Case law

Hawkins v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

138 Pa. Commw. 180 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 26, 1991

Spector said he assumed healthy knees prior to the date of injury, while the record clearly shows Claimant had a three year history of degenerative disease in both knees. Dr. … Spector’s deposition reveals that not only was his opinion based on assumptions not in the record, it was also contrary to established facts. Such expert testimony, we have previously held, is valueless.

PA PT Assoc. & Waterford PT, Inc. v. Hon. W.G. Oleksiak, Sec'y. of L&I

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 14, 2021

Galletta explained that CMS, which is part of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, establishes the codes used in the Medicare fee schedule. … This is 10 The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment states as follows: No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;

J.E. Lebron v. PSERB

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 30, 2020

Voluntarily choosing not to hire a qualified non- annuitant, regardless of the reason, does not establish a shortage of personnel that exempts you from the return to service provisions … The Board clearly disregarded Dr.

South Union Township v. Commonwealth

839 A.2d 1179 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 24, 2003

Chapter 62 establishes a program for the safe transportation of municipal or residual waste. … In any case, parties have no right to contract to immunize themselves against an exercise of the police power and, thereby, shift the burden of new legislation to citizens who have not so contracted.

Mcgill v. Pennsylvania Department of Health

758 A.2d 268 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 18, 2000

Although federal law clearly anticipates the use of block grant money to fund treatment programs that meet accepted standards, McGill does not state a cause of action in mandamus here because federal law gives McGill an adequate … In Pennsylvania, “the sentencing judge establishes parole eligibility at the time of sentencing when the judge establishes a maximum and a minimum sentence pursuant to the Sentencing Code.” Dial v.

Valenta v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

176 A.3d 374 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 7, 2017

He stated that Claimant also had training to become a licensed practical nurse (LPN), and once qualified as an LPN, she worked as a charge nurse and a private duty LPN. … Abraham believed Claimant would not have been qualified for the position. With regard to the Telerex position, Ms.

Smith v. Springfield Township Board of Supervisors

787 A.2d 1112 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 14, 2001

They allege that as business owners who are directly affected and unduly restricted by the terms of the Ordinance, they clearly fit in the category of “persons aggrieved.” … On the other hand, the Court stated that “[i]t hardly seems reasonable that the legislature intended that ordinances be immune from constitutional or other challenge after 30 days.” Id.

Township of Northampton v. Zoning Hearing Board

969 A.2d 24 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 26, 2009

Section 140-49 of the Zoning Code requires one parking space for every 100 square feet of floor area for properties qualifying as a “retail use.” … The ZHB therefore abused its discretion by granting a variance based upon a finding (No. 21) that clearly was not supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Gallagher v. Butler City Employees Pension Board

4 Pa. Commw. 104 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 6, 1972

Ludmer’s placing an “X” after the answer, “Yes,” to the question suggests a reply or opinion contrary to that contained in his initial report of November 17, 1970, Ms additional remarks clearly reaffirm his stated opinion … Ludmer’s statements convinces us that he did not supply the proof required by the statute in question to qualify appellant for compensation. Dr.

Septa v. Wcab (Herder)

765 A.2d 414 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 21, 2000

Robert Sadoff credible and persuasive in establishing the fact that Decedent suffered from depression related to his work injury. … Herder is not qualified to diagnose depression. Claimant presented the deposition testimony of Dr.

Brandon v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

122 Pa. Commw. 575 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 11, 1989

Clearly, here, there is, in fact, no obvious causal relationship between a work related incident and a disabling injury, and, thus, there must be unequivocal medical testimony to establish causation. … Muellers testimony and find it to be sufficiently unequivocal to support a finding of disability, notwithstanding the use of certain qualifiers.

R. Laroe v. K. Sandow & Endless Mountains Trans. Auth. d/b/a Best Transit

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 18, 2022

that Appellees were liable under the motor vehicle exception to governmental immunity. … Given the record before us, we agree with the trial court that there was no basis to find the causal nexus required to qualify for recovery under the motor vehicle exception.

PA PUC v. E. Friedman

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 25, 2023

Id. at 430 (quoting Designation of Qualified Documents for Elec. Filing, L- 00070187, 2008 WL 5582647, at *2 (Pa. PUC Nov. 19, 2008)). … Moreover, the PUC maintains its affidavits establish that the responsive “records clearly relate to a public safety activity, BIE’s investigation of [Energy Transfer’s] pipelines,” and disclosure would be “reasonably likely

Commonwealth v. Matsinger

68 A.3d 390 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 18, 2013

Thus, Matsinger would be required to “establish by a preponderance of the evidence entitlement to lawful possession. … This Court has held that sovereign immunity does not bar actions in negligence and assumpsit where property is damaged or lost. See Williams v. Stickman, 917 A.2d 915 (Pa.Cmwlth.2007).

Painter v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

116 A.3d 749 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 8, 2015

Moreover, as the party filing the complaint with the Commission, Customers had the burden of establishing that Aqua’s DSIC billing practices violate the terms of its tariff. … In other words, each quarterly change to Aqua’s DSIC rate does not become effective until one to four months after the DSIC-qualified plant has been in service.

G.S. Lepre, Jr. v. US Bancorp v. PA Dept. of Treasury Bureau of Unclaimed Funds ~ Appeal of: G.S. Lepre, Jr.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 8, 2019

On June whether the trial court properly held that Lepre failed to establish an exception to sovereign immunity; and (3) whether the doctrine of custodia legis bars Lepre from enforcing his judgment. … Lepre clearly raised the issue of sovereign immunity in his “Statement of the Questions Involved” in his brief and referred to it in his argument; therefore, this Court shall consider it. See Ramins v. Chem.

Limelight Limousine, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

131 Pa. Commw. 522 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 27, 1990

airport transfer to Philadelphia and back to their homes or business establishments. … Clearly, Lady Liberty’s application was measured against Kinard and found to have satisfied its criteria.

NORTHERN AREA PERSONAL CARE HOME ADMINISTRATORS ASS'N v. Dept. of Public Welfare

899 A.2d 1182 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 24, 2006

the person seeking a position as a personal care administrator in a personal care nursing home has met the "standards for knowledge, education or training" necessary to be qualified as a personal care administrator. … of "personal care home;" "activities of daily living;" and "instrumental activities of daily living." [8] Added by the Act of July 10, 1980. [9] The Association argues that this point is important because Sandra Pantalo qualified

In Re Nomination Petition of Pippy

711 A.2d 1048 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 5, 1998

Clearly, such a patent material error or defect, if proven, could compel this court to set aside the Candidate’s nomination petition. … under the law for the office [sjhe is seeking”, did qualify for such office); State ex rel.

Smith v. Pennsylvania Employees Benefit Trust Fund

894 A.2d 874 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 16, 2006

PEBTF does not qualify as a “similar organization.” First, PEBTF was not created by statute. Instead, it was created under a collective bargaining agreement and a Trust Agreement. … The empowerment teams were established to create school improvement plans.