author: MELINSON, Judge:

text:
    555 A.2d 151
    COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Albert NEWMAN, Appellant.
    Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
    Submitted Oct. 24, 1988.
    Filed Feb. 27, 1989.

      Joseph S. O’Keefe, Norristown, for appellant.
    Donna G. Zucker, Assistant District Attorney, Philadelphia, for Com.
    Before POPOVICH, MELINSON and HESTER, JJ.
   MELINSON, Judge:

This is an appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County in which Appellant, Albert Newman, was sentenced to imprisonment for convictions of aggravated assault, possession of an instrument of crime, and simple assault. We affirm.

On 1 August 1986, Minnie Mae Major was parking her automobile near her home in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. She noticed Newman lurking behind a tree in a vacant lot across the street. She knew Newman because he had lived with her recently deceased daughter, Sarah Rhodes. As Mrs. Major was about to exit from the automobile, Newman appeared at the side window, pointed a gun at her, and ordered her to get out of the vehicle. Instead of exiting from the automobile, she restarted her vehicle and sped off while Newman fired several shots at the vehicle. Newman also fired shots at Elijah Major, Mrs. Major’s husband, when he appeared in the doorway of his home after hearing the gunshots. Later that evening, Newman telephoned Mrs. Major informing her that: he blamed her for the death of her daughter; he wanted to kill Mrs. Major; and, he would succeed in killing her next time.

After the shooting incident, police detectives arrived at the Major's home and showed Mrs. Major a photographic array from which she identified Newman as the gunman. Three days after the incident, Newman fled to New York. He was arrested eight months later in New York and returned to Philadelphia.

The Honorable Francis A. Biunno presided over a jury trial at which Newman was convicted of aggravated assault on Mrs. Major, simple assault on Mr. Major, and possession of an instrument of crime. Post-trial motions were filed and denied. Judge Biunno sentenced Newman to serve five (5) to ten (10) years of imprisonment for aggravated assault, one (1) to two (2) years of imprisonment, consecutive to the aggravated assault, for simple assault, and five (5) years of probation consecutive to the first two convictions for possession of an instrument of crime. This direct appeal follows.

On appeal, Newman asserts thirteen (13) issues for our consideration. We quote from his brief as follows:

1. Did the Learned Trial Court err in denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss Rule 1100 and in granting the Commonwealth’s Petition to Extend Rule 1100?
2. Did the Learned Trial Court err in refusing to allow the defendant’s psychiatrist to testify?
3. Did the Learned Trial Court err in refusing to allow an expert witness, Professor Abrams of the University of Pennsylvania, from testifying? [sic]
4. Did the Learned Trial Court err in refusing to sever the charges of theft of a gun occurring on July 27, 1986 from the numerous assault charges averred of August 1, 1986?
5. Did the Learned Trial Court err in failing to charge the jury that the Commonwealth muyst [sic] prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that what occurred was under circumstances maifesting [sic] an extreme indifference to the value of human life?
6. Did the Learned Trial Court err in fialing [sic] to charge the jury as to the limitations of the significance of the addresses to which the detective refferred [sic]?
7. Did the Learned Trial Court err in denying the defense the right to ask prospective venireman [sic] whether or not they believed a reasonable man could believe in the religion of Voodoo?
8. Did the Learned Trial Court err in overruling the objections of the defense to the hearsay statements presented during the course of the trial?
9. Did the Learned Trial Court err in overruling the defense objections to the testimony by Dective [sic] Hughes that the defendant was arrested in another jurisdiction?
10. Did the Learned Trial Court err in refusing to appoint to the defendant new counsel prior to the commencement of trial?
11. Was Trial Counsel ineffective in failing to argue during Rule 1100 hearing that the oral amendment were annulity [sic] and that there was no prompt hearing and that the District Attorney’s Petition contained only general averments?
12. Was Trial Counsel ineffective in failing to argue during the Motion to sever, that the Commonwealth had never filed a Motion to consolidate?
13. Was Trial Counsel ineffective in basing her defense upon witnesses whose testimony was inadmissible, or at least in not requesting ruling on the proper evidence prior to the start of the defense’s case?

Brief for Appellant at pages 6 and 7.

Initially, Newman asserts that the trial court erred in not dismissing the case due to the Commonwealth’s alleged violation of Rule 1100 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure. Rule 1100 provides in pertinent part:

Rule 1100. Prompt Trial
... (a)(2) Trial in a court case in which a written complaint is filed against the defendant after June 30, 1974 shall commence no later than one hundred eighty (180) days from the date on which the complaint is filed ...
(d) In determining the period for commencement of trial, there shall be excluded therefrom:
(1) the period of time between the filing of the written complaint and the defendant’s arrest; provided that the defendant could not be apprehended because his whereabouts were unknown and could not be determined by due diligence; ...

Pa.R.Crim.P. 1100(a)(2) & (d)(1). The Commonwealth has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that due diligence was employed by the Commonwealth in attempting to apprehend Newman. Commonwealth v. Cruz, 362 Pa.Super. 282, 524 A.2d 507 (1987); Commonwealth v. Maxwell, 505 Pa. 152, 477 A.2d 1309 (1984); Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 472 Pa. 553, 372 A.2d 826 (1977). In determining whether the police acted with due diligence, a balancing process must be employed where the court, using a common sense approach, examines the activities of the police and balances this against the interest of the accused in receiving a fair trial. Cruz, 362 Pa.Super. at 285, 524 A.2d 507 (citations omitted). We have held that, where the Commonwealth exercises due diligence in attempting to locate a defendant prior to arrest, the period of elapsed time between the date of the filing of the complaint and the date of the arrest is excludable pursuant to Rule 1100(d)(1). See Commonwealth v. Bomboy, 357 Pa.Super. 265, 515 A.2d 969 (1986); Commonwealth v. Mansberry, 356 Pa.Super. 413, 514 A.2d 926 (1986); Commonwealth v. Fisher, 334 Pa.Super. 449, 483 A.2d 537 (1984). Further, when this court is reviewing the trial court’s ruling “that the Commonwealth has met its burden, we shall consider only the evidence presented by the Commonwealth and so much evidence as presented by the defense as, fairly read in the context of the record as a whole, remains uncontradicted.” Mitchell, 472 Pa. at 564, 372 A.2d 826 (citations omitted).

Here, Newman alleges that the Commonwealth did not exercise due diligence in attempting to track him down and arrest him. We disagree. The criminal incident in question occurred 1 August 1986. Officer James Hughes interviewed the complainants the next day, and he showed the complainants a photographic array on the third day after the incident. Hughes obtained an arrest warrant for Newman on 6 August 1986. The address on the warrant listed Newman’s residence as Syracuse, New York, based upon information received by Hughes from Mrs. Major. A few days later, Hughes learned from Newman’s mother that Newman had recently telephoned her from New York. Sometime before 20 August 1988, Hughes placed Newman’s name through PCIC and NCIC and determined that Newman had absconded while on probation. Hughes maintained periodic contact with Newman’s mother and father and he remained in constant contact with the Majors. A criminal history check revealed that there was an outstanding bench warrant for Newman in New York City. Police officers were provided with photographs of Newman and “wanted” posters that depicted his likeness. In November, Hughes was in contact with the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office to determine whether that office was willing to begin extradition proceedings to retrieve Newman. Finally, on 14 April 1987, Hughes received information from the New York City Police Department that Newman had been arrested there, and extradition proceedings, ultimately successful, were instituted.' After a thorough review of the laudable efforts of Officer Hughes to locate and arrest Newman, we find that the Commonwealth did act with due diligence in bringing Newman to trial. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the pre-arrest time from the Rule 1100 run date.

