE COURT

J.

Sect 3.10 Actions filed under The Disease Prevention Control Law  pg 12

§ 3.17  Model Order For Isolation

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF _________________ COUNTY

_______ JUDICIAL DISTRICT

ORDER
Public Health - Isolation

________________________

DOCKET NO.

:

:

:

: :

: :

:

:

:

:

________________________ 

________________________

Petitioner

vs.

________________________

________________________

________________________

Respondent

__________________________ (health authority) filed a petition pursuant to the Disease Prevention
and Control Law of 1955, 35 P.S. § 521.1 et seq., on __________________, 200__  to compel the
isolation of respondent.

A hearing was held on ____________, 200__.

Sect 3.10 Actions filed under The Disease Prevention Control Law  pg 13

After conducting a hearing on this matter, the court finds:

1. It has been proven to the Court, by clear and convincing evidence, that the Respondent has

been infected with the communicable disease _____________________. 

2. The respondent has refused to be isolated and had no valid reason for refusing.

3. Because of this communicable disease, the respondent poses a significant threat to the health
and safety of others and there are no less restrictive means of protecting the public’s health
other than isolation.

Therefore, it is hereby ordered that respondent shall be isolated at the following location for
________________ days, or until the disease is no longer in a communicable stage. The respondent
shall be isolated at:____________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________.

___ Provisions for food, water, medical care, and other necessities:
________________________________________________.

___ Allocation of costs of isolation or quarantine:
________________________________________________.

___ Other conditions: ________________________________________________.

___ This matter shall be re-listed for ____________________. 

A copy of this Order shall be served forthwith on the following by: ___________________.

Pennsylvania Department of Health
Attention: Office of the Secretary of Health
Health and Welfare Building
7th & Forster Streets 
Harrisburg, PA 17120
Phone: 717-787-0190
Fax: 717-787-6436

____________________________________________ 

BY THE COURT

J.

Sect 3.10 Actions filed under The Disease Prevention Control Law  pg 14

SECTION 3.00 PETITION CHECKLISTS AND MODEL ORDERS

SECTION
3.20 

Petitions Filed Under The
Counterterrorism Planning, Preparedness,
And Response Act

Under the Counterterrorism Planning, Preparedness and Response Act, (“Counterterrorism Act”)
the Governor may temporarily order individuals or groups isolated or quarantined “in the case 
of an actual or suspected outbreak of a contagious disease or epidemic due to an actual or 
suspected bioterrorist or biohazardous event.” 35 P.S. § 2140.301(a).

Within 24 hours, or the next court business day after the issuance of the Governor’s order, the
health department must file a petition with the court to authorize the continued isolation or 
quarantine. Id. at § 2140.301(b)(1).

A hearing on the petition must be held within 72 hours after the filing with the court. 35 P.S. §
2140.301(b)(2).

§ 3.21  Checklist

The court may wish to consider the following in advance of the hearing:

A. Pursuant to the Counterterrorism Act, notice of the hearing may be oral or written and 

must provide the respondent(s) with the time, place and purpose of the hearing. 35 P.S. §
2140.301(b)(3). Will the court order or authorize a method of service other than that 
provided in the rules of civil procedure? 

B. Pursuant to the Counterterrorism Act, individuals are entitled to be represented by counsel and
if an individual cannot afford counsel or is “otherwise unable to employ counsel,” the court
must provide counsel. 35 P.S. §2140.301(b)(4). The court may wish to consider: 

1. How will respondent(s) be advised of the right to counsel?

2. Who will be appointed to represent the respondent(s) that cannot afford or obtain counsel?

3. How will counsel be advised of the appointment?

4. How and when will the respondent(s) and counsel be provided with contact information 

for the other?

Sect 3.20 Petitions filed under The Counterterrorism Planning, Preparedness and Response Act  pg 1

C. Pursuant to the Counterterrorism Act, the court may determine the manner in which the hearing
shall occur, including through the use of closed circuit television. 35 P.S. § 2140.301(b)(3). The
court may wish to consider:

1. Will the hearing be conducted by alternative means (such as by telephone or video-conference)?

If so:

a. How will the parties, counsel, witnesses and court  staff be advised of this?

b. What steps must be taken to facilitate the hearing (ie., equipment brought to the 

courtroom, notify the court reporter, teleconference scheduled, etc.)?

D. Will the court seal the record or order the caption amended to protect the identity or 

confidentiality of the respondent? See generally, R.W. v. Hampe, 626 A.2d 1218, 426 Pa. 
Super. 305 (Pa. Super. 1993), Commonwealth v. Milice, 584 A.2d 997, 401 Pa. Super. 96 
(Pa. Super. 1991).

Sect 3.20 Petitions filed under The Counterterrorism Planning, Preparedness and Response Act  pg 2

§ 3.22  Pre-Hearing Model Order For Isolation/Quarantine

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF _________________ COUNTY

_______ JUDICIAL DISTRICT

PRE-HEARING ORDER
ORDER

________________________

DOCKET NO.

:

:

:

: :

: :

:

:

:

:

________________________ 

________________________

Petitioner

vs.

________________________

________________________

________________________

Respondent

AND NOW, ________________200_, ________________ having filed a petition pursuant to the
Counterterrorism Planning, Preparedness and Response Act, 35 P.S. § 2140.301, et seq., on
________________, 200__ to compel the isolation or quarantine of Respondent and alleging:

That Respondent is suspected of being infected with, exposed to, or a carrier of the 
communicable disease _________________ in a communicable stage; and

That as a result Respondent poses a significant threat to the health of others if exposed to 
the disease; 

And requesting that the Respondent being isolated or quarantined.

Sect 3.20 Petitions filed under The Counterterrorism Planning, Preparedness and Response Act  pg 3

Therefore, it is ordered as follows:

A hearing on the petition is scheduled to be held on at _________________________ on
________________ at ____ __.m.

Because of the possibility Respondent has been exposed to or infected with a highly 
communicable disease, hearings shall be conducted by alternative means, specifically:
___________________________________________________.

Respondent is hereby advised of the right to consult with, and be represented by, an attorney.  
If Respondent cannot afford an attorney, or otherwise obtain counsel, representation will be 
provided by:

Name___________________________________________

Address_________________________________________

Phone___________________________________________

A copy of this order shall be served on the Respondent in the following manner:
____________________________________________

____________________________________________ 

BY THE COURT

J.

Sect 3.20 Petitions filed under The Counterterrorism Planning, Preparedness and Response Act  pg 4

§ 3.23  Model Order For The Continuation Of Isolation  

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF _________________ COUNTY

_______ JUDICIAL DISTRICT

________________________

DOCKET NO.

:

:

:

: :

: :

:

:

:

:

________________________ 

________________________

Petitioner

vs.

