Case law

Jackson v. Commissioner for Social Security

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 30, 2021

. § 404.1513a(b)(1) (state agency medical consultants are highly qualified and experts in Social Security disability evaluation.); see also SSR 17-2p (“MCs and PCs are highly qualified medical sources who are also experts … Plaintiff has failed to establish that the ALJ erred.

Ball v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 15, 2021

Her speech was clearly articulated and intelligible. She was able to write legibly. … Courts have frequently found that a handful of visits did not suffice to establish an ongoing relationship. See, e.g., Kornecky, 167 F. App’x at 506 (quoting Cunningham v. Shalala, 880 F. Supp. 537, 551 (N.D.

Canter v. Alkermes Blue Care Elect Preferred Provider Plan

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 22, 2020

Plaintiff argues that these guidelines add “additional terms and rules” to qualify for benefits eligibility. (/d. at 18). … GE Group Life Assurance Co., 573 F.3d 383, 396 (6th Cir. 2009) (ordering remand to the plan administrator after determining that the record did not “clearly establish[ ]” that the claimant was entitled

Parham v. Robinson

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 4, 2022

So the relevant question is not whether the state court’s decision was wrong, but whether it was an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.”). Bowling v. … “We have explained that “‘clearly established Federal law’ for purposes of §2254(d)(1) includes only the holdings, as opposed to the dicta, of this Court’s decisions.” White, 572 U. S., at ___, 134 S.

Wright v. Stryker Corporation

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 18, 2020

First, Plaintiff acknowledges in her Motion to Amend that her Complaint may not have clearly stated her claims against Defendant. (ECF No. 9 at 2). … Pro se plaintiffs are not immune to sanctions under Rule 11 or the Court’s inherent powers. See Stevens v. Mooney, 1996 WL 12504881, at*2 (6th Cir.

Ferguson

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 26, 2026

due process under the state and federal constitutions were violated by the admission of an involuntary confession; and (2) the appellate court’s adjudication of the claim involved an unreasonable application of clearly … established law when it concluded that the detective’s references to his family members and children’s service did not qualify as coercive.

Buell v. Fayette County Jail

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 7, 2021

claims and to recommend dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint, or any portion of it, which is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … Facial plausibility is established “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id.

Parsons v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 17, 2021

As for her Hodgkin’s lymphoma, she stated that it is in remission, but she has no immune system and she gets sick easily. … “A physician qualifies as a treating source if there is an ‘ongoing treatment relationship’ such that the claimant sees the physician ‘with a frequency consistent with accepted medical practice for the type of treatment

Cheryl & Co. v. Krueger

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 28, 2021

Whether Adell and Tonti violated Subsections 2.1(b) or (c) turns on whether CKE qualifies as a “Competitive Business.” … Any modification of Section 2.1(a) would reward Cheryl & Co. for including a clearly overbroad provision.

Pansiera v. The Home City Ice Company

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 14, 2022

The Sixth Circuit clearly explained the ascertainability problem as follows: The district court does not know who received the Prolia fax. … For reasons already elaborated regarding commonality, Plaintiff has also established typicality.

Ball v. Kasich

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 1, 2023

The Guardians allege that Ohio has systematically denied ICF services, by failing, in their view, to assure that individuals who qualify for ICF services are informed of that qualification so that they may be provided … It is well established that district courts enjoy an inherent power to manage and control their own dockets. See, e.g., Landis v. N. Am.

Young v. Warden, Warren Correctional Institution

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 7, 2022

Rather, the decision must have been “mutually opposed,” id. at 406, to “clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court,” 28 U.S.C. … Accordingly, the Undersigned finds that the state appellate court’s determination that there was sufficient evidence to infer criminal intent under § 2903.02(A) was neither an unreasonable application of clearly established

Harsman v. Cincinnati Children's Hopital Medical Center

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 30, 2021

The specific details of each Defendant’s mandate vary, but the general thrust is that all of Defendants’ employees would be required get a COVID-19 vaccine or else qualify for a medical or religious exemption. … A temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction is an “extraordinary remedy involving the exercise of a very far-reaching power, which is to be applied only in the limited circumstances which clearly demand it

Evans v. The Hillman Group

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 30, 2022

employment action; 3) she was qualified for the position lost; and 4) she was replaced by an individual outside the protected class. … USF Holland, Inc., 526 F.3d 880, 885 (6th Cir. 2008) (“some of the conduct was, on its face, clearly racially motivated—such as the continued use of the terms ‘boy,’ ‘hey boy,’ ‘damn it boy,’ and variations thereof”).

Nelson v. Wiedimen

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 30, 2021

claims and to recommend dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint, or any portion of it, which is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … Facial plausibility is established “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id.

Harmon v. Honeywell Intelligrated

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 9, 2021

Defendant argues that plaintiff fails to “establish that Paragraphs 58-59 and 96-99 have any bearing on the SOX Claim . . . … Ohio 2012) (striking portions of the plaintiff’s amended complaint “because the new allegations and claim against [the defendant] clearly exceed any permissible bounds of the Court’s prior grant of Plaintiffs’ oral motion

Lopez v. Silfex, Inc.

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 3, 2021

The parties explain that the proposed individual payments to each Qualified Claimant have been calculated by the parties’ counsel based on each Qualified Claimant’s alleged overtime damages. (Id.) … Supp. 3d at 1172 (finding bona fide dispute, such that employees were “not clearly entitled to the compensation they seek,” where the parties disputed whether the employer’s practice of “rounding employees’ work time to

West v. Bracy

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 30, 2024

A federal habeas court may not find a state adjudication to be “unreasonable” simply because the court concludes in its “independent judgment” that the relevant state court decision “applied clearly established federal … The Undersigned is unaware of, and the parties do not point to, clearly established federal law that indicates plain error analysis does not apply in this instance.

Pugh v. Erdos

District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 12, 2020

Similarly, a supervisor’s mere failure to act is insufficient to establish supervisory liability. See Peatross v. … As neither Count I nor Count XI set forth viable § 1983 claims against the Warden, discussion of qualified immunity is unnecessary.

Brashear v. Pacira Pharmaeuticals, Inc.

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 25, 2023

Therefore, the Court dismisses her claim, but does so without prejudice to allow her to identify a qualifying misrepresentation if she can. D. … Pacira, the only Defendant so far served, seeks dismissal of this claim by arguing it manufactures Exparel, making it immune from supplier liability. (Doc. 5, #56).