Second, Newman claims that the trial court erred in prohibiting the testimony of a psychiatrist offered, at trial, to prove “that he examined the defendant [and] that the defendant believed that what he was saying was true.” Notes of Testimony, 21 January 1988, page 116. An offer of proof must be sufficient to alert the trial judge to the purpose for which the evidence is being offered, and a trial court’s exclusion of evidence must be evaluated on appeal by a review of the contents of the offer at the time it was made. Commonwealth v. Gibson, 264 Pa.Super. 548, 400 A.2d 221 (1979); Commonwealth v. Cain, 471 Pa. 140, 369 A.2d 1234 (1977). The party specifying the purpose for which the testimony is admissible cannot argue on appeal that the evidence was admissible for a purpose other than that offered at trial. Gibson, 264 Pa.Super. at 551, 400 A.2d 221; see Commonwealth v. Gordon, 364 Pa.Super. 521, 528 A.2d 631 (1987). Appellant is deemed to have waived any grounds, other than those offered at trial, for the admission of the evidence at trial. See Commonwealth v. Funke, 306 Pa.Super. 542, 452 A.2d 857 (1982).

Newman proffers, without citation to legal authority, two bases for the admission of the psychiatric testimony. First, he claims the evidence was admissible to demonstrate Newman’s alleged mental illness, and second, he asserts that Newman acted under the belief that he was hexed. At trial, Newman offered the testimony merely to corroborate Newman’s belief that he was a victim of Voodoo. Because Newman failed to offer, at trial, the psychiatric testimony for the purpose of establishing mental illness, we find that he has waived this newly formulated claim. See Funke, 306 Pa.Super. 542, 452 A.2d 857.

Further, we find that there is no merit to his second rationale for admitting the evidence. In Commonwealth v. O’Searo, 466 Pa. 224, 352 A.2d 30 (1976), the defendant presented a self-defense theory at his murder trial. He attempted to call as a witness a psychiatrist who would “substantiate and corroborate the defendant’s contention [via defendant’s own testimony] that he harbored no ill will towards the victim, that he had no intention of harming the victim, that the defendant during the scuffle became fearful of a heart attack and drew the gun in order to get the people away from him.” O’Searo, 466 Pa. at 228, 352 A.2d 30. The trial court prohibited the psychiatrist from testifying.

Ultimately, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed O’Searo’s Judgment of Sentence. The court noted that the determination of the credibility of the witness is solely within the province of the jury and held that the admission of the psychiatrist’s testimony would infringe upon the jury’s determination of the credibility of the witness [defendant]. O’Searo, 466 Pa. at 229, 352 A.2d 30 (citations omitted). The court stated, “To permit psychological testimony for this purpose would be an invitation for the trier of fact to abdicate its responsibility to ascertain the facts relying upon the questionable premise that the expert is in a better position to make such a judgment.” O’Searo, 466 Pa. at 229, 352 A.2d 30.

Similarly, in Commonwealth v. Battle, 289 Pa.Super. 369, 433 A.2d 496 (1981), the defendant presented a self-defense theory at trial. The defendant offered the testimony of a psychiatrist to show that the defendant acted out of a belief that he was in danger for purposes of establishing self-defense. Once again, the trial court barred the testimony.

A panel of this court affirmed the Judgment of Sentence. As in O’Searo the psychological testimony was not offered to show the likelihood of Battle’s behavior under a given stimulus nor to show lack of capacity to form the specific intent to kill. Rather, the testimony was offered to show that the appellant was in fact acting out of a bona fide belief that he was in imminent danger. As such the proffered testimony did nothing more than “buttress the credibility of the defendant.”

Battle, 289 Pa.Super. at 374, 433 A.2d 496.

In the instant matter, Newman offered the evidence to buttress his assertion that he acted while under the belief that he was a victim of Voodoo. Based upon O’Searo and Battle, we find that the trial was correct in excluding the psychiatrist’s testimony.

Third, Newman challenges the trial court’s refusal to permit a professor to testify as to the existence of the Voodoo religion. In fact, the testimony was offered at trial “to firm up his [Newman’s] belief when he says that he believed Voodoo was on the go against him originally and through him to Sarah Rhodes.” Notes of Testimony, 21 January 1988, page 117. For the reasons set forth in the discussion concerning the testimony of the psychiatrist, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to allow the testimony of the professor.

Fourth, Newman claims that the trial court erred by failing to sever the charges of Newman's theft of the gun from Rembert Miller, from the other charges stemming from the incident with the Majors. Rule 1127 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure delineates when separate informations may be joined in one trial.

A. Standards

(1) Offenses charged in separate indictments or informations may be tried together if:
(a) the evidence of each of the offenses would be admissible in a separate trial for the other and is capable of separation by the jury so that there is no danger of confusion; or
(b) the offenses charged are based on the same act or transaction____

B. Procedure

(1) Written notice that offenses or defendants charged in separate indictments or informations will be tried together shall be served on the defendant at or before arraignment. A copy of the notice shall be filed with the clerk of court.
(2) When notice has not been given under paragraph B(1), any party may move to consolidate for trial separate indictments or informations, which must ordinarily be included in the omnibus pretrial motion.

Pa.R.Crim.P. 1127(A)(1)(a) & (b), and 1127(B)(1) & (2).

Newman argues that the Commonwealth never made a motion to consolidate the two cases. Although Newman is correct in his assertion that the Commonwealth failed to comply with the dictates of Rule 1127(B)(2), the record indicates written notice was filed with the clerk of court that the offenses would be tried together.

Further, Newman avers that the theft of the gun and the use of the gun against Mrs. Major are not sufficiently interrelated to warrant consolidation of the trials. The determination of whether incidents are part of a single criminal episode involves consideration of the temporal sequence of events, the relationship between the acts, and the existence of common issues of law and fact. Commonwealth v. Flenory, 351 Pa.Super. 27, 30-31, 504 A.2d 1341, 1342 (1986) (citations omitted). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has stated that “where a number of charges are logically and/or temporally related and share common issues of law and fact, a single criminal episode exists, and separate trials would involve substantial duplication and waste of scarce judicial resources.” Flenory, 351 Pa.Super. at 32, 504 A.2d 1341, quoting Commonwealth v. Hude, 500 Pa. 482, 494, 458 A.2d 177, 183 (1983).

On 27 July 1986, Newman stole a pistol from the residence of Rembert Miller. Five days later, Newman fired pistol shots at the Majors. The incidents are both logically and temporally related and share common issues of law and fact. The consolidation of the trials is also very instructive in showing a common scheme or design to commit the crimes against the Majors. Accordingly, we find that the trial court did not err in failing to sever the charge of theft of Miller’s gun from the charges related to the incidents involving the Majors.

Fifth, it is Newman’s assertion that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury properly with regard to aggravated assault. Newman claims the trial court was required to charge the jury that “the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the following separate element, i.e. that what occurred was under circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to the value of human life.” Brief for Appellant at page 19. Where a defendant attempts to commit aggravated assault, or where the victim does not sustain serious bodily injury, the Commonwealth must prove that the defendant acted with the specific intent to cause serious bodily injury. Commonwealth v. Magnelli, 348 Pa.Super. 345, 502 A.2d 241 (1985). However, in those instances where serious bodily injury has occurred, the Commonwealth may prove that the defendant acted recklessly, rather than with specific intent. Magnelli, 348 Pa.Super. at 349, 502 A.2d 241 (citations omitted).

The trial court instructed the jury, in pertinent part: In order to find the defendant guilty of aggravated assault, you must find that each of the elements of the crime — the following elements of the crime have been established beyond a reasonable doubt and there are two elements. One, is that the defendant attempted to cause ... serious bodily injury to Minnie Major or Elijah Major depending on what charge you are considering. In order to find that the defendant attempted to do this, you must find that he engaged in causing bodily injury to Minnie— serious bodily injury, ... Major or Elijah Major depending in what bill you are considering. That the defendant’s conduct in this regard was intentional or in other words, that it was his conscious object or purpose to cause such serious bodily injury.
If after considering all of the evidence you find that the Commonwealth has established each of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt, then you should find the defendant guilty of aggravated assault____

Notes of Testimony, 22 January 1988, pages 67-68.

