Case law

Wilson Area School District v. Easton Hospital

708 A.2d 835 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 26, 1998

Although clearly requiring that revenues be applied to support and increase the efficiency of a charity’s facilities, where, as here, increased efficiency is established by the record, the statute does not also require a … In addition, the record clearly establishes that Easton provides non-emergency services to patients without regard to their ability to pay. 17 .

Burns v. Board of Directors of the Uniontown Area School District

748 A.2d 1263 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 11, 2000

superintendent in the last year of the contract. 11 The Legislature clearly intends that the unpaid citizen school directors shall have a qualified superintendent, who is a commissioned officer of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania … No. 1095 clearly sets forth that the mere allegation that no adequate remedy at law exists is sufficient and the Complaint in Mandamus contains such a statement.

Boleratz v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

932 A.2d 1014 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 24, 2007

Bell is not licensed or otherwise authorized by the Commonwealth to provide health care services; she does not qualify as a health care provider. … Bell clearly did provide such services.

Misingwa Land Trust v. Board of Commissioners of the County of Beaver

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 17, 2026

“Whether an entity qualifies as a ‘purely public charity’ under the HUP test ‘is a mixed question of law and fact[.]’” … Longwood’s public park and cultural facilities fall clearly within the scope of burdens that are routinely shouldered by government.

Albert Einstein Healthcare Foundation/University v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

119 Pa. Commw. 608 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 21, 1988

“The establishment of a rate structure in an administrative function that is peculiarly within the Commissions expertise. . . . … Clearly, because the rate was cost-based, there is no merit to Petitioners’ contention that the rate violates federal and state law.

Green Valley Dry Cleaners, Inc. v. Westmoreland County Industrial Development Corp.

861 A.2d 1013 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 16, 2004

WCIDC filed a motion for summary judgment contending that it was a local agency entitled to governmental immunity. … Subsection (5), which is triggered by the partial affirmance and reversal of “an order,” is clearly not applicable. Green Valley’s analysis also misses the mark.

Sweeney v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing

804 A.2d 685 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 3, 2002

who had been drinking; (4) he performed field sobriety tests; (4) Sweeney staggered while trying to walk heel-to-toe in a straight line; and (5) he transported Sweeney to the police station so that Officer McQuillan, a qualified … We conclude that the Commonwealth has clearly met the requirements of the statute in this matter, and the order of the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas is reversed. Judge SMITH-RIBNER dissents.

C.M. Novak v. W. McLaughlin, Jr.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 26, 2023

Preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer should be sustained only where the pleadings are clearly insufficient to establish a right to relief and any doubt must be resolved … Accordingly, because “the pleadings are clearly insufficient to establish a right to relief[,]” the trial court properly sustained the Preliminary Objections when Moravian did not owe Decedent a duty of care.

Phantom Fireworks Showrooms, LLC v. Tom Wolf, Governor of the Comwlth of PA

198 A.3d 1205 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 4, 2018

Failure to Brief Immunity Defense In their preliminary objections, Executive Respondents raised the defense of sovereign immunity. … We therefore overrule Executive Respondents’ preliminary objection asserting sovereign immunity.12 E.

IA Construction Corp. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

110 A.3d 1096 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 19, 2015

Thus, the WCJ concluded that Employer failed to establish that it was entitled to a change of Claimant’s benefits from total to partial disability based on the IRE. (Id. at 52a.) … Lateef satisfied the statutory standards to be qualified as an IRE physician. 12 WCJ Ignasiak, therefore, could not reject Dr.

Ringgold School District v. Ringgold Education Ass'n

694 A.2d 1163 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 22, 1997

However, we find that York County Hospital is clearly distinguishable from the present case. … Indeed, it is well-established that an objection to a court’s jurisdiction can never be waived. See Dover v.

Hillgartner v. PORT AUTH. OF ALLEGHENY CTY.

936 A.2d 131 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 12, 2007

As a result of Defendants' belated immunity defense, Plaintiffs filed the instant state complaint in May 2005. … Thus, the preliminary objections clearly raised the issue that the pending federal action bars the state complaint.

Welded Tube Co. of America v. Commonwealth

43 Pa. Commw. 231 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 6, 1979

Since claimant himself acknowledged that he had been notified by at least March 30, 1977, the Board’s finding to the contrary was clearly in error. We fail to see, however, how this alters the Board’s decision. … Since there was no showing that the documents qualified as business records, under our holding in Walker v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 27 Pa.

American General Life & Accident Insurance v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

166 Pa. Commw. 360 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 24, 1994

Clearly, there is substantial evidence to support the Board’s finding that Claimant received all of his pay before the last quarter of 1992 ended. … Additionally, Employer neither objected to this testimony, nor gave any testimony to establish willful misconduct by Claimant.

Bayada Nurses, Inc. v. Commonwealth, Department of Labor & Industry

958 A.2d 1050 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 4, 2008

A federal statute may be interpreted as preempting a state’s traditional police power only if such result is clearly intended by Congress. Wheeling & Lake Erie Ry. Co. v. … minimum wage established under this chapter or a maximum workweek lower than the maximum workweek established under this chapter....

H.E. Rohrer, Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Board

808 A.2d 1014 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 18, 2002

Thus, the burden shifted to objectors to establish “by a high degree of probability” that the proposed facility would have an adverse impact. Sunnyside Up Cmp. … At best, the record contains little more than speculation on any potential harm. 2 Clearly, this falls far short of the “high probability standard” of specific detriment to the public welfare.

Ishler v. Commonwealth

102 Pa. Commw. 306 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 25, 1986

The hearing officer dismissed Petitioners argument on the basis that Petitioner failed to qualify for SUA under the federal amendment. … Code §523.3 (d)(5)(iii) was clearly in conflict with the federal amendment at the time Petitioner was certified for food stamps. To the extent that such a conflict existed, federal law was controlling.

City of Phila. Fire Dep't v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd.

144 A.3d 1011 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 12, 2016

fair-skinned Caucasians and states that “[i]ntermittent exposure to UVR [ultraviolet radiation] is the major environmental risk factor for melanoma, especially in combination with endogenous factors (skin types I and II, immune … Also, the testimony must be given by “a witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education….” Id. 12 presumption.

Zuback v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

892 A.2d 41 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 9, 2006

Likewise, we determine that hand controls in automobiles are, in the instant setting ... qualify as an ‘orthopedic appliance.’ … The stair glide, which oper *47 ates much like a wheelchair, is clearly an “orthopedic appliance.”

Zemprelli v. Thornburgh

47 Pa. Commw. 43 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 29, 1979

Impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion; 4. … Only such a new principle of law may qualify for nonretrospective application. (Footnote omitted.) 473 Pa. at 622, 375 A.2d at 1289.