Case law

Bruno v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 31, 2022

While the Commissioner cites the regulatory definition of medical opinions, it does not explain why the examiners’ conclusions do not qualify. … Spores and Chau’s conclusions clearly qualify as “statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of [Plaintiff’s] impairment(s), including [his] symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis

Shilts v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 17, 2025

Standard for Disability Disability benefits are available only to those individuals who can establish disability under the Social Security Act. Estok v. … A claimant qualifies as disabled if he or she cannot perform such work.

Grant v. North River Insurance

453 F. Supp. 1361 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 27, 1978

. § 1983 on a direct liability theory for having established an official policy or custom which caused or contributed to their injuries. … Obviously, these terms were meant to be applied to private corporate contexts where such offices exist and are clearly defined. Just as obviously, municipal corporations have no “directors or stockholders” as such.

Woodhollow Loft, Inc. v. Sisters of St. Francis Health Services, Inc.

472 B.R. 494 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 25, 2010

The Bankruptcy Court held that the Relief from Stay Motion cannot qualify as an informal proof of claim because it merely sought relief from the automatic stay and abandonment of the Leased Premises. *518 SSFHS acknowledges … In the present case, the Bankruptcy Court’s adoption of standard identified in In re: Fink was clearly appropriate.

Johnson v. Centrome Inc

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 23, 2023

Applying state law, the court further held that once the movant makes this showing, the party opposing application of the statute of repose must “come forward with evidence sufficient to establish a establish a genuine factual … But whether Johnson qualifies as a “user or consumer” of a defective product presents a more difficult question. See Ind. Code § 34-20-1-1.

Lepage v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 7, 2022

Mayle’s opinion by contending that it does not qualify as an opinion. However, in any event, the ALJ erred because she failed to consider Dr. … Clearly, remand is warranted for a proper analysis of the psychologists’ opinions. Next, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred in her RFC assessment and Step Five conclusion.

Cooper v. Rezutko

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 10, 2022

Cir. 1988) (noting that work product immunity has been extended “to oral statements made by witnesses to attorneys ‘whether presently in the form of mental impressions or memoranda.’” … Yet the Court still analyzed whether the requested information qualified as protectable work product. Citing E.E.O.C. v. Jewel Food Stores, Inc., 231 F.R.D. 343, 346 (N.D.

Holmes

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 6, 2026

He argues that the charge clearly identified race discrimination as his reason for filing and generally alleged that he had been subjected to unlawful treatment because of his race. … Plaintiff does not advance any argument or offer any evidence to support the notion that his inquiry into his monetary grievance should qualify as a protected activity, and therefore waives this argument. See Cole v.

Tricarico Jr v. Marion General Hospital Inc

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 8, 2021

There is an unwillingness to engage and devote the time needed for success of the Hospital, especially when the rest of the team is so clearly devoted and working hard. … Based on that, Tricarico contends that he has established the first element of an ADA claim–that he was a qualified individual with a disability.

Smith v. Nexus RVs, LLC

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 13, 2020

Potis concluded as follows: Clearly there is enough weight on the rear axle to allow for cantilever action to occur when adding weight to the rear of the coach. … The proponent of expert testimony must establish its admissibility by a preponderance of the evidence. Varlen Corp. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 924 F.3d 456, 459 (7th Cir. 2019).

McGrath v. Dunecrest Condominium Association

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Apr 7, 2023

McGrath, are autistic and qualify as disabled persons under the Fair Housing Act. Both Tim and Martin have trouble facing unexpected circumstances, such as emergency situations. … But the response by the Plaintiffs does not clearly abandon the theory that the Individual Defendants could be liable for the failure to issue the necessary paperwork.

Hefty v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 13, 2022

Clearly, both of these opinions are related to Plaintiffs ability to perform the demands of work. The Commissioner also argues that even if Dr. … The Seventh Circuit found this to not be true stating, “What is true is that whether the applicant is sufficiently disabled to qualify for social security disability benefits is a question of law that can't be answered by

OrthoPediatrics Corp. v. Wishbone Medical, Inc.

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 31, 2021

See Muscarello, 610 F.3d at 425 (holding the burden of establishing proper jurisdiction is on the party asserting jurisdiction). … First, the Plaintiffs are clearly required to allege that the Defendants acted illegally in achieving their ends. See Watson Rural Water Co., 540 N.E.2d at 139.

Xi v. The Trustees of Purdue University

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 8, 2025

Purdue argues Xi has not met the second element of this test because she cannot establish that she was qualified for promotion to full professor. … better qualified for the position at issue.”

Bailey, III v. Jezierski

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 3, 2024

Bailey’s amended complaint does not clearly allege false arrest and imprisonment against Ms. Shorosh. However, Count III of the amended complaint does allege that Ms. … “To enhance public safety by facilitating the investigation of suspected criminal activity, communications to law enforcement officers are protected by [] qualified privilege.”

Kiskaden

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 15, 2026

court must review the merits of a prisoner complaint and dismiss it if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … A preliminary injunction is a “very far-reaching power, never to be indulged in except in a case clearly demanding it.” Cassell v. Snyders, 990 F.3d 539, 544 (7th Cir. 2021) (quoting Orr v.

Beach v. United States

District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 22, 2020

An appeal waiver is valid and enforceable “‘so long as the record clearly demonstrates that it was made knowingly and voluntarily.’” Id. at 883 (quoting United States v. McGuire, 796 F.3d 712, 715 (7th Cir. 2015)). … This final ground also fails to establish any right to relief.

Welborn v. Ethicon Inc.

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 12, 2022

Supp. 2d at 728 (“what the ‘something more’ is was not clearly established in Tapscott and has not been established since”)); see also Higginbotham, Dkt. #12, slip op. at 5-6. … are not qualified health care providers.”

DirectBuy, Inc. v. Buy Direct, LLC

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 10, 2023

Here, a scheduling order was entered on December 1, 2015 establishing a deadline of February 15, 2016 for amendments to the pleadings. [DE 23]. … Guzorek, 862 N.E.2d 254, at 255 (Ind. 2007) (discussing and applying federal cases in holding that suing a defendant accorded immunity under the law, rather than the non-immune entity or official, constitutes a mistake

Zimmer Technology, Inc. v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp.

453 F. Supp. 2d 1030 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 28, 2006

Howmediea argues that this “missing element is clearly taught in Greenwald.” Docket No. 278-1 at 4. … [Precedent clearly establishes that the district court must “make Graham findings before invalidating a patent for obviousness.” Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 234 F.3d 654, 663 (Fed.Cir.2000); see Jones v.