We find that the jury instruction was proper in this case. In the absence of serious bodily injury, the Commonwealth was required to establish that Newman acted with the specific intent to cause serious bodily injury. The charge that a defendant acted under circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to the value of human life is not appropriate in those instances, like the case at bar, where no serious bodily injury occurred. To hold otherwise would be contrary to the unambiguous language of the aggravated assault statute. See 18 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. Section 2702(a)(1) & (a)(4). Accordingly, Newman’s claim is without merit.

Sixth, Newman asserts that the trial court erred in refusing to give the following jury charge:

With respect to the Detective’s testimony that he went to several addresses looking for the defendant, there has been no evidence to show that the defendant ever lived at any of these addresses; therefore, the evidence that the Detective went to certain addresses is only introduce [sic] for the limited purpose of showing the polcie [sic] made efforts to serve the arrest warrant and not to prove that they were looking in the right places.

Instructions Requested by Defense at page 4. In evaluating a trial court’s instructions, we must review the charge as a whole. Commonwealth v. Klinger, 369 Pa.Super. 526, 539-540, 535 A.2d 1060, 1066 (1988); Commonwealth v. Ohle, 503 Pa. 566, 470 A.2d 61 (1983). There is no requirement for the trial judge to instruct the jury pursuant to every request made to the court. Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, 343 Pa.Super. 486, 495 A.2d 569 (1985). We shall not reverse the trial court’s refusal of a tendered point for charge unless the refusal was prejudicial to the defendant. Commonwealth v. Potts, 314 Pa.Super. 256, 460 A.2d 1127 (1983); Commonwealth v. Henderson, 249 Pa.Super. 472, 378 A.2d 393 (1977).

Here, Newman claims the refusal to give the proffered instruction was prejudicial because the jury might have inferred that the detective’s testimony as to his attempts to locate Newman was indicative of Newman’s flight. We have reviewed the charge to the jury, as a whole, including the portion specifically concerning flight, and we conclude that Newman was not prejudiced in any way by the refusal of the trial judge to instruct the jury on this issue. Accordingly, this issue is without merit.

Seventh, Newman alleges that the trial court erred in denying a defense request to ask prospective jury members whether they believe a reasonable man can place credence in Voodoo.

It must be remembered the purpose of the voir dire examination is to provide an opportunity to counsel to assess the qualifications of prospective jurors to serve, [citations omitted]. It is therefore appropriate to use such an examination to disclose fixed opinions or to expose other reasons for disqualification, [citations omitted]. Thus the inquiry must be directed at ascertaining whether the venireperson is competent and capable of rendering a fair, impartial and unbiased verdict, [citations omitted].

Commonwealth v. Drew, 500 Pa. 585, 588, 459 A.2d 318, 320 (1983). See Commonwealth v. Ingber, 516 Pa. 2, 531 A.2d 1101 (1987). Further,

It is equally well established that voir dire is not to be used to attempt to ascertain a prospective juror’s present impressions or attitudes.
'It is well-settled that the examination of jurors under voir dire is solely for the purpose of securing a competent, fair, impartial and unprejudiced jury ... Neither counsel for the defendant nor for the Commonwealth should be permitted to ... ask direct or hypothetical questions designed to disclose what a juror’s present impression or opinion may be or what his attitude or decision will likely be under certain facts which may be developed in the trial of the case. While considerable latitude should be permitted on a voir dire, the inquiry should be strictly confined to disclosing qualifications of a juror and whether a juror has formed a fixed opinion or may otherwise subject to disqualifications for cause.’ Commonwealth v. McGrew, 375 Pa. 518, 525, 100 A.2d 467, 470 (1953) [citations omitted].

Drew, 500 Pa. at 589-590, 459 A.2d 318, quoting Commonwealth v. Johnson, 452 Pa. 130, 136, 305 A.2d 5, 7 (1973) (emphasis in original). The scope of voir dire rests within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed on appeal absent a gross abuse of discretion. Commonwealth v. Delligatti, 371 Pa.Super. 315, 329, 538 A.2d 34, 41 (1988); Commonwealth v. Lark, 350 Pa.Super. 558, 565-566, 504 A.2d 1291, 1295 (1986).

The question which Newman sought to ask was clearly calculated to gain insight into the jurors’ present impressions or attitudes, that is, to explore the viability of the defense which he intended to present at trial. The question was not related to whether the jurors had formed a fixed opinion as to Newman’s guilt or innocence, or whether the jurors were unable to render a fair, impartial verdict. Accordingly, we do not find that the trial court committed a gross abuse of discretion in refusing Newman’s proposed voir dire question.

Eighth, Newman contends that the trial court erred in admitting, over a defense objection, two allegedly hearsay statements into evidence. Generally, the admissibility of evidence is controlled by the discretion of the trial court, and an appellate court will not reverse the ruling of the trial court absent a clear abuse of discretion. In the Interest of Hyduke, 371 Pa.Super. 380, 389, 538 A.2d 66, 71 (1988).

Mrs. Major testified that she received a telephone call from her daughter requesting Mrs. Major to pick up her daughter in New York. Newman alleges that this is inadmissible hearsay evidence. We disagree. Hearsay is an out-of-court utterance offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Commonwealth v. Coleman, 458 Pa. 112, 115, 326 A.2d 387, 388 (1974). Where a person’s state of mind is relevant, that person’s contemporaneous statements as to his or her state of mind are admissible under the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule. See Packel and Poulin, Pennsylvania Evidence, Section 803.3 (1987). At bar, Rhodes’s statement falls under the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule. The statement constitutes circumstantial evidence of Sarah Rhodes’s state of mind in support of the proposition that Newman knew that Sarah was returning home because of her illness. Accordingly, the statement was admissible as evidence.

Moreover, Newman asserts that the trial court erred by overruling a defense objection to a portion of the testimony of Regina Resta, M.D. Doctor Resta testified that another doctor corroborated Resta’s medical findings regarding the condition of Sarah Rhodes. Although this testimony of Doctor Resta was hearsay, we find that the error was not sufficiently significant to merit a new trial. “[A]n error cannot be held to be harmless unless the appellate court determines that the error could not have contributed to the verdict. Whenever there is a ‘reasonable possibility’ that an error ‘might have contributed to the conviction,’ the error is not harmless.” Commonwealth v. Davis, 452 Pa. 171, 178, 305 A.2d 715, 719 (1973), quoting Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24, 87 S.Ct. 824, 828, 17 L.Ed.2d 705, 711 (1967); see Commonwealth v. Dungan, 372 Pa.Super. 323, 338-339, 539 A.2d 817, 824 (1988); Commonwealth v. Story, 476 Pa. 391, 409, 383 A.2d 155, 164 (1978).

In his brief, Newman does no more than aver, without any supporting factual evidence or citation to authority, that he was prejudiced by the admission of Doctor Resta’s testimony. After a thorough review of the record, we find no prejudice suffered by Newman on this collateral issue. If anything, the evidence was useful to the defense to demonstrate that Newman’s passions were inflamed by watching his girlfriend, Sarah Rhodes, deteriorate from Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). Further, this was certainly not an issue which was determinitive of guilt or innocence. Moreover, there was other, overwhelming evidence of Newman’s guilt. There is no reasonable possibility that Resta’s disputed testimony contributed to the conviction. Consequently, the claim is meritless.