________________________

________________________

________________________

Respondent

ORDER

AND NOW, ________________200_, ________________ having filed a petition pursuant to the
Counterterrorism Planning, Preparedness and Response Act, 35 P.S. § 2140.301, et seq., on
________________, 200__ to compel the isolation of Respondent(s) and it appearing:

1. That on _____________________, pursuant to 35 P.S. § 2140.301(a), the Governor of

Pennsylvania ordered the Respondent(s) into isolation; and

2. That on ________________ the Court held a hearing to determine whether continued isolation
is warranted, and at which the Respondent(s) was (were) present or otherwise afforded the 
opportunity to participate and represented by counsel; and

Sect 3.20 Petitions filed under The Counterterrorism Planning, Preparedness and Response Act  pg 5

3. After hearing the Court having concluded that:

i. It has been proven, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent was infected with the

communicable disease __________________.

ii. Because of the infection, Respondent poses a significant threat to the health and safety of 

others; and

iii. There are no lesser restrictive means of protecting the public’s health from infection by the

Respondent other than continued isolation of the Respondent.

Therefore, it is ordered as follows:

1. Respondent is ordered isolated for the lesser of _____________ days (not to exceed 30 days) or
until the disease is no longer in a communicable stage as determined by Petitioner pursuant to
35 P.S. § 2140.301(b)(5).

2. The terms and conditions of Respondent’s isolation shall be as follows:

a. Location: ________________________________.

b. Provisions for food, water, medical care, and other necessities:

_____________________________________________.

c. Allocation of costs of isolation: _____________________________________________.

d. Other conditions: _____________________________________________.

3. Petitioner shall provide the Court with reports as mandated by 35 P.S. § 2140.301(b)(7) in the 

following manner: __________________________.

4. Further hearing shall be held: __________________________________.

____________________________________________ 

BY THE COURT

J.

Sect 3.20 Petitions filed under The Counterterrorism Planning, Preparedness and Response Act  pg 6

§ 3.24  Model Order For The Continuation Of Quarantine  

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF _________________ COUNTY

_______ JUDICIAL DISTRICT

________________________

DOCKET NO.

:

:

:

: :

: :

:

:

:

:

________________________ 

________________________

Petitioner

vs.

________________________

________________________

________________________

Respondent

ORDER

AND NOW, ________________200_, ________________ having filed a petition pursuant to the
Counterterrorism Planning, Preparedness and Response Act, 35 P.S. § 2140.301, et seq., on
________________, 200__ to compel the quarantine of Respondent(s) and it appearing:

1. That on _____________________, pursuant to 35 P.S. § 2140.301(a), the Governor of

Pennsylvania ordered the Respondent(s) into quarantine; and

2. That on ________________ the Court held a hearing to determine whether continued 

quarantine is warranted, and at which the Respondent(s) was (were) present or otherwise 
afforded the opportunity to participate and represented by counsel; and

Sect 3.20 Petitions filed under The Counterterrorism Planning, Preparedness and Response Act  pg 7

3. After hearing the Court having concluded that:

i. It has been proven, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent was exposed to the 

communicable disease __________________.

ii. Because of the exposure, Respondent poses a significant threat to the health and safety of 

others; and

iii. There are no lesser restrictive means of protecting the public’s health from infection by the

Respondent other than continued quarantine of the Respondent.

Therefore, it is ordered as follows:

1. Respondent is ordered quarantined for the lesser of _____________ days (not to exceed 30
days) or until the disease is no longer in a communicable stage as determined by Petitioner 
pursuant to 35 P.S. § 2140.301(b)(5).

2. The terms and conditions of Respondent’s quarantine shall be as follows:

a. Location: ________________________________.

b. Provisions for food, water, medical care, and other necessities:

______________________________________________.

c. Allocation of costs of isolation or quarantine:

______________________________________________.

d. Other conditions: _____________________________________________.

3. Petitioner shall provide the Court with reports as mandated by 35 P.S. § 2140.301(b)(7) in the 

following manner: __________________________.

4. Further hearing shall be held: __________________________________.

____________________________________________ 

BY THE COURT

J.

Sect 3.20 Petitions filed under The Counterterrorism Planning, Preparedness and Response Act  pg 8

SECTION 4.00 APPENDICES

SECTION
4.11

Contact Information:
The Pennsylvania Department of Health 

The Pennsylvania Department of Health

Health and Welfare Building
7th and Forster Streets
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120
Phone: 1.877.724.3258
FAX:

412.565.7582

Calvin B. Johnson, MD, MPH

Secretary
Health and Welfare Building
Executive Offices
8th Floor, West Wing
7th and Forster Streets
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120
Phone: 717.787.6436
717.787.0191
FAX:

Sect 4.11 Contact Information: Pennsylvania Department of Health  pg 1

SECTION 4.00 APPENDICES

SECTION
4.12

Contact Information:
Community Health District Offices 

A. SOUTHEAST DISTRICT

Reading State Office Building
Room 442
625 Cherry Street
Reading, Pennsylvania 19602
Phone:
FAX:

610.378.4352
610.378.4527

B. NORTHEAST DISTRICT

665 Carey Avenue
Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania 18702
570.826.2062
Phone:
570.826.2238
FAX:

C. NORTHCENTRAL DISTRICT

Water Tower Square
1000 Commerce Park Drive
Suite 109
Williamsport, Pennsylvania 17701
Phone:

570.327.3400 (day)
570.327.5893 (night)
570.327.3748

FAX:

D. NORTHWEST DISTRICT
19 McQuiston Drive
Jackson Center, Pennsylvania 16133
724.662.6068
Phone:
724.662.6086
FAX:

E. SOUTHCENTRAL DISTRICT

30 Kline Plaza
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17104
Phone:
FAX:

717.787.8092
717.772.3151

. SOUTHWEST DISTRICT
F

514 Pittsburgh State Office Building
300 Liberty Avenue
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222
Phone:
FAX:

412.565.5085
412.565.7582

Sect 4.12 Contact Information: Community Health District Offices  pg 1

SECTION 4.00 APPENDICES

SECTION
4.13

Contact Information:
County/Municipal Health Departments 

A. ALLEGHENY COUNTY HEALTH 

. ERIE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
F

DEPARTMENT
3333 Forbes Avenue
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Phone:
FAX:

412.687.2243
412.578.8325

B. ALLENTOWN BUREAU OF HEALTH

245 North 6th Street
Allentown, Pennsylvania 18102
Phone:
FAX:

610.437.7760
610.437.8799

C. BETHLEHEM HEALTH BUREAU

10 East Church Street
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania 18018
Phone:
FAX:

610.865.7087
610.865.7326

Neshaminy Manor Center
1282 Almshouse Road
Doylestown, Pennsylvania 18901
215.345.3318
Phone:
215.345.3833
FAX:

E. CHESTER COUNTY HEALTH 

DEPARTMENT
601 Westtown Road
Suite 290
West Chester, Pennsylvania 19380
610.344.6225
Phone:
610.344.6727
FAX:

