Fullman v Bureau of Administrative Adjudication - Appeal Affirmed

Jump To

Top Caption [Lead Opinion

by Wolf](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10847165/a-fullman-v-bureau-of-administrative-adjudication/#o1)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

April 23, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

A. Fullman v. Bureau of Administrative Adjudication

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 650 C.D. 2022
• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Judges: Wolf

• Opinion

• Authorities (6)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (93.7K)

• PDF

Lead Opinion

by Wolf

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Andrew Fullman, :
Appellant :
:
v. : No. 650 C.D. 2022
:
Bureau of Administrative :
Adjudication :
: Submitted: August 8, 2025

BEFORE: HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge
HONORABLE MATTHEW S. WOLF, Judge
HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY
JUDGE WOLF FILED: April 23, 2026

Andrew Fullman, an unrepresented litigant, appeals to this Court from the
June 21, 2022 order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (trial
court) denying Mr. Fullman’s appeal from a decision by the Philadelphia Bureau of
Administrative Adjudication (Bureau) to uphold two traffic citations (Citations).
Because Mr. Fullman fails to meet his burden of proof under Section 754(b) of the
Local Agency Law,1 we affirm the trial court.

1
Section 754(b) provides that, after a proper hearing of the appeal, a trial court shall affirm a
local agency’s adjudication unless it finds

that the adjudication is in violation of the constitutional rights of the appellant, or
is not in accordance with law, or that the provisions of Subchapter B of Chapter 5
(relating to practice and procedure of local agencies) have been violated in the
(Footnote continued on next page…)
I. Background
On Tuesday, April 13, 2021, at 5:29 p.m., an officer of the Philadelphia
Parking Authority (PPA) issued Mr. Fullman a citation (Citation 1) for stopping for
approximately one hour in a no-stopping zone, in violation of Section 12-903(c) of
the Philadelphia Traffic Code (Traffic Code),2 on the 100 block of South 15th Street.
Original Record (O.R.) at 17-18.3 Attached to Citation 1 was a photograph of Mr.
Fullman’s vehicle in the location and at the time alleged on the ticket. Id. at 19.
Through Citation 1, the PPA imposed a fine of $76.00. Id. at 17. In a timely appeal
to the Bureau, Mr. Fullman asserted that “a medical episode of dizziness [and]
confusion” made it necessary to pull over and get out of his car in order to regain his
composure. Id. at 26. Mr. Fullman further asserted that he has been assigned a
handicapped parking placard for “serious medical illnesses” including diabetes,
insomnia, and anxiety. Id. After Mr. Fullman explained the foregoing at the scene,
however, the PPA agent instructed a tow truck operator to remove the vehicle, citing
numerous previous violations. Id.
On April 18, 2021, at 1:32 a.m., Mr. Fullman received another citation
(Citation 2) from the PPA, in which he was charged with improperly parking in a
designated handicapped space on the 800 block of Arch Street. O.R. at 20-25.

proceedings before the agency, or that any finding of fact made by the agency and
necessary to support its adjudication is not supported by substantial evidence.

2 Pa.C.S. § 754(b).
2
PHILA., PA. CODE, Title 12 (Traffic Code), as amended, added by ordinance effective May
6, 1958. Section 12-903(1) provides that the “Department [of Streets] shall erect and maintain
appropriate signs to give notice whenever an ordinance or regulation prohibits stopping, standing
and parking on any street, or portion thereof, and no person shall stop, stand or park a vehicle in
violation of such ordinances or regulations.” Traffic Code, § 12-903(1).
3
Page numbers refer to the electronic pagination of the portable document format (PDF)
version of the Original Record.