Ninth, it is Newman’s contention that the trial court erred by overruling a defense objection to the testimony of Detective James Hughes. Hughes testified that Newman was arrested in another jurisdiction, New York City. Newman complains that the Assistant District Attorney elicited this information from Hughes to create the allegedly false impression that Newman was arrested as a fugitive.

The record belies Newman’s protestation that the Assistant District Attorney knowingly created the allegedly false impression that Newman fled to New York. In other portions of his brief, Newman asserts that he resided in Syracuse, New York. However, he was arrested at an address in New York City. It is certainly reasonable to infer that the testimony of Hughes was probative of Newman’s flight from Philadelphia since Newman was not even arrested at his alleged Syracuse residence. In light of these facts, we find no substance to the assertion that the Assistant District Attorney is guilty of prosecutorial misconduct or that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the testimony. Accordingly, this claim is merit-less.

Tenth, Newman argues that the trial court erred in refusing to appoint new counsel for Newman prior to trial. On 20 October 1987, Newman filed a pro se petition requesting the appointment of new counsel to represent him. The petition was neither brought to the attention of the trial court nor of the Public Defender who ably represented Newman at trial. In addition, Newman did not request new counsel when he decided to represent himself at trial. And, when he finally terminated his self-representation, he opted specifically to be represented by the Public Defender’s office.

Rule 316(c) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure provides, in pertinent part, that “[a] motion for change of counsel by a defendant to whom counsel has been assigned, shall not be granted except for substantial reasons.” Pa.R.Crim.P. 316(c). Whether a petition for change of court-appointed counsel should be granted is within the sound discretion of the trial court. Commonwealth v. Williams, 514 Pa. 62, 67-68, 522 A.2d 1058, 1061 (1987); Commonwealth v. Segers, 460 Pa. 149, 154, 331 A.2d 462, 465 (1975). In view of Newman’s failure to press his desire for new counsel at any time subsequent to the filing of the boilerplate petition, the able representation of Newman at trial by the public defender, and the utter failure to set forth on the record or in his brief any reasons, either unsubstantial or substantial, for granting the petition, we find the trial court’s refusal of Newman’s request was not an abuse of discretion.

Eleventh, Newman avers that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise certain challenges during the Rule 1100 hearing. The burden of establishing ineffectiveness of counsel rests on the Appellant. Commonwealth v. House, 371 Pa.Super. 23, 28, 537 A.2d 361, 363 (1988). Newman must demonstrate that the issues underlying his claims of ineffectiveness of counsel are of arguable merit, that the course chosen by prior counsel was not reasonable in light of Newman’s interests, and that he suffered prejudice as a result of the ineffectiveness of his previous counsel. House, 371 Pa.Super. at 28, 537 A.2d 361; see Commonwealth v. Pierce, 515 Pa. 153, 527 A.2d 973 (1987). We have already discussed, at length, the viability of the Rule 1100 issue, and we have concluded that the Commonwealth did establish due diligence in bringing Newman to trial. Because Newman’s claim is not of arguable merit, his trial counsel was not ineffective.

Penultimately, Newman contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to argue that the Commonwealth had never filed a motion to consolidate the charges of theft of a gun from Miller with the charges arising from the incident with the Majors. The Commonwealth was not required to file a motion to consolidate the charges pursuant to Rule 1127(B)(1) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure. As noted in our discussion concerning Newman’s fourth issue, the Commonwealth put Newman on notice that the charges were to be tried together; thus, the Commonwealth complied with the Rules of Criminal Procedure in providing notice to Newman. A motion to consolidate the charges was unnecessary.

Finally, Newman alleges that his trial counsel was ineffective for basing Newman’s defense upon the testimony of the expert witnesses whose testimony was inadmissible. Newman testified, prior to the time when the expert witnesses were called by the defense, that he acted while under the influence of Voodoo. The testimony of the expert witnesses was offered purely to corroborate Newman’s belief that he was a victim of Voodoo. Although the proffered testimony was inadmissible, Newman was able to present his Voodoo defense through his own testimony. Further, appellate counsel does not suggest any other alternative to the defense strategy of Newman’s trial counsel. Newman testified under oath that he was a victim of Voodoo, and it was solely the province of the jury to accept or reject his testimony. See Commonwealth v. Wienckowski, 371 Pa.Super. 153, 537 A.2d 866 (1988); Commonwealth v. Fahy, 512 Pa. 298, 516 A.2d 689 (1986). Accordingly, we find Newman’s last contention to be without merit.

Judgment of Sentence affirmed.

      . 18 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. Section 2702.

      . 18 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. Section 907.

      . 18 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. Section 2701.

      . We must note that Newman’s brief violates the following Rules of Appellate Procedure:
      Rule 2115. Order or Other Determination in Question, (omitted from brief).
      Rule 2116. Statement of Questions Involved, (two pages long in brief).
      Rule 2118. Summary of Argument, (omitted from brief).
      Rule 2132. References in Briefs to the Record, (omitted from brief).
      Rule 2173. Numbering of Pages, (omitted from brief).

      . By order of 31 December 1987, effective immediately, our Supreme Court amended Rule 1100. The identical provisions of old Rule 1100(d)(1) are now set forth in Rule 1100(c)(1). We here apply the old rule in effect at the time of Newman’s trial.

      . Philadelphia Crime Information Center.

      . National Crime Information Center.

      . Newman incorrectly asserts in his brief that the evidence was also offered to demonstrate Newman’s alleged mental illness at the time of the incident. The record is devoid of any such offer of proof.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author:
WIEAND, Judge:
      McEWEN, Judge,

license: Public Domain

text:
    555 A.2d 162
    Jacob VAN DEN HEUVAL v. Theodore H. WALLACE. Appeal of ROCKWOOD INSURANCE COMPANY.
    Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
    Argued Sept. 8, 1988.
    Filed March 6, 1989.

      William F. Thomson, Jr., Morrisville, for appellant.
    C. Richard Morton, West Chester, for appellee Wallace.
    Before WIEAND, McEWEN and MELINSON, JJ.
   WIEAND, Judge:

The issue in this appeal concerns the right of a workmen’s compensation insurance carrier, who paid benefits in accordance with the Workmen’s Compensation Law of Delaware, to intervene in an employee’s third party tort action in Pennsylvania. The trial court held that the carrier had no right of subrogation, even though such a right was expressly granted by Delaware law, and denied the carrier’s petition to intervene. For the reasons hereinafter set forth, we reverse.

Jacob Van Den Heuval, a resident of Maryland, was employed by Breeding & Day, Inc., a Delaware corporation having offices in Wilmington, Delaware. On October 26, 1984, while driving his employer’s vehicle in the course of his employment, Van Den Heuval was involved in a collision with a vehicle being operated by Theodore H. Wallace in Chester County, Pennsylvania. Because of serious and disabling injuries sustained in the accident, Van Den Heuval was paid workmen’s compensation benefits by his employer’s workmen’s compensation insurance carrier, Rockwood Insurance Company (Rockwood) in accordance with the Workmen’s Compensation Law of Delaware.

Van Den Heuval subsequently commenced a tort action against the driver of the other vehicle in Chester County, Pennsylvania. Rockwood filed a petition to intervene in this action for the purpose of protecting the right of subrogation which was guaranteed by statute in Delaware. The trial court denied the petition. It held that, pursuant to the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, 75 Pa.C.S. § 1720, there was no right of subrogation for workmen’s compensation benefits paid as a result of injuries sustained in a vehicular accident. This appeal followed.

Although an order denying a petition to intervene is generally deemed interlocutory, where the practical effect of such an order is the denial of relief to which an intervenor is entitled and which he can obtain in no other way, the order is appealable. See: Maginley v. Robert J. Elliott, Inc., 345 Pa.Super. 582, 498 A.2d 977 (1985); Boise Cascade Corp. v. East Stroudsburg Savings Association, 300 Pa.Super. 279, 446 A.2d 614 (1982).