D. BUCKS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

606 West Second Street
Erie, Pennsylvania 16507
814.451.6700
Phone:
814.451.6766
FAX:

G. MONTGOMERY COUNTY HEALTH

DEPARTMENT
1430 DeKalb Street
P
.O. Box 311
Norristown, Pennsylvania 19404
610.278.5117
Phone:
610.278.5167
FAX:

H. PHILADELPHIA DEPARTMENT OF 

PUBLIC HEALTH
1101 Market Street
Suite 840
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107
215.686.5000
Phone:
215.685.5398
FAX:

I. WILKES-BARRE CITY HEALTH 

DEPARTMENT
City Hall
40 E. Market Street
Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania 18711
570.208.4268
Phone:
570.208.4272
FAX:

J. YORK CITY HEALTH BUREAU

One Market Way West
Third Floor
York, Pennsylvania 17401
717.849.2252
Phone:
717.852.9397
FAX:

Sect 4.13 Contact Information: County/Municipal Health Departments  pg 1

SECTION 4.00 APPENDICES

SECTION
4.14

Table of Authorities

FEDERAL CONSTITUTION

PENNSYLVANIA STATUTES 

U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 1

3 P.S. § 331  (1995)

U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3

3 Pa. C.S. § 2303 (2006)

PENNSYLVANIA CONSTITUTION

16 P.S. §§ 12001 – 12028 (2006)

U.S. Const. art. I, § 10

U.S. Const. amend. IV

U.S. Const. amend. V

U.S. Const. amend. X

Pa. Const. art. I, § 1

Pa. Const. art. I, § 8

Pa. Const. art. I, § 14

Pa. Const. art. V, § 1

Pa. Const. art. V, § 4

Pa. Const. art. V, § 5

Pa. Const. art. V, § 8

FEDERAL STATUTES

42 U.S.C. § 243 (2000)

42 U.S.C.S. § 247 (Lexis 2006)

42 U.S.C. § 5121 (2000)

42 U.S.C. § 5122 (2000)

42 U.S.C. § 5170 (2000)

42 U.S.C. § 5191 (2000)

3 Pa .C.S. § 2321 (2006)

16 P.S. §§ 2185 – 2193 (2001)

16 P.S. § 2196 (2001)

16 P.S. § 2199 (2001)

16 P.S. § 9960.6 (2001)

34 Pa. C.S. § 102 (2006)

35 P.S. § 521.1 (2003)

35 P.S. § 521.2 (2003)

35 P.S. § 521.3 (2003)

35 P.S. § 521.4 (2003)

35 P.S. § 521.5 (2003) 

35 P.S. § 521.7 (2003)

35 P.S. § 521.9 (2003)

35 P.S. § 521.11 (2003)

35 P.S. § 521.16 (2003)

35 P.S. § 521.19 (2003)

35 P.S. § 521.20 (2003)

35 P.S. § 721.1 (2003)

35 P.S. § 721.5 (2003)

35 P.S. § 780-101 (2003)

Sect 4.14 Table of Authorities  pg 1

PENNSYLVANIA STATUTES cont’d

35 P.S. § 780-124 (2003)

42 Pa. C.S. § 722 (2004)

35 P.S. § 2140.102 (2006)

42 Pa. C.S. § 723 (2006)

35 P.S. § 2140.301 (2006)

42 Pa. C.S. § 724 (2006)

35 P.S. § 4013.1 (2003)

42 Pa. C.S. § 725 (2004)

35 P.S. § 6018.609(2003) 

42 Pa. C.S. § 726 (2004)

35 P.S. § 6020.1106 (2003)

42 Pa. C.S. § 741 (2004)

35 P.S. § 6022.201 (2003)

42 Pa. C.S. § 742 (2004)

35 P.S. § 6022.202 (2003)

42 Pa. C.S. § 761 (2004)

35 P.S. § 6022.203 (2003)

42 Pa. C.S. § 762 (2004)

35 P.S. § 6022.204 (2003)

42 Pa. C.S. § 763 (2004)

35 P.S. § 6931 (2003)

42 Pa. C.S. § 764 (2004)

35 Pa. C.S. § 7101 (2003)

42 Pa. C.S. § 931 (2006)

35 Pa. C.S. § 7102 (2006)

42 Pa. C.S. § 932 (2004)

35 Pa. C.S. § 7103 (2003)

42 Pa. C.S. § 933 (2004)

35 Pa. C.S. § 7104 (2003)

42 Pa. C.S. § 934 (2004)

35 Pa. C.S. § 7301 (2003)

42 Pa. C.S. § 1123 (2004)

35 Pa. C.S. § 7308 (2003)

42 Pa. C.S. § 1302 (2006)

35 Pa. C.S. § 7311 (2003)

42 Pa. C.S. § 1515 (2006)

35 Pa. C.S. § 7312 (2003)

42 Pa. C.S. § 4132 (2004)

35 Pa. C.S. § 7313 (2006)

42 Pa. C.S. § 5985 (2006)

35 Pa. C.S. § 7501 (2003)

42 Pa. C.S. § 6501 (2000)

35 Pa. C.S. § 7502 (2003)

42 Pa. C.S. § 6502 (2000)

35 Pa. C.S. § 7701 (2006)

42 Pa. C.S. § 6503 (2000)

40 P.S. § 1303.504 (2006)

42 Pa. C.S. § 6504 (2000)

42 Pa. C.S. § 721 (2004)

42 Pa. C.S. § 6505 (2000)

Sect 4.14 Table of Authorities  pg 2

PENNSYLVANIA STATUTES cont’d

42 Pa. C.S. § 8523 (1998)

50 P.S. § 7304 (2001)

53 P.S. §12291 (1998)

53 P.S. §12294 (1998)

53 P.S. § 14401 (1998)

53 P.S. § 14402 (1998)

53 P.S. § 14464 (1998)

53 P.S. § 23158 (1998)

53 P.S. § 24561 (1998)

53 P.S. § 24568 (1998)

53 P.S. § 24616 (1998)

53 P.S. § 37305 (1998)

53 P.S. § 37306 (1998)

53 P.S. § 37307 (1998)

53 P.S. § 37308 (1998)

53 P.S. § 37320 (1998)

53 P.S. § 37323 (1998)

53 P.S. § 37324 (1998)

53 P.S. § 46202 (2006)

53 P.S. § 48101 (1966)

53 P.S. § 48105 (1966)

53 P.S. § 48106 (1966)

53 P.S. § 48108 (1966)

53 P.S. § 53175 (2006)

53 P.S. § 56601 (1957)

53 P.S. § 56605 (1957)

53 P.S. § 56606 (1957)

53 P.S. § 56607 (1957)

53 P.S. § 56608(1957) 

53 P.S. § 68001 (1997)

53 P.S. § 68002 (1997)

53 P.S. § 68003 (1997)

53 P.S. § 68004 (1997)

53 P.S. § 68005 (1997) 

71 P.S. § 11 (1990)

71 P.S. § 61 (1990)

71 P.S. § 66 (1990)

71 P.S. § 158 (2006)

71 P.S. § 200 (1990)

71 P.S. § 510-17 (2006)

71 P.S. §§ 531-555 (2006)

71 P.S. § 536 (1990)

71 P.S. § 541 (1990)

71 P.S. §§ 1401-1411 (2006)

71 P.S. § 1406 (1990)

71 P.S. §§ 1412-1435 (2006)

53 P.S. §§ 24661 – 24675 (1998)

53 P.S. § 68006 (1997)

Sect 4.14 Table of Authorities  pg 3

PENNSYLVANIA RULES OF COURT

Civil Rules