2
Attached to Citation 2 were two photographs of Mr. Fullman’s vehicle; through the
second photograph, it is apparent that no handicapped placard was hanging from the
rearview mirror. Id. at 22-23. Through Citation 2, the PPA imposed a fine of
$301.00. In a timely appeal, Mr. Fullman asserted that he does lawfully possess a
handicapped parking placard but forgot to place it back on his rearview mirror after
his caregiver, Jacob Witcher, took it down while driving. Id. at 29. Mr. Fullman
further asserted that his medical conditions “cause [him] to forget things at times”
and that he was therefore unaware of any issue until he heard a tow truck operator
taking away his vehicle again. Id. Additionally, Mr. Fullman alleged that he had
been waiting for a handicapped license plate since November 2020. Id. Attached
to the Citation 2 appeal were a written statement by Mr. Witcher attesting to the
above narrative and photocopies of the following: Mr. Fullman’s commercial
driver’s license, a handicapped parking placard, an application for a handicapped
license plate, and a photograph of an unspecific vehicle occupying an on-street
parking space. Id. at 34-39.
In a single decision issued on May 17, 2021, the Bureau informed Mr. Fullman
that a hearing examiner found “insufficient basis for dismissal” of the Citations.
O.R. at 42. Thus, following a hearing examiner’s review, the Bureau determined
that Mr. Fullman owed $377.00, the sum of the fines for both Citations. Id. The
Bureau also advised Mr. Fullman of his right to a hearing if he chose to appeal. Id.
Mr. Fullman availed himself of that opportunity with a July 21, 2021 letter brief. Id.
at 49. Regarding Citation 1, Mr. Fullman attributed his April 13, 2021 “episode of
dizziness and confusion” to a wider range of ailments than he had previously alleged,
including post-traumatic stress disorder, diabetes, anxiety, sleep insomnia, back,
neck, shoulder, left ankle, and left knee injuries. Id. Regarding Citation 2, Mr.

3
Fullman reiterated his contention that Mr. Witcher had inadvertently left the
handicapped parking placard down and that Mr. Fullman should not be liable for the
failure to display it. Id. Mr. Fullman also noted that his handicapped license plate
had finally arrived and expressed the hope that its placement on his vehicle would
stop what he described as “ongoing harassment by the PPA.” Id.
In an August 31, 2021 decision, the Bureau informed Mr. Fullman that an
Appeal Panel reviewed the evidence he submitted and “found that there was
insufficient basis on which to modify the original decision.” O.R. at 53. The Bureau
therefore informed Mr. Fullman that he still owed $377.00 for the Citations. Id.
Additionally, the Bureau advised Mr. Fullman of his right to appeal to the trial court.
Id.
On appeal to the trial court,4 Mr. Fullman presented six arguments for
consideration. Id. at 56. Namely, Mr. Fullman contended that the Bureau engaged
in unlawful discrimination against him on the basis of his disabilities; that Mr.
Fullman was being “targeted and harassed” by the Bureau; that the Bureau violated
Mr. Fullman’s constitutional rights, including the right to due process; that PPA
officers also violated Mr. Fullman’s constitutional rights when they failed to call for
medical help as he suffered an alleged medical emergency; that Mr. Fullman had a
right to question PPA officers during an in-person hearing; and that Mr. Fullman
should not be liable for a parking ticket issued in the midst of a medical emergency.
Id. at 56-57. Based on the foregoing, Mr. Fullman maintained that he had “submitted
substantial evidence . . . that he is being harassed, targeted, and discriminated
against.” Id. at 57. Attached to the appeal brief were another copy of Mr. Witcher’s
written statement, another photograph of an unspecified vehicle in an on-street

4
To supplement their briefs, the parties presented oral argument on the matter on June 16,
2022. See Fullman’s Br., Appendix, Trial Ct. Op. at 5.

4
parking space, and several pages of information related to Mr. Fullman’s medical
history. Id. at 61-71.
In response, the Bureau asserted that Mr. Fullman had failed to demonstrate a
violation of his constitutional rights, an error of law by the Bureau, a failure by the
Bureau to comply with the Local Agency Law’s procedural requirements, or that a
finding of fact by the Bureau was unsupported by substantial evidence. Id. at 78
(citing 2 Pa.C.S. § 754(b)). The Bureau then contended that, rather than offering
any such valid basis for overturning the Bureau’s decision, Mr. Fullman was asking
the trial court “for relief from the [Citations] on an equitable basis,” which the trial
court was not permitted to do. Id. at 79. Citing its “exclusive province over
questions of credibility and evidentiary weight,” the Bureau asked the trial court to
deny the appeals. Id. (citing Kocher’s IGA v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd.
(Dietrich)), 729 A.2d 145 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999)).
In its June 21, 2022 order, the trial court denied Mr. Fullman’s appeal for lack
of merit. Id. at 93. In an opinion issued subsequently, the trial court explained that
the Bureau’s conclusions were supported by substantial evidence, which notably
included “exhibits of photographs[s] that had been taken contemporaneously” to the
April 13, 2021 and April 18, 2021 incidents. Trial Ct. Op. at 4-5. By contrast, Mr.
Fullman’s “broadly asserted claims lack[ed] factual and legal merit.” Id. at 7. The
evidence that Mr. Fullman submitted in support of those claims actually “confirmed
the accuracy of both . . . [C]itations,” as they only served to confirm that Mr. Fullman
had parked in the locations and at the times alleged by the Bureau. Id. Additionally,
the trial court found that Mr. Fullman’s explanation of a compelling medical reason
for stopping on 15th Street on April 13, 2021, “stretched credulity and lacked any
evidentiary support.” Id.

