Case law

P. Wilson v. WCAB (Flagger Force)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 7, 2019

Sachs’s use of qualifying statements, such as “at this time” and “related to.” Claimant’s Br. at 23. Claimant suggests that the use of such qualifying statements also renders Dr. … Claimant is correct that, with regard to a termination of benefits, a medical expert must, at a minimum, acknowledge an accepted or established work injury. Sarmiento- Hernandez v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Ace Am.

Philadelphia Eagles, Inc. v. E. Acho (WCAB)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 3, 2023

The 2015 release thus clearly was not routine or based on any past practice, but rather was due to Claimant’s injury and perceived inability to play. … Vagner was “uniquely qualified to comment on the functional impairment experienced by a professional football player due to a Bennett’s fracture” because he is an orthopedic surgeon with added credentials as a hand specialist

D.B. Townsend v. Northampton Twp.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 11, 2024

Townsend’s 457 plan qualified as a “retirement or other benefit” subject to forfeiture under the Forfeiture Act, the Trial Court looked to Section 8.1 of The Fiscal Code, Act of March 30, 1811, P.L. 145, as amended, 72 P.S … 14 Township resolution establishing the plan and his 1980 employment contract authorizing his participation in the plan pre-dated Section 8.2’s enactment.13 The record establishes that Mr.

J.C. Collaso v. BPOA, State Board of Social Workers, Marriage and Family Therapists and Professional Counselors

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 1, 2016

In proceeding under this provision, the Department need not establish that a licensee caused actual injury to a client. … Gioe, Ph.D., a licensed clinical psychologist and licensed marriage and family therapist, who the Board qualified as an expert regarding the ethical standards set forth in the NASW.

B.E. Overcash v. Bureau of Driver Licensing

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 30, 2023

Clearly Officer Phillips did credibly testify that he saw [Licensee] operate the vehicle. . . . . . . [Licensee] admitted that he had two drinks at dinner. … The warnings clearly indicate, . . .

Atlantic Richfield Co. v. The County of Lehigh, PA

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 5, 2023

Preliminary objections are to be sustained only in cases where the pleader has clearly failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted. Torres v. Beard, 997 A.2d 1242, 1245 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010). … the County argues, this Court could determine that conduct with such a limited impact could be a public nuisance, then “the poisonous and decaying paint on tens of thousands of walls of the County’s homes . . . would also qualify

Bosch v. Tax Claim Bureau of Monroe County ~ Appeal of: J. Keller

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 16, 2023

Keller argues that as in Sabbeth, the facts establish that Mrs. Bosch had actual implied notice of the time and date of the tax sale. … For an averment to qualify as a judicial admission, it must be a clear and unequivocal admission of fact. John B. Conomos, Inc. v. Sun Company, 831 A.2d 696, 713 (Pa. Super. 2003).

Coalition for Affordable Utility Services & Energy Efficiency v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

120 A.3d 1087 · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 14, 2015

We hasten to point out that courts should defer to the PUC’s interpretations of the Code and its own regulations unless the PUC’s interpretations are clearly erroneous. Popowsky v. Pa. Pub. Util. … The General Assembly is clearly of the view that “greater competition in the electricity generation market” benefits “all classes of customers,” including those of low income. Id. § 2802(7).

North Hills S.D. v. UCBR

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 13, 2022

[E]mployer both maintained that its September 4, 2020 letter to [C]laimant establishes that she had reasonable assurance that “all substitutes get a reasonable assurance letter over … With respect to disqualification under Section 402.1(1), this Court has explained: The basic principle is that “service for educational institutions” qualifies for unemployment benefits.

M. Mendez and MH&I, LLC v. City of Phila., Phila. Vacant Property Review Committee

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 1, 2017

However, [t]o establish promissory estoppel, [Mendez] must prove that: (1) the promisor made a promise that would reasonably be expected to induce action or forbearance on the … Clearly, Mendez’ Counsel had plenty of opportunity to object and/or include the additional issue of whether the VPRC abused its discretion, but did not.