Pa. R. Civ. P. 76

Pa. R. Civ. P. 206

Pa. R. Civ. P. 430

Pa. R. Civ. P. 440

Pa. R. Civ. P. 1006

Pa. R. Civ. P. 1531

Pa. R. Civ. P. 2103

Criminal Rules
Pa. R. Crim. P. 103

Pa. R. Crim. P. 108

Pa. R. Crim. P. 200 - 211

Appellate Court Rules
Pa. R. App. P. 106

FEDERAL CASES 

(Alphabetical Order)

Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (1979)

Best v. St. Vincent’s Hosp., 2003 WL 21518829 (S.D.N.Y. 2003), Report and Recommendations
adopted by District Court at 2003 WL 21767656, remanded on other grounds at 2004 WL
2166316 (2nd Cir. 2004).

Camara v. Municipal Court of San Francisco, 387 U.S. 523 (1967)

Carolene Products Co. v. Evaporated Milk Ass’n, 93 F.2d 202 (7th Cir. 1937)

Chicago B. & Q. R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226 (1897)

Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985)

Compagnie Francaise de Navigation a Vapeur v. State Board of Health, 186 U.S. 380 (1902)

Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67 (1972)

Hamilton v. Love, 328 F. Supp. 1182 (D.C. Ark. 1971)

Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)

Juragua Iron Co. v. U.S., 212 U.S. 297 (1909)

Lassiter v. Department of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18 (1981)

Lawton v. Steele, 152 U.S. 133 (1894)

Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (1982)

Lucas v South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992)

Sect 4.14 Table of Authorities  pg 4

FEDERAL CASES cont’d

Maffucci v. City of Philadelphia, 1999 WL 320940 (E.D.PA. 1999)

Marshall v. Barlow’s, Inc., 436 U.S. 307 (1978)

Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976)

Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470 (1996)

Muglar v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623 (1887)

National Board of YMCA v. U.S., 395 U.S. 85 (1969)

Penn Central Transport Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (1978)

Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Jerome, 434 U.S. 241(1978)

Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944)

Reynolds v. McNichols, 488 F.2d 1378 (10th Cir. 1973)

Schmeber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966)

Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Ass’n, 489 U.S. 602 (1989)

Smith v. Borough of Glenolden, 1994 WL 672618 (E.D. Pa. 1994)

Union Pacific Railway Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250 (1891) 

U.S. v. Caltex, 344 U.S. 149 (1952)

U.S. v. Pewee Coal Co., 341 U.S. 114 (1951)

PENNSYLVANIA CASES 

(Alphabetical Order)

Adams Sanitation Co., Inc. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental
Protection, 552 Pa. 304, 715 A.2d 390 (Pa. 1998)

Allentown v. Wagner, 27 Pa. Super. 485 (Pa. Super. 1905)

Appeal of White, 287 Pa. 259, 134 A. 409 (Pa. 1926)

Aspinwall Borough v. Aspinwall School Board, 1910 WL 3618 (Allegheny C.C.P. 1910)

Balsamo v. Mazurkiewicz, 417 Pa. Super 36, 611 A.2d 1250 (Pa. Super. 1992)

Boehm v. Philadelphia, 1914 WL 4412 (Philadelphia C.C.P. 1914), aff’d 59 Pa. Super. 441 (1915)

Cintas Corp. v. Lee’s Cleaning Services, Inc., 549 Pa. 84, 700 A.2d 915 (Pa. 1997)

Sect 4.14 Table of Authorities  pg 5

PENNSYLVANIA CASES cont’d

Cheeseman v. Lethal Exterminator, Inc., 549 Pa. 200, 701 A.2d 156 (Pa. 1997)

Commonwealth ex rel. Dion v. Tees, 180 Pa. Super 82, 118 A.2d 756 (Pa. Super. 1956)

Commonwealth ex rel. Finken v. Roop, 234 Pa. Super 155, 339 A.2d 764 (Pa. Super. 1975)

Commonwealth ex rel. Fisher v. Philip Morris, Inc., 736 A.2d 693 (Pa. Commw.  1999)

Commonwealth ex rel. Herge v. Martin, 6 Pa. D.& C.2d 589, aff’d at 387 Pa. 117, 126 A.2d 711
(Pa. 1956)

Commonwealth ex rel. Kennedy v. Mingle, 388 Pa. 54, 130 A.2d 161 (Pa. 1957)

Commonwealth ex rel. Ogden v. Cairns, 1911 WL 3741 (Philadelphia Clerk of Quar. Sess., 1911),
aff’d 46 Pa. Super 96 (1911)

Commonwealth ex rel. Paylor v. Claudy, 366 Pa. 282, 77 A.2d 350 (Pa. 1951)

Commonwealth ex. rel. Preate v. Danny’s New Adam and Eve Bookstore, 155 Pa. Commw. 281,
625 A.2d 119 (Pa. Commw. 1993)

Commonwealth ex rel. Rivers v. Myers, 414 Pa. 439, 200 A.2d 303 (Pa. 1964)

Commonwealth ex rel. Tiscio v. Martin, 180 Pa. Super. 462, 120 A.2d 307 (Pa. Super. 1956)

Commonwealth v. Bowden, 576 Pa. 151, 838 A.2d 740 (Pa. 2003)

Commonwealth v. Flexer, 2 Bucks, 180, 1953 WL 4631 (Bucks C.C.P. 1953)

Commonwealth v. Ickes, 582 Pa. 561, 873 A.2d 698 (Pa. 2005)

Commonwealth v. Irwin, 1904 WL 2601 (Venango C.C.P. 1904)

Commonwealth v. Johnston, 515 Pa. 454, 530 A.2d 74 (Pa. 1987)

Commonwealth v. Maldonado, 576 Pa. 101, 838 A.2d 710 (Pa. 2003)

Commonwealth v. McNeil, 445 Pa. Super 526, 665 A.2d 1247 (Pa. Super. 1995)

Commonwealth v. Milice, 401 Pa. Super 96, 584 A.2d 997 (Pa. Super. 1991)

Commonwealth v. Moore, 526 Pa. 152, 584 A.2d 936 (Pa. 1991)

