Case law

Giant Eagle, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

725 A.2d 873 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 5, 1999

Thus, any testimony claimant could offer regarding her allergies would be a medical conclusion which claimant is not qualified to give. … Clearly, Dr. Green’s medical opinions are less than positive and inconsistent.

Penn State Faculty Club v. Commonwealth

33 Pa. Commw. 320 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 10, 1978

Of particular importance in the finding and determining whether or not Centre County qualifies as a resort area was the testimony of Mr. … This record clearly establishes that Pennsylvania State University’s programs attract visitors from other places on a seasonal basis far in excess of the 5,000 to 6,000 annual influx which satisfied the Supreme Court in Willowbrook

Pritz A., Inc. v. St. Bd. of Vehicle Md & S.

113 Pa. Commw. 89 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 26, 1988

Clearly the board has not laid down a rule in this case that would prevent it from granting a protest in a situation where the record establishes that a manufacturers failure to provide written notice was in bad faith. *96 … providing adequate competition and convenient customer care for the vehicles of the line-make in the market area which shall include the adequacy of vehicle sales and service facilities, equipment, supply of vehicle parts and qualified

Purdy v. Zoning Hearing Board of Easttown Township

161 Pa. Commw. 386 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 13, 1994

On appeal, 5 the Purdys reiterate the same argument made below that Section 1603.1 of the Ordinance grants them the right to establish parking near their business *1308 establishment, 6 and they additionally contend that … The Purdys do not argue that they qualify for this business exception. .

Uniontown Area School District v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board

694 A.2d 659 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 7, 1997

Defino’s union involvement, there was also evidence establishing that the candidate selected was well qualified for the position. The hearing examiner noted that Mr. … Instead, the record clearly discloses that the position of principal was open to all qualified candidates regardless of union affiliation.

Simmonds v. State Employees' Retirement System

663 A.2d 304 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 8, 1995

Claimant did not expect to establish a permanent employment relationship with the Medical Center. … Simmonds clearly devoted a percentage of her time during her residency to providing services to the hospital. The record reveals that Dr.

J. & K. Pearlstein v. Com. of PA

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 2, 2021

Taxpayers’ Expert is qualified to testify to matters relating to accounting rules, methods, and practices. Id. ¶40. … Department’s Expert is also qualified to testify to matters relating to accounting rules, methods, and practices. Id. ¶44.

Hill v. Department of Corrections

64 A.3d 1159 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 10, 2013

To that end, Hill claims the amount assessed for the blanket is erroneous because the misconduct and disciplinary hearing reports do not clearly identify whether the blanket was cotton or wool. … Manager testified the prices listed on the invoices are established by PIBH and Correctional Industries and reflect the prices for standard issue items ordered and paid for by SCI-Houtzdale.

Community Car Pool Service, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

111 Pa. Commw. 73 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 12, 1987

Despite the fact that COMVAN has not yet turned a profit, it clearly intends its service to be profitable in the future. … Furthermore, the Commission is well-supported in its determination that COMVANs activities qualify them as a common carrier.

Commonwealth v. Howard

113 Pa. Commw. 31 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 25, 1988

As the above quotation establishes, there is no dispute as to the point that the judge accurately conveyed the content of section 3105, governing emergency vehicle operation. … Subsection (c) clearly allows disregard of a stop sign only when an “audible signal”—siren—is' being used. Accordingly, viewing the charge in its entirety, we find no error.

Socha v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

725 A.2d 1276 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 8, 1999

Clearly, subsection 8(i) sets forth the formula for calculating the number of weeks of benefits a hearing loss claimant is entitled to receive for permanent hearing loss which is medically established as an *1280 occupational … Claimant was examined in 1990, at the request of employer, for the sole purpose of determining whether claimant qualified for a commercial driver’s license.

C. Jakmian v. City of Philadelphia & SEPTA

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 16, 2024

Appellant contends that a reasonable fact-finder could clearly find that Appellant had presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate the existence of a defect and establish liability against Appellees when viewing all of the … Because Lacava failed to present sufficient evidence establishing a dangerous condition of the trolley rail sufficient to fall within the “real estate” exception to sovereign immunity,

Snyder Brothers, Inc. v. PA PUC PA Independent Oil & Gas Association v. PA PUC

157 A.3d 1018 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 29, 2017

Clearly, the Commission interpreted the phrase “during any calendar month” to mean “only one month of the year” but it offers a contrary view in the matter at hand. … Because the uncontroverted evidence establishes that the wells at issue have produced less than 90,000 cf of gas in at least one month, (R.R. at 76a), they are “stripper wells” and SBI does not have to pay impact fees for

Wilson v. Commonwealth

106 Pa. Commw. 306 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 22, 1987

from either governmental agencies or private sources (which may include area vocational education schools, as defined in Section 195(2) of the Vocational Education Act of 1963, and the employers), and (E) the worker is qualified … (a) Establishment.

Slice of Life, LLC and v. Kleyman v. Hamilton Twp. ZHB and Hamilton Twp.

164 A.3d 633 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 21, 2017

Rather, the record here clearly supports that guests were just that, simply guests of the tenant/family. Q [Atty. … That hotel definition requires that you have 10 rooms that you rent—so, [the Property] clearly is not a hotel.

Township of Birmingham v. Chadds Ford Tavern, Inc.

132 Pa. Commw. 312 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 4, 1990

The property is currently zoned R-2 District (residential) established by Ordinance No. 64, enacted December 30, 1985. … In order to qualify for a variance, Chadds Ford needs to establish that: (1) an unnecessary hardship will result if the variance is denied, due to unique physical circumstances or conditions of the property; (2) because of

W.L. Ives, M.D. v. BPOA, State Board of Medicine

204 A.3d 564 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 28, 2019

Ives explained that he is generally hesitant to give blood to a cancer patient because the transfusion can suppress the immune system. At 11:30 a.m., Dr. … Kauffman was qualified as an expert, and he testified that he used the Peer Review Transcript to render his opinion.

Thw Group, LLC v. Zoning Board of Adjustment

86 A.3d 330 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 6, 2014

This established that the local legislative body intended to define a methadone facility as something different from a clinic. … Applying the plain meaning of this term, Applicant’s proposed use clearly qualifies as a use of the property for the “treatment of patients,” and a medical office, both of which are specifically permitted in the C-2 District

Girard Finance Co. v. Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission

52 A.3d 523 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 27, 2012

The parties stipulated that Herron was qualified as an expert in tavern bar financing- and as a tavern attorney. N.T., July 16, 2008 at 154. … Clearly, there is nothing definitive about this explanation.

Schmeck v. General Battery Corp.

49 Pa. Commw. 15 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 23, 1980

The occupational disease which Claimants claim they suffer from, i.e., lead poisoning, is clearly one of the enumerated diseases found in Section 108(a) of the Act, 77'P.S. §1208(a). … While we are not qualified to undertake to define in medical terms what constitutes lead poisoning, we are compelled to agree with the testimony of Claimants’ own medical witness (which is the only medical evidence before