B. Torrence v. PPB

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 26, 2025

Therefore, the Petition for Review is clearly untimely filed.4 Petitioner does not dispute that his challenge to the Board’s 2010 decision is untimely, because he states: “[a]dmittedly, the decision of the … He claims the Young decision constitutes a change in the law that should qualify as an exception to the time period for filing an administrative appeal. We disagree.

H. Mazuruk v. WCAB (Gillin and Sons Contracting, Inc.)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 26, 2016

for total disability under the most recent edition of the AMA Guides may not qualify for total disability under a subsequent edition. … it does not violate the Constitution and stating that the party challenging a statute’s constitutionality has a “very heavy burden” in overcoming the presumption; specifically, the challenger must show that the statute “clearly

A Samuel's Christian Home Care v. Department of Health

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 19, 2021

Code §601.33(a) (relating to qualified therapists); and (13) 28 Pa. Code §601.36(a) (relating to the maintenance and content of records). C.R. at 221-22, 225-26; see also id. … Cmwlth. 1997) (“The record establishes that [the named perpetrator] failed to respond to DPW’s motion [to dismiss].

Allegheny County, PA v. Allegheny County Prison Employees Independent Union

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 7, 2024

Grievant Cornell did not qualify for intermittent FMLA leave. R.R. at 367a. … The arbitrator’s careful analysis of the circumstances leading to Grievants’ refusals of mandatory overtime in the context of just cause is clearly derived from the just cause provision of the CBA. R.R. at 35a.

R. Naylor & S. Naylor, h/w v. Bd. of Supers. of Charlestown Twp. ~ Appeal of: Bd. of Supers. of Charlestown Twp.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 7, 2021

While the Easement clearly restricts additional dwellings, it does not restrict the addition of all new buildings. … When the Foundation conveyed the Property to the Naylors, it transferred “all rights, privileges, powers and immunities” with it. Easement at 15; R.R. at 1312a.

D. Sobolewski & J. Sobolewski v. Schuylkill County Tax Claim Bureau

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 31, 2019

Moreover, the affidavit clearly provides two dates “7-21-18 3:00 P[M],” corresponding with County Poster’s first attempt to serve Owners and subsequent posting of notice on the Property, and “7-29-18 9:00 P[M],” concerning … The dissent noted that although a county may appoint qualified persons under Section 601(a)(3) of the Tax Sale Law, “the appointment is not to be done casually but only by formal resolution.” Id. at 657.

Open PA Schools v. Dept. of Ed. of the Com. of PA

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 12, 2022

In addition, he must show a sufficiently close causal connection between the challenged action and the asserted injury to qualify the interest as immediate rather than remote.” … authorities cited above show, parents generally have broad authority to sue on behalf of themselves or their children in the educational context, but this does not negate the basic requirements of standing, including the need to clearly

G.P. Desjardins, Jr., M.D. v. M.F. Consedine v. Team Health, Inc.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 6, 2020

. §§1301.101-1301.1006, repealed by the Act of March 20, 2002, P.L. 154, established the Medical Professional Catastrophe Loss Fund (CAT Fund). … “The standard for granting summary relief turns upon (Footnote continued on next page…) 5  Doctor alleges that he is entitled to summary relief because to qualify

Allegheny County v. M. Van Bibber

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 17, 2024

The latter, however, flatly establishes without qualification that completed mail-in ballots are public records. … In affirming the trial court, the Supreme Court reasoned that where evidence clearly establishes that fraud was present regarding certain ballots, “the sanctity of the ballot is not best preserved by secrecy, but instead

G. Dunbar v. J.E. Wetzel, Secretary for Pa. DOC

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 21, 2020

The objection tests “the legal sufficiency of the challenged pleadings and will be sustained only in cases where the pleader has clearly failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted.” Id. … As provided in Fenstermaker and Martinez, there is a common law right to examine public judicial documents and to inspect and copy public records and documents and there is a “qualified First Amendment right to access to