Commonwealth v. Nixon, 718 A.2d 311 (Pa. Super. 1998), aff’d at 563 Pa. 425, 761 A.2d 1151
(Pa. 2000)

Commonwealth v. Ryan, 484 Pa. 602, 400 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 1979)

Commonwealth v. Smith, 336 Pa. Super. 636, 486 A.2d 445 (Pa. Super. 1984)

Commonwealth v. Stofchek, 322 Pa. 513, 185 A. 840 (Pa. 1936)

Sect 4.14 Table of Authorities  pg 6

PENNSYLVANIA CASES cont’d

Commonwealth v. Stotland, 214 Pa. Super 35, 251 A.2d 701(Pa. Super. 1969)

Commonwealth v. Tobin, 828 A.2d 415 (Pa. Commw.  2003)

Commonwealth v. Widovich, 295 Pa. 311, 145 A. 295 (1929)

Commonwealth v. $9,847.00 United States Currency, 550 Pa. 192, 704 A.2d 612 (Pa. 1997)

Commonwealth Department of Corrections v. Reese, 774 A.2d 1255 (Pa. Super.  2001)

Craig v. Kline, 65 Pa. 399 (Pa. 1870)

Eagle Environmental II v. Commonwealth, 584 Pa. 494, 884 A.2d 867 (Pa. 2005)

Fraisar v. Gillis, 892 A.2d 74 (Pa. Commw.  2006)

In Interest of F.B., 442 Pa. Super 216, 658 A.2d 1378 (Pa. Super. 1995), aff’d 555 Pa. 661, 726
A.2d 361 (Pa. 1999)

In re Duran, 769 A.2d 497 (Pa. Super.  2001)

In re Farrow, 754 A.2d 33 (Pa. Commw.  2000)

In re Fiori, 543 Pa. 592, 673 A.2d 905 (Pa. 1996)

In re First Church of Christ, Scientist, 205 Pa. 543, 55 A. 536 (Pa. 1903)

In re Hancock, 719 A.2d 1053 (Pa. Super.  1998)

In re Jane Doe, 45 Pa.D.&C.3d 371, 1987 WL 226878 (Philadelphia C.C.P. 1987)

In the Matter of Cabrera, 381 Pa. Super. 100, 552 A.2d 1114 (Pa. Super. 1989)

Jackson v. Centennial School District, 509 Pa. 101, 501 A.2d 218 (Pa. 1985)

Lieberman v. Howard Johnson’s, Inc., 68 Pa. D.& C.2d 179 (C.C.P. Philadelphia 1973)

Lilian v. Commonwealth, 467 Pa. 15, 354 A.2d 250 (Pa. 1976)

Machipongo Land and Coal Co. Inc. v. Commonwealth, 569 Pa. 3, 799 A.2d 751 (Pa. 2002)

Mayer v. Garman, __ Pa. __ ; __ A.2d __; 2006 WL 2252067 (Pa. 2006)

Montgomery v. Bazaz-Sehgal, 568 Pa. 574, 798 A.2d 742 (Pa. 2002)

National Wood Preservers, Inc. v. Commonwealth Department of Environmental Resources, 489
Pa. 221, 414 A.2d 37 (Pa. 1980)

Nolan v. Jones, 263 Pa. 124, 106 A. 235 (Pa. 1919)

Pennsylvania Social Serv. Union Local 668 v. Dept. of Public Welfare, 699 A.2d 807 (Pa. Commw.
1997)

Sect 4.14 Table of Authorities  pg 7

PENNSYLVANIA CASES cont’d

Ragona v. Preate, 1990 WL 259033 (Lackawanna C.C.P. 1990)

Rohm and Haas Co. v. Continental Casualty Company, 732 A.2d 1236 (Pa. Super. 1999)

R.W. v. Hampe, 426 Pa. Super. 305, 626 A.2d 1218 (Pa. Super. 1993)

Simons v. State Correctional Institute at Camp Hill, 150 Pa. Commw. 295, 615 A.2d 924 (Pa.
Commw. 1992)

Stull v. Reber, 215 Pa. 156, 64 A. 419 (Pa. 1906)

Theodore v. Delaware Valley Sch. District, 761 A.2d 652 (Pa. Commw.  2000), aff’d  575 Pa. 321,
836 A.2d 76 (Pa. 2003)

Zeuger Milk Co v. Pittsburgh Sch. District, 334 Pa. 277, 5 A.2d 885 (Pa. 1939)

Zellner vs. Allentown, 18 C.C. 162, 1896 WL 3663 (Lehigh C.C.P. 1896)

OTHER STATE CASES

Ex parte Arata, 198 P. 814 (Cal. Ct. App. 1921)

City of New York v. Antoinette R., 630 N.Y.S.2d 1008 (N.Y. Sup.  1995)

City of Newark v. J.S., 652 A.2d 265 (N.J. Super. 1993)

Ex parte Fowler, 184 P.2d 814 (Okla. Crim. App. 1947)

Greene v. Edwards, 263 S.E.2d 661 (W. Va. 1980)

Hudgins v. Carter County, 72 S.W. 730 (Ky. App. 1903)

Hutchinson v. Carthage, 73 A. 825 (Me. 1909) 

Loudoun v. Merrimack County, 53 A. 906 (N.H. 1902)

Love v. Superior Court, 226 Cal.App.3d 736 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990)

Matter of Juveniles A, B, C, D, E, 847 P.2d 455 (Wash. 1993)

Matter of Lavigne, 641 N.E.2d 1328 (Mass. 1994)

Moore v. Lumpkin, 630 N.E.2d 982 (Ill. App. 1 Div. 1994)

Phelps v. School District, 221 Ill. App. 500 (Ill. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 1921)

State v. Lawson, 453 A.2d 556 (N.J. Super. A.D. 1982)

Sect 4.14 Table of Authorities  pg 8

PHILADELPHIA CODE

Philadelphia Code § 6-203

Philadelphia Code § 6-204

Philadelphia Code § 6-205

ALLEGHENY COUNTY REGULATIONS

Health Dept. Rules and Regulations Art. XI, 
§§ 1103 - 1106, available at:
http://www.achd.net/regulations/regs.html 

PENNSYLVANIA CODE

(Regulations)

4 Pa. Code § 3.25

28 Pa. Code § 27.1

28 Pa. Code § 27.60

28 Pa. Code § 27.61

28 Pa. Code § 27.65

28 Pa. Code § 27.67

28 Pa. Code § 27.68

28 Pa. Code § 27.82

28 Pa. Code § 27.87

28 Pa. Code § 27.152

SECONDARY SOURCES

18 Standard Pennsylvania Prac. 2d § 98.3

18 Standard Pennsylvania Prac. 2d § 98.4

18 Standard Pennsylvania Prac. 2d § 98.5

18 Standard Pennsylvania Prac. 2d § 98:59

18 Standard Pennsylvania Prac. 2d § 98:61

18 Standard Pennsylvania Prac. 2d § 98:68

18 Standard Pennsylvania Prac. 2d § 98:77

18 Standard Pennsylvania Prac. 2d § 98:79

28A Standard Pennsylvania Prac. 2d, § 139:34 

28A Standard Pennsylvania Prac. 2d, § 139:35 

28A Standard Pennsylvania Prac. 2d, § 139:36 

Sect 4.14 Table of Authorities  pg 9

29A C.J.S. Police and Other Related Powers § 8: Eminent Domain (Police Powers)