This is such a case. For reasons which we will discuss, Rockwood is entitled to be subrogated in Van Den Heuval’s third party action to the extent of workmen’s compensation benefits which it paid to the employee of its insured. It is unrealistic to suggest that Rockwood’s interest can be protected by a subsequent action against Van Den Heuval. If the third party action is settled without notice to Rockwood, its subrogation claim is at the mercy of the employee who, having received payment, can dispose of the settlement proceeds as he chooses. The order of the trial court which denied intervention, therefore, has the practical effect of denying relief to Rockwood, which cannot fully protect its subrogation interest in any other way. We conclude, therefore, that the order denying intervention in this case is an appealable order.

Rockwood's right of subrogation is guaranteed by Delaware statute. The laws of the State of Delaware are controlling because Delaware is the state which has the most significant contacts with the workmen’s compensation aspects of this matter. See: Myers v. Commercial Union Assurance Co., 319 Pa.Super. 21, 465 A.2d 1032 (1983), allocatur denied. See also: Griffith v. United Airlines, Inc., 416 Pa. 1, 203 A.2d 796 (1964). Compare: Nationwide Insurance Co. of Delaware v. Enderle, 369 Pa.Super. 44, 534 A.2d 1071 (1987). Van Den Heuval, as we have observed, was a resident of Maryland and was employed by a corporation doing business in Delaware. He was injured while temporarily present in Pennsylvania, where he was operating a vehicle owned by his employer in the course of his employment. A policy of workmen’s compensation insurance had been issued by Rockwood to Van Den Heuval’s Delaware employer, and Rockwood paid compensation benefits in accordance with the Workmen’s Compensation Law of the State of Delaware. It seems readily apparent, therefore, that it is Delaware and not Pennsylvania which has the more significant contacts with the workmen’s compensation aspects of this matter. Van Den Heuval, a resident of Maryland, was present in Pennsylvania only temporarily, and his third party action was brought in Pennsylvania in order to obtain jurisdiction over Wallace, the other driver, who was a resident of Pennsylvania. The workmen’s compensation rights and obligations of Rock-wood, however, must be determined according to the laws of the State of Delaware. See: Myers v. Commercial Union Assurance Co., supra. See also: Goodemote v. Mushroom Transportation Co., 427 F.2d 285 (3rd Cir. 1970); Colombo v. Republic Steel Corp., 448 F.Supp. 833 (W.D.Pa.1978).

Pursuant to 19 Del.Code Ann. § 2868(e), any recovery received by the plaintiff-employee against the third party, after deducting the expenses of recovery, must first be used to reimburse the workmen’s compensation carrier for amounts paid or payable under the Delaware Workmen’s Compensation Law. The balance of the third party recovery is to be paid to the employee and must be treated as an advance payment by the insurance carrier on account of any future payment of compensation benefits. See: Delaware v. Donahue, 472 A.2d 824, 826 (Del.Super.1988). Roekwood’s right of subrogation, therefore, is unequivocal. When the trial court held that Roekwood had no such interest, it erred.

Pa.R.C.P. 2827 provides that intervention “shall be permitted” if “(8) [the party petitioning to intervene] could have joined as an original party ... or (4) the determination of [the] action may affect any legally enforceable interest of [the person seeking to intervene] whether or not he may be bound by a judgment in the action.” Under this rule, an insurance carrier who has paid workmen’s compensation benefits may intervene in an employee’s third party action in order to protect and preserve the carrier’s right of subrogation. See: Scalise v. F.M. Venzie Co., 301 Pa. 315, 320, 152 A. 90, 92 (1930). See also: Maginley v. Robert J. Elliott, Inc., supra 345 Pa.Super. at 588-595, 498 A.2d at 980-984 (Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by Wieand, J.). When the trial court refused in the instant case to allow intervention by the carrier to protect its subrogation rights, the court committed an abuse of discretion.

Reversed and remanded with instructions to allow the requested intervention. Jurisdiction is not retained.

McEWEN, J., files a dissenting opinion.

McEWEN, Judge,

dissenting:

While my respect for the insight of the members of the majority cause me to be hesitant to differ, I am compelled to expression of the view that this appeal should be quashed.

Appellant concedes that as a general rule, an order denying a petition to intervene is an interlocutory order, not appealable as of right. See: Scharnitzki v. Bienenfeld, 368 Pa.Super. 610, 534 A.2d 825 (1987); Ginter v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 359 Pa.Super. 200, 202, 518 A.2d 850, 851 (1986); Maginley v. Robert J. Elliott, Inc., 345 Pa.Super. 582, 584, 498 A.2d 977, 979 (1985); M. London, Inc. v. Fedders Corp., 306 Pa.Super. 103, 106, 452 A.2d 236, 237 (1982); Inryco Inc. v. Helmark Steel, Inc. 305 Pa.Super. 239, 243-44, 451 A.2d 511, 512-13 (1982); Boise Cascade Corporation v. East Stroudsburg Savings Assn., 300 Pa.Super. 279, 281, 446 A.2d 614, 615 (1982). Appellant contends, however, that in the instant case the order denying the petition to intervene is a final and appeal-able order since the order is “a practical denial of the relief to which the petitioner for intervention is entitled and can obtain in no other way____” Scharnitzki v. Bienenfeld, supra 368 Pa.Super. at 611, 534 A.2d at 825 quoting Frey’s Estate, 237 Pa. 269, 271, 85 A. 147, 148 (1912) (emphasis supplied). If this allegation were true, this Court would have jurisdiction in this matter. See: McDaniel v. Rexnord, Inc., 371 Pa.Super. 32, 35, 537 A.2d 365, 367 (1988).

The only evidence of record, however, pertaining to the finality of the order denying intervention, consists of the petition to intervene filed by appellant, the answer filed by appellee Wallace, and the answer filed by appellee Van Den Heuval. Appellant, in its petition to intervene alleged, inter alia, that (1) intervention was necessary in order to protect its statutory right of subrogation under the Delaware Workmen’s Compensation Law; and (2) that the applicable policy of insurance had been issued prior to the effective date of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, October 1, 1984, and that, therefore, the action was controlled by the provisions of the Pennsylvania No-Fault Motor Vehicle Insurance Act, under which subrogation is permitted. See: Vespaziani v. Insana, 501 Pa. 612, 462 A.2d 669 (1983).

Appellee Van Den Heuval, in his answer, denied that intervention was necessary to protect appellant’s subrogation rights, alleging that “[i]f Rockwood Insurance Company has subrogation rights, they will be able to enforce those rights without intervention in this proceeding.” Appellee Van Den Heuval and appellee Wallace both alleged in their answers to the petition to intervene that the No-Fault Act was inapplicable, appellee Van Den Heuval alleging that the applicable policy of insurance had been issued in Maryland. Following the filing of the appellees’ answers, appellant filed a petition for determination, without proceeding, pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 209, to support the allegations of its petition. “Pa.R.C.P. 209 sets forth the manner of proceeding on petition and answer. Ordinarily, after the filing and service of an answer, the petitioner would proceed within 15 days to take depositions or move the case for argument on petition and answer____if the case is ordered for argument on petition and answer alone pursuant to Rule 209, 'all averments of fact responsive to the petition and properly pleaded in the answer should be deemed admitted for the purpose of the rule.’ ” Schultz v. Erie Insurance Exchange 505 Pa. 90, 94, 477 A.2d 471, 472 (1984).

