find waiver and to dismiss the appeal. First, I note that the question of waiver of the effect of the IRE is not raised by Employer but rather is raised by the majority sua sponte. As the majority acknowledges, Employer responds with an argument on the merits of this issue. Questions that involve a want of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised by the Court sua sponte. Heath v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole), 580 Pa. 174, 860 A.2d 25 (2004). In the present case, however, the question is not one of subject matter jurisdiction because the Court plainly has authority to determine controversies of the general class to which the case belongs. See id.; also see Riedel v. Human Relations Commission of Reading, 559 Pa. 34, 739 A.2d 121 (1999) (<HOLDING>). The present matter is not like Heath and
holding court of common pleas lacked subject matter jurisdiction to grant injunction against agency with statewide authority holding that where the question did not involve subject matter jurisdiction this court should not have raised sua sponte whether the local commission had authority to enforce a provision not analogous to any in the statewide human relations statute holding that sovereign immunity issues may be raised sua sponte as they bear on subject matter jurisdiction holding that the district court had no right to apply the statute of limitations sua sponte because it had been waived holding that the district court did not have jurisdiction and remanding the matter to state court