Corpus Juris Secondum

39A C.J.S. Habeas Corpus § 234

39A C.J.S. Habeas Corpus § 330

39A C.J.S. Habeas Corpus § 336

Miscellaneous 

7 McQuillin Mun. Corp. § 24.235 (3rd ed.)

A Dictionary of Public Health (J.M. Last ed., 2007)

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. http://www.bt.cdc.gov/bioterrorism/overview.asp#intro

Daniel Markovits, Symposium: Expert Testimony:  Bridging Bioethics and Evidence Law: Independent
Article: Quarantine and Distributive Justice, 33 J.L. Med. & Ethics 323 (Summer 2005)

Joseph Barbera, MD, et al., Large -Scale Quarantine following Biological Terrorism in the United States:
Sceintific Examination, Logistic and Legal Limits, and Possible Consequences, 286 JAMA 2711
(December 5, 2001)

Lawrence O. Gostin, Symposium Article: Part 1: Public Health: Pandemic Influenza: Public Health
Preparedness for the Next Global Health Emergency, 32 J.L. Med. & Ethics 565 (Winter 2004)

Lawrence O. Gostin, Public Health Law: Power, Duty, Restraint (Berkely: University of California Press &
Milbank Memorial Fund)(2000)

Lawrence O. Gostin, The Law and the Public’s Health: A Study of Infectious Disease Law in the United
States, 99 Colum. L. Rev. 59 (Jan. 1999)

Lawrence O. Gostin and J. Hodges, The Model State Emergency Powers Act (2001)

Stedman’s Medical Dictionary (27th ed. 2000)

The Future of Public Health, Institute of Medicine, 1988

United States General Accounting Office. Bioterrorism: Public Health and Medical Preparedness.
Washington, D.C. October 2001 (www.gao.gov/new items/d0214it.pdf)

Sect 4.14 Table of Authorities  pg 10

SECTION 4.00 APPENDICES

SECTION
4.15

Public Health Glossary

A                                  

abatement

administrative search warrant

acknowledgement of guilt

advisory health board

antigen

Pennsylvania Statutes do not define.
The reduction or, preferably, the elimination of public health 
hazards or nuisances such as environmental pollutants, noxious
smells and excessive noise.  A Dictionary of Public Health (J.M.
Last ed., 2007).

Permission for government officials to inspect premises for
healthcare and safety purposes.  Commonwealth v. Tobin, 
828 A. 2d 415, 419 (Pa. Commw. 2003).   In cases of sanitary
standard-related statutes, such warrants shall be issued upon
probable cause (the details of which vary and are detailed in 
the following: Safe Water Drinking Act, 35 P.S. § 721.5(g); 
Air Pollution, 35 P.S. § 4013.1; The Controlled Substance, Drug,
Device and Cosmetic Act, 35 P.S. § 780-124(d)(1); Solid Waste
Management Act, 35 P.S. § 6018.609; and Hazardous Waste
Cleanup Act, 35 P.S. § 6020.1106).

A written statement in which an individual admits guilt and pays
a fine; the statement has the same force and effect as a hearing
before proper authority with the individual being convicted of 
the offense of which he/she is accused.  34 Pa. C.S. § 102.

Comprised of the Secretary of The Pennsylvania Department of
Health (who acts as the Chair), physicians, various health care
professions, and additional members.  It is responsible for 
approving rules and regulations necessary for the prevention of
disease, immunization standards, and local health services and
has the power to declare certain diseases to be communicable.
71 P.S. §§ 158, 536 and 541; 35 P.S. § 521.4(d). 

Pennsylvania Statutes do not define.
A substance that is alien to the body and induces a specific
immune response and antibody production when introduced.  
A Dictionary of Public Health (J.M. Last ed., 2007).

Sect 4.15 Public Health Glossary  pg 1

B

biohazard

bioterrorism

C

carrier

case

communicable

Pennsylvania Statutes do not define. A biological or chemical
agent or substance that is harmful or endangers life; this includes
pathogenic organisms (i.e., organisms which cause disease).  
A Dictionary of Public Health (J.M. Last ed., 2007).

Pennsylvania Statutes do not define.
The threat or intentional release of biological agents (viruses, 
bacteria or their toxins) for the purpose of influencing the conduct
of government or intimidating or coercing a civilian population.
United States General Accounting Office.  Bioterrorism: Public
Health and Medical Preparedness. Washington, D.C. October
2001 (www.gao.gov/new.items/d02141t.pdf).

A form of terrorism, indiscriminate violent hostile acts against 
the general population, that employs biological agents, such as
pathogenic organisms or their spores, cultures or toxic products,
or even infected persons, to spread dangerous contagious disease
in an indiscriminate manner among the general population.  
A Dictionary of Public Health (J.M. Last ed., 2007).

The deliberate release of viruses, bacteria, or other germs (agents)
used to cause illness or death in people, animals, or plants. These
agents are typically found in nature; it is possible that they could
be changed to increase their ability to cause disease, make them
resistant to current medicines, or to increase their ability to be
spread into the environment. Biological agents can be spread
through the air, through water, or in food, are often difficult to
detect and do not cause illness for several hours to several days.
Some bioterrorism agents, like the smallpox virus, can be spread
from person to person and some, like anthrax, can not.  Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention 
(http://www.bt.cdc.gov/bioterrorism/overview.asp#intro).

A person, without any apparent symptoms of a communicable
disease, harbors a specific infectious agent and may serve as a
source of infection.  35 P.S. § 521.2.

A person or animal that is determined to have or is suspected of
having a disease, infection or condition.  28 Pa. Code § 27.1.

Pennsylvania Statutes do not define. 
Capable of being transmitted from one organism or person to
another.  Stedman’s Medical Dictionary (27th ed. 2000).

Sect 4.15 Public Health Glossary  pg 2

communicable disease

communicable period

An illness due to an infectious agent or its toxic products which is
transmitted, directly or indirectly, to a susceptible host or a well
person by or from an infected person, animal or other reservoir.
35 P.S. § 521.2(c).

The time during which an etiologic agent may be transferred,
directly or indirectly, from an infected person or animal to a 
person.  28 Pa. Code § 27.1.

contagious disease

See communicable disease.

cordon sanitaire

Pennsylvania Statutes do not define.
The defensive “barrier,” such as isolation procedures, around a
focus of infection (often an entire geographic area, such as a city
or town).  A Dictionary of Public Health (J.M. Last ed., 2007).