“It is well settled that when a respondent effectively denies material allegations in a petition to open, the petitioner must support his position with clear and convincing proof. Philadelphia City Employees Federal Credit Union v. Bryant, 310 Pa.Super. 526, [529] 456 A.2d 1060, 1062 (1982); Hutchings v. Trent, 304 Pa.Super. 376, 380, 450 A.2d 729, 731 (1982); Bell v. Jefferson Republican Club, 304 Pa.Super. 157, 160, 450 A.2d 149, 151 (1982). Pa.R.C.P. 209 provides the procedure for establishing such proof. Pursuant to Rule 209, the petitioner must either take depositions on disputed factual issues or order the cause for argument on the petition and answer, thereby conceding the existence of all facts properly pleaded in the answer. Or, the respondent may, after fifteen days, in order to expedite the proceedings, obtain a rule to show cause why the petitioner should not take depositions or order the cause for argument on the petition and answer. Triffin v. Thomas, 316 Pa.Super. 273, [277] 462 A.2d 1346, 1348 (1983); Philadelphia City Employees Federal Credit Union v. Bryant, supra [310 Pa.Super.] at [530] 456 A.2d at 1063; Bell v. Jefferson Republican Club, supra, 304 Pa.Superior Ct. at 160, 450 A.2d at 151.

Lazzarotti v. Juliano, 322 Pa.Super. 129, 134, 469 A.2d 216, 218 (1983).

The sole argument raised on appeal in support of the assertion that the order denying intervention is a denial of the statutory relief [subrogation] to which appellant is entitled and which can be obtained in no other way, is that any action by appellant against the alleged tortfeasor would be barred by the Pennsylvania two year statute of limitations applicable to personal injury actions. See: 42 Pa.C.S. § 5524(2). This argument is not well taken.

If appellee Van Den Heuval recovers a judgment in the the third party tort action, appellant may assert its subrogation rights against appellee Van Den Heuval, the statute of limitations as to personal injury actions being totally irrelevant to the subrogation action. See and compare State v. Donahue, supra (declaratory judgment action); Myers v. Commercial Union Assurance Company, 506 Pa. 492, 485 A.2d 1113 (1984) (declaratory judgment action); Maginley v. Robert J. Elliott, Inc., 345 Pa.Super. 582, 587, 498 A.2d 977, 980 (1985) (plurality opinion) (Concurring & Dissenting Opinion of Del Sole, J.) (“First, had the employee recovered sums ... which represented subrogable compensation payments, the employer would not be barred from filing a claim against the employee to recoup its subrogation.”). See also: 10 Del.C. § 8106.

I am simply not persuaded that to deny intervention “has the practical effect of denying relief to Rockwood, which cannot fully protect its subrogation interest in any other way”. Rockwood failed to establish why it was unable in this case to rely upon the usual and traditional method of protecting its subrogation claim. Thus, appellant has failed to establish that the denial of the right to intervene in this action operates to deny the relief to which it is entitled and could “obtain in no other way”. Thus it is that I would direct that the appeal be quashed.

      . According to the averments of the petition to intervene, Rockwood paid medical expenses in the amount of $30,100.00 and wage losses in the amount of $31,000.00 and was continuing to make payments on account of lost wages.

      . The workmen’s compensation claim was settled by an agreement which specifically required that compensation be paid "in accordance with the Workmen’s Compensation Law of the State of Delaware.”

      . Wallace was a volunteer fireman who was responding to an emergency call.

      . Act of July 19, 1974, P.L. 489, No. 176, 40 P.S. §§ 1009.101 et seq., repealed by the Act of February 12, 1984, P.L. 26, No. 11, § 8(a), effective October 1, 1984.

      . While the trial court denied intervention on the grounds that the applicable policy of insurance had been issued pursuant to the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, which prohibits subrogation, we are unable to ascertain the basis for this conclusion. The issue is, in any event, irrelevant, since the subrogation right of appellant is to be determined pursuant to Delaware law. See: Myers v. Commercial Union Assurance Co., 506 Pa. 492, 495, 485 A.2d 1113, 1115 (1984).

      . See: Delaware v. Donahue, 472 A.2d 824, 826 (Del.Super.Ct.1983); 19 Del.C. § 2363.


author: WIEAND, Judge:

text:
    555 A.2d 166
    Jean BOOTHBY, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Robert Boothby, Deceased, Appellant, v. METROPOLITAN INSURANCE COMPANY and State Farm Insurance Company, Appellees.
    Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
    Submitted Oct. 12, 1988.
    Filed March 6, 1989.

      Gary P. Heslin, Philadelphia, for appellant.
    James Bielunas, Philadelphia, for Metropolitan, appellee.
    Michael Saltzburg, Philadelphia, for State Farm, appellee.
    Before ROWLEY, WIEAND and BECK, JJ.
   WIEAND, Judge:

The issue in this appeal is whether liability limiting provisions in two overlapping policies of insurance providing coverage for the same automobile are invalid because contrary to the provisions of the Pennsylvania No-fault Motor Vehicle Insurance Act of July 19, 1974, P.L. 489, No. 176, 40 P.S. § 1009.101 et seq., repealed by the Act of February 12, 1984, P.L. 26, No. 11, § 8(a), effective October 1, 1984.

On January 16, 1982, Robert Boothby was killed and Jean Boothby was injured in an accident which occurred in Pennsylvania while they were occupying a 1982 Subaru owned by Robert Boothby. At the time of the accident the vehicle was insured under two automobile insurance policies. One of the policies had been issued by Metropolitan Insurance Company and became effective on January 15, 1982. The other, which had been cancelled effective February 6, 1982, had been issued by State Farm Insurance Company. Both policies provided no-fault coverage in accordance with the Pennsylvania No-fault Motor Vehicle Insurance Act. Under both policies, the limit of liability for work loss benefits was fifteen thousand ($15,000) dollars, the limit for survivor’s loss benefits was five thousand ($5,000) dollars, and the limit for reimbursable funeral expenses was fifteen hundred ($1,500) dollars. The State Farm policy provided, inter alia, as follows:

No Duplication of Benefits
No insured shall recover twice for the same expense or loss under this or similar vehicle insurance or self-insurance.
Other Insurance
If an insured has similar vehicle insurance or self-insurance the total amount due shall not exceed the limit of the source with the highest limit. We will pay our share. Our share is the percent the limit of this policy bears to the total amount of all such insurance available. (S.R. 32b).

The Metropolitan policy contained similar language.

Each carrier paid to Robert Boothby’s estate a work loss benefit in the amount of seven thousand, five hundred ($7,500) dollars. Each carrier also paid a survivor’s benefit in the amount of two thousand, five hundred ($2,500) dollars and a funeral benefit in the amount of seven hundred fifty ($750) dollars. Similarly, the two insurance carriers divided the amount of work loss benefits payable to Jean Boothby. Each paid two thousand, four hundred sixty-five ($2,465) dollars.

Claims for additional benefits from both carriers were denied, and this suit followed. The parties stipulated, inter alia, that Boothby’s estate sustained a work loss of at least thirty thousand ($30,000) dollars, that his funeral expenses were three thousand, two hundred one ($3,201) dollars, and that his wife sustained a survivor’s loss of at least ten thousand ($10,000) dollars. The parties stipulated further that if the limiting language were declared invalid, the wife would be entitled to an additional work loss benefit in the amount of three thousand, nine hundred seven and 25/100 ($3,907.25) dollars from the two insurance carriers. The insurers then filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted.

The provisions of the policies are clear and unambiguous. Where coverage is provided by more than one policy, the total amount payable by each insurer cannot exceed the limit of the source with the highest limit. Of this amount, a carrier must pay a percentage determined according to the ratio of its coverage to the total amount of insurance available. The insurers have paid in full the amounts due and payable under their policies. Unless the language of the policies is to be declared invalid, therefore, judgment was properly entered in favor of the appellee-insurers.