5
This appeal followed.5
II. Discussion
On appeal to this Court, Mr. Fullman presents 19 questions for our
consideration, all of which, he proposes, should be answered in the affirmative:

1. Did the [trial] court err and abuse its authority when it denied [Mr.
   Fullman] a fair appeal hearing and due process?

2. Did the [trial] court err and abuse its authority in not considering
   whether [the Bureau] discriminated against [Mr. Fullman] because of
   his disabilities?

3. Did the [trial] court err and abuse its authority in not considering
   whether [Mr. Fullman] was targeted and harassed by Appellee?

4. Did the [trial] court err and abuse its authority in not considering
   whether [the Bureau] violated [Mr. Fullman’s] constitutional rights and
   due process?

5. Did the [trial] court err and abuse its authority when it failed to
   consider whether [the Bureau] violated [Mr. Fullman’s] constitutional
   rights and disability by failing and refusing to call for medical
   assistance while [Mr. Fullman] was having a medical emergency
   brought on by his medications, diabetes, dizziness, confusion, and heart
   condition diagnosed as orthostasis?

6. Did the [trial] court err and abuse its authority in not considering that
   [Mr. Fullman] should not be liable for a parking ticket during a medical
   emergency?

7. Did the [trial] court err and abuse its authority in not considering that
   Appellant's vehicle should not have been towed away while he was
   present and experiencing a medical emergency?

5
Where the trial court does not take any additional evidence, our standard of review of a local
agency’s decision is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, whether
an error of law was committed, and whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial
evidence. Spencer v. City of Reading Charter Bd., 97 A.3d 834, 839 n.5 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014).

6
8. Did the [trial] court err and abuse its authority in not considering or
weighing the sworn statement from witness, [Mr.] Witcher[?]

1. Did the [trial] court err and abuse its authority in not considering that
   Appellant had a disability and was entitled to one free hour of parking
   under Section 1117(2)(a) of the Traffic Code . . . ?

2. Was the [trial] court bias[ed] in its statement to [Mr. Fullman]
   regarding his many parking tickets and stating that maybe he will stop
   getting so many parking tickets?

3. Was the [trial] court . . . in a rush and failed to give Appellant's case
   any time or consideration being informed of the merits of case and the
   continued harassment by Appellee?

4. Did the [trial] court err and abuse its authority in not allowing [Mr.
   Fullman] to argue his second ticket . . . regarding his medical
   emergency?

5. Was the [trial] court bias[ed], and did the [trial] court err and abused
   its authority in claiming to have seen the [the Bureau’s] blurry
   photograph but did not see [Mr. Fullman’s] clear photograph?

6. Did the [trial] court err and abuse its authority in not considering
   whether [Mr. Fullman] should be liable for a known faulty scanning
   device currently used by the [the Bureau] that continued to time his
   vehicle after he drove away from the area?

7. Did the [trial] court err and abuse its authority in not considering
   whether the parking tickets should have been administratively
   dismissed because [Mr. Fullman] had met his burden of proof under
   Section 754(b) of the Local Agency Law and Section (2)(a) of the
   Traffic Code?

8. Did the [trial] court err and abuse its authority in not considering
   whether [Mr. Fullman] was legally entitled to have the [Bureau] meter-
   maid present at the administrative hearing for questions?

9. Did the [trial] court err and abuse its authority in not considering a
   prior case photograph which the [trial court] clearly saw the
   [handicapped p]lacard hanging in the windshield on the sun visor[?]