Typically, associated with a mass outbreak, the isolation of 
infected persons or quarantine of exposed persons or of a 
geographic area.  Lawrence O Goston, Symposium Article:  
Part 1:  Public Health:  Pandemic Influenza:  Public Health
Preparedness for the Next Gobal Health Emergency, 32 J.L. 
Med. & Ethics 565, 565-73 (Winter 2004).  

Pennsylvania Statutes do not define. 
Specialized, regional planning and/or response to terrorism.  
See terrorism.

county/municipal health department A health department created and authorized by the Local Health

Administration Law, charged with protection and promotion of
the people’s health through the provision of adequate local
health services to all people.  16 P.S. §§ 12001-12028.

counterterrorism 

D

disaster

disaster emergency

A man-made disaster, natural disaster or war-caused disaster that
disrupts the environment and human or animal habitats and
causes widespread distress and, often, loss of life.  35 Pa. C.S. 
§ 7102.

A condition which may actually or likely (a) seriously affect the
safety, health or welfare of a substantial number of citizens or
preclude the operation or use of essential public facilities; (b) be
of such magnitude as to render essential state supplementation
of county/local efforts or resources to alleviate the danger, 
damage, suffering or hardship; and (c) have been caused by
forces beyond the control of man, by civil disorder, riot or 
disturbance or by unforeseen factors.  35 Pa. C.S. § 7102.

Sect 4.15 Public Health Glossary  pg 3

disease

domestic animal

E

emergency

epidemic

F

H

Pennsylvania Statutes do not define. 
An interruption, cessation or disorder of a body function, system
or organ; a departure from a state of health.  Stedman’s Medical
Dictionary (27th ed. 2000).

Any equine or bovine animal, sheep, goat, pig, dog, cat, poultry,
bird, fowl or any wild or semi-wild animal held in captivity.  
3  P.S. § 331.

In public health, a situation that threatens life, personal and 
population health and safety - generally, from equilibrium to an
unbalanced state; it is usually sudden in onset.  A Dictionary of
Public Health (J.M. Last ed., 2007). See also, disaster.

Pennsylvania Statutes do not define.  
The occurrence, within a community or specified population, 
of deaths or cases of a condition in numbers greater than usual
or expected for a given period of time.  A Dictionary of Public
Health (J.M. Last ed., 2007).

Federal Emergency Management 
Agency (FEMA)

first responder

The Federal agency responsible for managing federal response 
and recovery efforts following any national incident.  FEMA 
initiates proactive mitigation activities, trains first responders and
manages the National Flood Insurance Program.  Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, P.L. 
100-707.

Individual certified to perform basic life support activities to 
stabilize and improve a patient’s condition, in a pre-hospital 
setting, until more highly trained emergency medical service 
personnel arrive at the scene.  35 P.S. § 6931.

hazardous substance

Any element, compound or material which threatens the health
of domestic animals or humans.  3 Pa. C.S. § 2303.

Sect 4.15 Public Health Glossary  pg 4

I                                                                 

incubation period

infectious disease

See communicable disease.

Pennsylvania Statutes do not define. The period of time between
the entry of a disease agent into an organism and the organism’s
initial display of symptoms; the disease develops during the 
incubation period.  Incubation periods are disease-specific and
range from hours to weeks.  Stedman’s Medical Dictionary
(27th ed. 2000).

Any organism, such as a virus, bacterium, fungus or parasite, that
is capable of being communicated by invasion and multiplication
in body tissues and capable of causing disease.  28 Pa. Code §
27.1.

Pennsylvania Statutes to not define.
Artificial induction of active immunity by introducing (through
injection or orally), into a vulnerable host, the specific antigen of
a pathogenic organism.   A Dictionary of Public Health (J.M. Last
ed., 2007).

The separation, for the period of communicability, of known
infected persons or animals from other persons or animals in
such places and under such conditions as will prevent or limit the
direct or indirect transmission of the infectious agent.  35 P.S. §
521.2(e).

The condition declared by the local governing body when the
threat or actual occurrence of a disaster is of sufficient severity
and magnitude to warrant coordinated local government action
to prevent or alleviate damage, loss, hardship or suffering. A local
emergency, arising wholly or substantially, due to a resource
shortage, may be declared only by the Governor, upon petition by
the local governing body, when the threat or actual occurrence of
a disaster is deemed to be of sufficient severity and magnitude 
to warrant coordinated local government action to prevent or
alleviate damage, loss, hardship or suffering.  35 Pa. C.S. § 7102.

The 237 local boards or departments of health that operate 
outside of  the Local Health Administration Law (Act 315) 
structure and funding.  The specific structure of each local health
authority is determined by local regulations and ordinances.  

Sect 4.15 Public Health Glossary  pg 5

infectious agent

immunization

isolation

L

local emergency

local health authority

local health officer

The person appointed by a local health authority to head the
daily administration of duties imposed upon or permitted of 
local health authorities by State laws and regulations.  28 Pa.
Code § 27.1.

local morbidity reporting office
(LMRO)

A district office of The Pennsylvania Department of Health or a 
County/Municipal  health department.  28 Pa. Code § 27.1.

M

man-made disaster

modified quarantine

N

natural disaster

nuisance

Any industrial, nuclear or transportation accident, explosion, 
conflagration, power failure, natural resource shortage or other
condition, except enemy action, resulting from man-made 
causes, such as oil spills and other injurious environmental 
contamination, which threatens or causes substantial damage to
property, human suffering, hardship or loss of life. 35 Pa. C.S. 
§ 7102.

A selected, partial limitation of freedom of movement determined
on the basis of differences in susceptibility or danger of disease
transmission, which is designed to meet particular situations.
Modified quarantine includes, though is not limited to, the 
exclusion of children from school and the prohibition or the
restriction of those exposed to a communicable disease from
engaging in particular occupations.   35 P.S. § 521.2.

Any hurricane, tornado, storm, flood, high water, earthquake,
landslide, mudslide, snowstorm, drought, insect infestation, fire,
explosion or other natural catastrophe which results in substantial
property damage, human suffering and hardship or loss of life.
35 P.S. § 2140.102; 35 Pa. C.S. § 7102.

Any condition or usage in or about buildings, structures or land
or the streets or private ways and places, or elsewhere, whether
public or private, which the board of health finds to be 
detrimental to the public health.  16 P.S. § 2196; 53 P.S. §
37320.

Sect 4.15 Public Health Glossary  pg 6

Pennsylvania Department of Health The Pennsylvania Department of Health is part of the

Pennsylvania Emergency 

Statewide agency responsible for assuring prompt, proper and

O

outbreak

P

pathogen

Management Agency (PEMA)

Pennsylvania Emergency
Management Council 

physician general 

An unusual increase in the number of cases of a disease, infection
or condition, whether reportable or not as a single case, above
the number of cases that one required to report would expect to
see in a particular geographic area or among a subset of persons
defined by a specific demographic or other features.  28 Pa.
Code § 27.1.