Although appellant is unable to refer to any specific language in the No-fault Act which proscribes the limiting language in these contracts of insurance, she argues that the contract provisions violate the public policy underlying the Act. In this respect, she points to the language of the statute which requires all policies to provide basic loss benefits. This requirement, she argues, invalidates contract language which permits a carrier to pay less than the basic loss benefits required by the statute. This argument is specious, and we reject it.

It was the owner of each vehicle registered in Pennsylvania who was required by the No-fault Act to provide security for the payment of basic loss benefits. If an accident occurred in which a person was injured, it was that person who was entitled to recover basic loss benefits. Where there were several insurers, the statute did not require that each insurer pay the total amount of basic loss benefits; neither did it entitle a victim under such circumstances to recover double benefits.

In Antanovich v. Allstate Insurance Co., 507 Pa. 68, 488 A.2d 571 (1985), it was argued that a policy provision preventing the stacking of benefits available for several vehicles was in violation of public policy underlying the Act. The Supreme Court rejected the argument, holding that the Act contained no statement of policy which voided the plain, unambiguous provisions of an insurance contract which precluded the stacking of benefits.

The same reasoning is applicable here. There is in the No-fault Act no indication of policy so clear that it requires this Court to invalidate the plain, unambiguous language of policies limiting liability of the carriers in the event of duplicate coverage.

The order entering summary judgment is affirmed.


author: MONTEMURO, Judge:

text:
    555 A.2d 168
    John AZPELL, Appellant, v. OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.
    Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
    Argued Jan. 9, 1989.
    Filed March 6, 1989.
    Reargument Denied April 18, 1989.

      Jeffrey M. Azpell, Upper Darby, for appellant.
    Paul R. Bartolacci, Media, for appellee.
    Before WIEAND, MONTEMURO and HOFFMAN, JJ.
   MONTEMURO, Judge:

This is an appeal from the June 15, 1988, order of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, wherein the court vacated an arbitration award which had granted the appellant, John Azpell, a recovery of $15,000.00 against the Old Republic Insurance Company, the appellee. The trial court then entered judgment in favor of the Old Republic Insurance Company. We affirm.

The facts underlying the present appeal are not in dispute. In October of 1986, the appellant was injured when he was involved in a car accident while operating a vehicle owned and insured by his employer, Darby Township. Appellant’s vehicle was struck by an uninsured motorist. At the time of the accident, the appellant was acting within the course and scope of his employment as a Darby Township police officer. Appellant therefore received workmen’s compensation benefits from Darby Township for his medical bills and lost wages. Appellant then filed a claim for uninsured motorist benefits with Old Republic. Old Republic had issued a Business Auto Policy to the Township of Darby for the period of January 1, 1986 through January 1, 1987, which provided uninsured motorist protection. When Old Republic refused to provide appellant with uninsured motorist benefits, the matter proceeded to arbitration in accordance with the terms of the insurance policy.

We have reviewed the transcript from the arbitration hearing which was conducted on November 11, 1987. During this hearing, the appellant argued that his receipt of workmen’s compensation benefits was not his exclusive remedy with regard to his employer and his employer’s insurance carrier. Appellant relied upon Boris v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, 356 Pa.Super. 532, 515 A.2d 21 (1986), an en banc decision of this Court which does support this position. Counsel for Old Republic acknowledged the Boris precedent, but emphasized that the question of whether the Workmen’s Compensation Act precludes an employee from recovering uninsured motorist benefits from his employer for a work-related automobile accident was then pending before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Counsel for Old Republic also pointed out that, prior to the Boris decision, panel decisions of the Superior Court had reached conflicting results on this issue.

Old Republic’s petition to vacate the arbitration award included the following as grounds upon which the trial court could vacate the award:

1. The arbitrators committed an error of law in not finding that the sole remedy available to John Azpell was the Pennsylvania Workmen’s Compensation Act ...

R.R. at 13a. The trial court vacated the arbitration award in reliance upon a decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, handed down after the arbitrators had entered their award in the instant case. In Lewis v. School District of Philadelphia, 517 Pa. 461, 538 A.2d 862 (1988), the Court reviewed three appeals, wherein “the courts below concluded that section 303(a) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act immunized the employer from the employee’s claim for uninsured motorist benefits.” Id., 517 Pa. at 464, 538 A.2d at 863. The Lewis Court held that an employee, injured in a work-related automobile accident, cannot recover uninsured motorist benefits from his employer, but must rely upon the Workmen’s Compensation Act as the exclusive remedy against the employer for injuries sustained in the course and scope of employment. In the present case, the appellant first argues that the trial court lacked the requisite grounds to vacate the arbitration award, as set forth in 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 7314. This argument was also advanced by the appellant in his Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal. We do not have the benefit of the trial court’s resolution of this issue, however, because the trial court failed to address it in its opinion, filed July 28,1988. This is indeed unfortunate because this issue is not without difficulty.

This case is governed by the provisions of the Uniform Arbitration Act of 1980, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 7301 et seq. The insurance contract issued by Old Republic to Darby Township expressly provides that any arbitration “shall be conducted in accordance with the Pennsylvania Uniform Arbitration Act.” R.R. at 9a; 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 7302(a). The Arbitration Act of 1980 sets forth only five grounds upon which a court may properly review and vacate an arbitration award:

(i) the court would vacate the award under section 7341 (relating to common law arbitration) if this subchapter were not applicable;
(ii) there was evident partiality by an arbitrator appointed as a neutral or corruption or misconduct in any of the arbitrators prejudicing the rights of any party;
(iii) the arbitrators exceeded their powers;
(iv) the arbitrators refused to postpone the hearing upon good cause being shown therefor or refused to hear evidence material to the controversy or otherwise so conducted the hearing, contrary to the provisions of section 7307 (relating to hearing before arbitrators), as to prejudice substantially the rights of a party; or
(v) there was no agreement to arbitrate and the issue of the existence of an agreement to arbitrate was not adversely determined in proceedings under section 7304 (relating to court proceedings to compel or stay arbitration) and the applicant-party raised the issue of the existence of an agreement to arbitrate at the hearing.

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 7314(a)(1). Although Old Republic has relied upon Section 7314(a)(1)(iii) in support of its position that the order of the trial court should be affirmed, we need not reach the issue of whether this section is applicable under the circumstances of this case. After careful review of the record before us and the applicable law, we find that Section 7314(a)(l)(i) supported the trial court’s decision to vacate the arbitrator’s award.

Section 7314(a)(l)(i) allows the trial court to vacate an arbitrator’s award if such an award would be vacated under common law arbitration:

The award of an arbitrator in a nonjudicial arbitration ... is binding and may not be vacated or modified unless it is clearly shown that a party was denied a hearing or that fraud, misconduct, corruption or other irregularity caused the rendition of an unjust, inequitable, or unconscionable award.

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 7341. We are cognizant of the fact that important reasons underlie the narrow scope of review for common law arbitration awards. In Cargill v. Northwestern National Insurance Co. of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 316 Pa.Super. 139, 142, 462 A.2d 833, 834 (1983), we stated:

Arbitration is “designed to provide an expeditious and inexpensive method of resolving disputes with the further winning attribute of helping ease congested court calendars ...” Allstate Insurance Co. v. Fioravanti, 451 Pa. 108, 116, 299 A.2d 585, 589 (1973). Consequently, judicial review of an arbitration award is severely circumscribed. It must be so; otherwise, “ ‘arbitration proceedings, instead of being a quick and easy mode of obtaining justice, would be merely an unnecessary step in the course of litigation, causing delay and expense, but settling nothing finally.’ ” Allstate Insurance Co. v. Fioravanti, supra, 451 Pa. at 114 n. 4, 299 A.2d at 589 n. 4 quoting Westinghouse Air Brake Co. Appeal, 166 Pa.Super. 91, 97, 70 A.2d 681, 684 (1950).