7
18. Did the [trial] court err and abuse its authority in not considering
that [the Bureau] saw the [handicapped p]lacard hanging in the
windshield at the impound lot after [Mr. Fullman’s] vehicle had already
been towed[?]

1. Did the [trial] court err and abuse its authority in not considering that [the Bureau] had no meter maids working on 800 Arch Street, Philadelphia, when [Mr. Fullman’s] car was wrongfully towed which supports him being targeted and harassed by [the Bureau]?

Fullman’s Br. at 4-5.
Notwithstanding the wide range of the questions presented, the two-page
argument section of Mr. Fullman’s Brief is devoted primarily to a recitation of the
factual averments that were rejected by the Bureau and/or the trial court: among
them, that Mr. Fullman suffered a “medical emergency” on April 13, 2021, which
necessitated pulling over on 15th Street for one hour, when Citation 1 was issued;
that Mr. Fullman’s handicapped placard was properly hanging from his rearview
mirror in the early morning of April 18, 2021, when Citation 2 was issued; that Mr.
Fullman’s vehicle was, for some reason, unfairly “targeted”; that an unnamed PPA
agent admitted to Mr. Fullman that the handicapped placard was, in fact, on display;
and that Mr. Witcher has personally witnessed behavior by PPA agents unfairly
targeting and harassing Mr. Fullman. Id. at 9. In light of the foregoing, Mr. Fullman
maintains that he “has submitted substantial evidence that a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion that he is being harassed, targeted, and
discriminated against.” Fullman’s Br. at 10.
Mr. Fullman’s arguments are lacking in merit. Our role as an appellate court
is not to “find facts or reweigh the evidence.” A.P. v. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 98 A.3d
736, 743 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014). Rather, it is the trier of fact who, while passing on the
credibility of the weight of the evidence, “is free to believe all, part, or none of the

8
evidence.” Commonwealth v. Salinas, 307 A.3d 790, 793 (Pa. Super. 2023). We
further note that, even if it were true that Mr. Fullman had presented substantial
evidence below, it would be irrelevant to his actual evidentiary burden. This Court
has observed that “substantial evidence” is “an appellate standard of review and not
a standard of evidence applied by a fact finder to determinations of whether a burden
of proof has been satisfied.” Samuel J. Lansberry, Inc. v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n,
578 A.2d 600, 602 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990); see also Elk Mountain Ski Resort, Inc. v.
Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Tietz), 114 A.3d 27, 34 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (explaining
that substantial evidence “is not a quantum of proof necessary to persuade a fact-
finder”). By merely parroting the factual allegations that he had made to the Bureau,
Mr. Fullman gives us no legitimate basis for overturning its or the trial court’s
conclusions.
To the extent that Mr. Fullman’s Argument section contains legal argument
rather than rehashed factual averments, we observe that those arguments consist of
little more than bald assertions without support in the record. First, Mr. Fullman
maintains that he is entitled to one hour of free parking under Section 1117(2)(a) of
the Traffic Code. As the trial court explained, however, Mr. Fullman was required
to display his handicapped placard prominently in order to obtain the hour of free
parking. Second, Mr. Fullman maintains that the Bureau violated his constitutional
rights by denying his request to cross-examine the PPA agents who wrote the
Citations; yet, there is no evidence in the record that Mr. Fullman made such a
request until the matter reached the trial court, whose role—like our own—was not
to find facts but to review the Bureau’s findings for substantial evidence. See
Johnson v. Lansdale Borough, 146 A.3d 696, 710-11 (Pa. 2016). Third, Mr. Fullman
maintains that the PPA agents violated his constitutional rights “by not calling or

9
offering any medical assistance when [Mr. Fullman] reported his medical emergency
and symptoms,” Fullman’s Br. at 10; yet, Mr. Fullman fails to identify any provision
in the United States or Pennsylvania Constitutions that such conduct, if proven,
would have allegedly violated.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court.

---

MATTHEW S. WOLF, Judge

10
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Andrew Fullman, :
Appellant :
:
v. : No. 650 C.D. 2022
:
Bureau of Administrative :
Adjudication :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 23rd day of April 2026, the order of the Court of
Common Pleas of Philadelphia County in the above-captioned matter, dated June
21, 2022, is hereby AFFIRMED.

---

MATTHEW S. WOLF, Judge