Pennsylvania Statutes do not define.
An organism that causes disease.  A Dictionary of Public Health
(J.M. Last ed., 2007).

Commonwealth’s Executive Department.   71 P.S. §§ 11 and 61.
It is responsible for protecting the health of the people of the
Commonwealth and determining and employing the most 
efficient and practical means for the prevention and suppression
of disease.  71 P.S. § 532(a).

effective discharge of basic Commonwealth responsibilities 
relating to civil defense and disaster preparedness, operations 
and recovery.

The legal body with primary responsibility for overall policy and
direction of a statewide civil defense and disaster program 
and response capability; it supervises and coordinates the 
responsibilities of local emergency planning committees.
Established and organized under P.L. 1332 (known as the
Emergency Management Services Code) in 1978, the Council 
is composed of the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary,
Attorney General, General Counsel and many others.  35 Pa. 
C.S. § 7312; 35 P.S. § 6022.201.

Appointed by the governor, advises the Governor and the
Secretary on health policy, participates in decision making, and
consults with recognized experts on medical and public health
matters.  71 P.S. § 1401(c).

Sect 4.15 Public Health Glossary  pg 7

points of dispensing (PODs)

political subdivision

public health

public health authorities

public health emergency

Q

quarantine

Pennsylvania Statutes do not define. 
Pre-designated locations where antivirals and vaccines are 
available and distributed to all members of the public within a
limited period of time (e.g., 48 hours); PODs are organized for
the purpose of preventing the spread of disease and/or a 
negative effect on the public’s health.

Any county, city, borough, incorporated town or township.  
35 Pa. C.S. § 7102.

Pennsylvania Statutes do not define.
“What we, as a society, do to collectively assure the conditions 
in which people can be healthy.”  The Future of Public Health,
Institute of Medicine, 1988.

Pennsylvania Statutes do not define.
For purposes of this Bench Book, the term refers collectively 
to The Pennsylvania Department of Health, County/Municipal
departments of health (authorized by  Act 315) and local 
health authorities. 

Pennsylvania Statutes do not define.
An occurrence or imminent threat of an illness or health condi-
tion, caused by epidemic or pandemic disease, bioterrorism, or
novel and highly infectious agent or biological toxin that poses a
substantial risk of a significant number of human fatalities or 
incidents of permanent or long term disability.  Such illness or
health condition include, though is not limited to, an illness or
health condition resulting from a national disaster.  Lawrence 
O. Gostin and J. Hodges, The Model State Emergency Powers 
Act (2001).

The limitation of freedom of movement of persons or animals
who have been exposed to a communicable disease for a period
of time equal to the longest usual incubation period of the disease
in such a manner as to prevent effective contact with those not
so exposed.  Quarantine may be complete or see “modified
quarantine,” “surveillance,” and “segregation.”  35 P.S. § 521.2.

Sect 4.15 Public Health Glossary  pg 8

R

reportable disease

resource shortage

S

segregation

sexually transmitted disease

surveillance

T

terrorism

transmissible disease

a) Any communicable disease declared reportable by regulation;
b) any unusual or group expression of illness which, in the 
opinion of the secretary, may be a public health emergency; and
c) non-communicable diseases and conditions for which the
Secretary may authorize reporting to provide data and 
information which are deemed to needed in order to carry out
programs designed to protect and promote the health of the
people or to determine the need for the establishment of 
programs.  35 P.S. § 521.2.

The absence, unavailability or reduced supply of any raw or
processed natural resource or any commodities, goods or services
of any kind which bear a substantial relationship to the health,
safety, welfare and economic well-being of the citizens of the
Commonwealth.  35 Pa. C.S. § 7102.

The separation for special control or observation of one or more
persons or animals from other persons or animals to facilitate the
control of communicable disease.  35 P.S. § 521.2.

Pennsylvania Statutes do not define.
Approximately 25 miscellaneous diseases with a variety of causal
agents, having in common the fact that all are transmitted from
person to person by direct contact and that the responsible
pathogen usually resides in the genital tract and/or in blood 
and other body fluids.  A Dictionary of Public Health (J.M. Last
ed., 2007).

The close supervision and monitoring of persons and animals
exposed to a communicable disease without restricting their
movement.  35 P.S. § 521.2.

The unlawful use of force or violence committed by a group or
individual against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a
government, civilian population or any segment thereof in 
furtherance of political or social objectives.  35 P.S. § 2140.102.

A disease of a domestic animal which can be transferred, 
reproduced or established in a domestic animal or human by
direct or indirect means.  3 Pa. C.S. § 2303. 

Sect 4.15 Public Health Glossary  pg 9

transmission

tuberculosis

Pennsylvania Statutes do not define.
The conveyance of disease from one organism to another.
Stedman’s Medical Dictionary (27th ed. 2000).

Pennsylvania Statutes do not define.
A disease caused by infection with the bacterium,
Mycobacterium tuberculosis, which can affect almost any tissue
or organ of the body - most commonly, the lungs.  Primary 
tuberculosis is typically a mild or asymptomatic local lung 
infection that, in otherwise healthy people, does not lead to 
generalized disease because an immune response arrests the
spread of the bacteria and walls off the zone of infection.
Stedman’s Medical Dictionary (27th ed. 2000).

V                                                                                                                            

vaccination

Means of preventing the spread of communicable disease.  
71 P.S. § 536.   See also immunization.

venereal disease

See sexually transmitted disease.

W                                                                                                                           

war-caused disaster

wildlife

Any condition following an attack upon the United States 
resulting in substantial damage to property or injury to persons 
in the United States caused by use of bombs, missiles, shellfire,
nuclear, radiological, chemical or biological means, or other
weapons or overt paramilitary actions, or other conditions such
as sabotage. 35 Pa. C.S. § 7102.

Wild birds, wild mammals and facsimiles thereof, whether 
protected or unprotected, including any part, product, egg or 
offspring thereof, or the dead body or parts thereof (excluding
fossils) whether or not included in a manufactured product or in
a processed food product.  3 P.S. § 331, 34 Pa. C.S. §102.  

Sect 4.15 Public Health Glossary  pg 10

Additional terms inconsistently defined across Pennsylvania Code 
and Statutes  

(Note: to prevent confusion, these definitions have not been used in the Pennsylvania Public Health
Law Bench book or Bench Guides. They are provided here only for reference)

local health authority

local health department

A county or municipal department of health, or board of health
of a municipality that does not have a department of health.
This term includes a sanitary board. 28 Pa. Code §27.1.

Each county department of health under the Local Health
Administration Law and each department of health in a 
municipality approved for a Commonwealth grant to provide
local health services under section 25 of the Local Health
Administration Law.  16 P.S. §§ 12001-12028.

Sect 4.15 Public Health Glossary  pg 11