Thus, under the common law, the award of arbitrators will not be reversed even for a mistake of law. Gallagher v. Educator & Executive Insurers, 252 Pa.Super. 414, 381 A.2d 986 (1977). See also 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 7314(a)(2).

In the case presently before us, it may appear at first glance that the trial court erred in vacating the arbitration award because the arbitrators had, at most, made an error of law in determining that the Workmen’s Compensation Act does not bar appellant’s claim for uninsured motorist benefits. However, an exception to the narrow scope of review employed in common law arbitration cases has been recognized. First, in United Services Automobile Association Appeal, 227 Pa.Super. 508, 323 A.2d 737 (1974), this Court was presented with a claim that a provision of the uninsured motorist clause contained in an insurance policy was repugnant to the Uninsured Motorist Coverage Act, 40 P.S. § 2000. We held that the trial court had properly reviewed and vacated the arbitrators’ award. After a review of a series of cases in which this Court or the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had reviewed the awards of arbitrators, we acknowledged the following rule of law:

Thus the rule, to which all of the cases conform, is that where the application or construction of the uninsured motorist clause is at issue the dispute is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the arbitrators; the courts will take jurisdiction only where the claimant attacks a particular provision of the clause itself as being contrary to a constitutional, legislative, or administrative mandate, or against public policy, or unconscionable.

Id., 227 Pa.Superior Ct. at 516, 323 A.2d at 741 (footnote omitted).

Following the decision of this Court in United Services Automobile Association Appeal, our Supreme Court granted allowance of appeal in a case which also involved a claim that an insurance policy provision, which defined an “uninsured automobile”, was contrary to the Uninsured Motorist Coverage Act. This case, Davis v. Government Employees Insurance Company, 500 Pa. 84, 454 A.2d 973 (1982), contains the following footnote:

We must reject appellee’s contention that the court of common pleas lacked authority to review the merits of the arbitrators’ award. Where, as here, a claimant challenges a provision of an uninsured motorist clause as being contrary to statute, the court of common pleas may exercise jurisdiction over the claim. See United Services Automobile Ass’n Appeal, 227 Pa.Super. 508, 323 A.2d 737 (1974).

Id., 500 Pa. at 88 n. 5, 454 A.2d at 975 n. 5. The trial court’s ability to review arbitration awards where uninsured motorist clauses are alleged to be contrary to constitutional, legislative, or administrative mandate, or against public policy, has been consistently recognized by this Court. See Erie Insurance v. McGee, 327 Pa.Super. 56, 474 A.2d 1171 (1984); Greenspan v. United Services Automobile Association, 324 Pa.Super. 315, 471 A.2d 856 (1984). In Caputo v. Allstate Insurance Co., 344 Pa.Super. 1, 495 A.2d 959 (1985), appellant, a Pennsylvania resident, had been injured in a car accident which occurred in Pennsylvania. Appellant’s vehicle was owned by appellant’s father, a New Jersey resident, and insured under a policy issued to appellant’s father in New Jersey. The other vehicle involved in the accident was an uninsured vehicle owned and operated by a Pennsylvania resident. The issue presented to this Court in Caputo was whether Pennsylvania law should apply, thus allowing appellant to recover $60,000, based on stacking the uninsured motorist benefits on four vehicles owned by appellant’s father; or whether New Jersey law should apply, which precluded stacking, thus limiting appellant’s uninsured motorist benefits to $15,000. The Caputo Court found the arbitration award reviewable because “appellant allege[d] that the arbitration award violate[d] the public policy of this Commonwealth which favors compensation of victims of uninsured motorists.” Id., 344 Pa.Superi- or Ct. at 5, 495 A.2d at 961 (footnote omitted).

In the ease at bar, the arbitration award is reviewable because the award is claimed to be contrary to a specific provision of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, Section 303(a), and to the public policy that a worker’s exclusive remedy against his employer for an injury sustained in the course and scope of employment is the Workmen’s Compensation Act. In Lewis v. School District of Philadelphia, 517 Pa. 461, 538 A.2d 862 (1988), our Supreme Court stated that “[s]o strong is the principle of exclusivity we have held that it is a nonwaivable defense, even when not timely raised.” Id., 517 Pa. at 472, 538 A.2d at 867 (citations omitted).

Turning now to the merits of appellant’s claim, we find that the trial court was correct when it vacated the arbitrators’ award. The Supreme Court in Lewis, supra, had to decide which of two statutes, the “Uninsured Motorist Act” or The Pennsylvania Workmen’s Compensation Act, controls whether an employee may recover uninsured motorist benefits from his employer for a work-related automobile accident. Emphasizing the clear mandate of Section 303(a) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, the Lewis Court held that an employee may only recover workmen’s compensation benefits. This rule of law must also be applied instantly, even though it is Darby Township’s insurer who has received appellant’s claim for uninsured motorist benefits. Whether an employer is self-insured as to vehicle liability or insured through an insurance policy is a distinction without a difference. In both cases, the employee who has been injured in a work-related automobile accident may not take advantage of his employer’s uninsured motorist benefits. The employer’s liability has been limited by our Legislature to workmen’s compensation benefits. “[T]he worker’s loss of the right to recover pain-and-suffering damages from his employer was a major part of the consideration given to employers for being subjected to liability without fault under the workmen’s compensation statute.” Lewis, supra, 517 Pa. at 473, 538 A.2d at 868. Recently, in Roux Laboratories, Inc. v. Turner, 843 F.2d 704 (3rd Cir.1988), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, relying upon our supreme court’s decision in Lewis, held that an employee, who was covered by provisions of Pennsylvania’s Workmen’s Compensation Act, could not pursue an arbitration claim for uninsured motorist benefits against her employer’s insurance carrier, the Transportation Insurance Company (“TIC”). TIC had provided the employer with motor vehicle insurance coverage, including uninsured motorist coverage, at the time of the employee’s auto accident.

Finally, we answer appellant’s argument that the arbitrators’ decision should not be disturbed because it was in accordance with the existing law of this Commonwealth at the time the arbitrators entertained appellant’s case. While the appellate courts of this Commonwealth had not yet spoken on the issue at that time, it is clear that the law has always been contrary to the award made by the arbitrators. Pasternak v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 350 Pa.Super. 448, 452-453, 504 A.2d 925, 927 (1986). Section 303(a) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act was enacted in 1974. Thus, appellant’s claim must fail.

Order affirmed.

      . Appellant apparently had no auto insurance policy of his own from which he could have sought to recover uninsured motorist benefits.

      . Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. § 1 et seq.

      . The Uniform Arbitration Act of 1980 replaced the Uniform Arbitration Act of 1927. Under the 1927 Act, the trial court was authorized to review and to vacate arbitration awards which were “against the law, and ... such that had it been a verdict of the jury the court would have entered [a] different or other judgment notwithstanding the verdict.” 5 P.S. § 171(d). This standard of review does appear in a provision of the 1980 Act which is inapplicable to the case at bar. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 7302(d). Sections 7302(d)(1)(i) and 7302(d)(l)(ii) require the Commonwealth government or a political subdivision, respectively, to have submitted a controversy to arbitration in order for the aforementioned standard of review to apply. Instantly, it is Old Republic Insurance Company, not the Commonwealth government or Darby Township, which is involved in a controversy with the appellant. Cf. County of Centre v. Musser, 519 Pa. 380, 548 A.2d 1194 (1988).

      . The clause at issue in United Services Automobile Association Appeal, 227 Pa.Super. 508, 323 A.2d 737 (1974), required that, if the insured had been injured by a hit-and-run automobile, the insured could not collect uninsured motorist benefits under the policy unless the hit- and-run automobile had made physical contact with the automobile occupied by the insured at the time of the accident.

      . 77 P.S. § 481(a).

      . This statute has no legislatively prescribed “short title.”