Case law

D.L. Rowe v. WCAB (County of York)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 16, 2016

King’s opinion here is clearly competent and sufficient to support a termination of benefits. … The WCJ clearly set forth his reasons for accepting the opinion of Dr. King over that of Dr.

A.D. Brown v. Dugan

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 15, 2017

Beyond his uncorroborated, unsworn statement, Brown presented no evidence to establish that he was prevented from participating at the trial. … Because Brown could not establish the third prong of the test, the trial court properly denied his Petition.

F. Heffelfinger, Jr. a/k/a F. Brown v. Tioga Twp. ZHB

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 12, 2021

There is clearly an emphasis on sexual conduct, reinforced by the available private dancers for extra money. … Brown contends that, “in order to qualify as an Adult Cabaret, there must be an emphasis on sexual conduct or sexually explicit nudity” and that a club featuring go-go dancers who are fully clothed, and merely dancing, does

The Hon. W. Scott, Mayor of the City of Reading v. City of Reading Charter Bd.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 14, 2021

The Home Rule Charter establishes a mayoral system, through which an individual is elected to a four-year term to serve as head of the City’s executive branch. … In justifying its conclusion, Common Pleas reasoned that the Home Rule Charter does not clearly lay out the specific process through which the City’s managing director must be appointed and, in essence, that the Charter Board

D&R Construction v. H. Suarez (WCAB)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 28, 2025

Finally, she found “that when [C]laimant returned to the roof, for whatever reason, he was not wearing a safety harness which was clearly in violation of a positive work order to wear the same when working on or around the … retroactively applying the CWMA to determine whether Claimant was an independent contractor; and whether the Board erred by considering the CWMA as guidance for the application of the common law analysis to determine who qualifies

G. & D. Loch v. ZHB of Moore Twp.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 13, 2021

Accordingly, it qualified as a lawful preexisting, nonconforming use. Id. … The fourth factor, expiration of the appeal period during which the 1979 permits could have been challenged, was clearly met. Id. at 16.

A.A. Jalil v. DHS

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 22, 2021

Father clearly objected to Recipient receiving care from any unrelated aide. Id. at 12. … Recipient is correct that, per the ISP, she has the “right to select qualified willing providers” and Recipient can choose another provider “at any time.”

M.O. Matthew v. SCSC (Dept. of Health)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 6, 2017

Subsequent enhancements to DAVE were to be procured pursuant to an Invitation to Qualify (ITQ3) under which VitalChek was a pre- qualified vendor. … Under the circumstances, the Commission properly found that Matthew failed to adequately manage her duties as BHSR Director and, since her “actions clearly reflect negatively upon her ability and competence to perform her

W. Swierbinski v. Scranton Restaurant Supply & UEGF (WCAB)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 20, 2023

First, we will address whether payments in lieu of compensation qualify as compensation paid or awarded under Section 4(2) of Act 132. … These provisions clearly indicate that an injured worker’s “claim” exists separate and apart from the filing of a claim petition.

T.L. Macauley v. UCBR

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 28, 2020

The notice clearly stated that the specific issue to be considered at the appeal hearing was whether Claimant was engaged in self-employment. … The referee determined that the documents Claimant submitted establish that she owns a business, but that Claimant failed to offer evidence that she qualifies for the sideline business exception under Section 402(h).

J.F. Buckley v. Suburban Propane Partners, LP (WCAB)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 1, 2023

Rajjoub more qualified to comment on Claimant’s neurological condition. To the extent the medical testimony conflicted, Judge Harris resolved those conflicts in Dr. Rajjoub’s favor. … Rajjoub clearly indicated that any work restrictions were not related to or necessitated by Claimant’s work injury. This appeal followed.2 II.

G.B. Thomas v. Sysco Foods (WCAB)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 26, 2024

Weiss did believe it would be good for Claimant to resume working; he did not feel qualified to opine as to the positions identified by Mr. Dieckman. (Id. ¶ 7(k).) 9 Dr. … Claimant further argues an employer bears the burden of establishing job availability.

DPW v. State Civil Service Comm. (Butler)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 21, 2014

Butler’s appointment letter provided that “[he] will have return rights to any class and status previously held, or to any class and status at the same or lower level for which [he is] qualified.” … The Commission clearly decided that issue, concluding that Butler’s “downward reclassification was improper in violation of [Management Directive] 580.30 and his protected rights as an employee in the senior management service

M.O. Matthew v. SCSC (Dept. of Health)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 6, 2017

Subsequent enhancements to DAVE were to be procured pursuant to an Invitation to Qualify (ITQ3) under which VitalChek was a pre- qualified vendor. … Under the circumstances, the Commission properly found that Matthew failed to adequately manage her duties as BHSR Director and, since her “actions clearly reflect negatively upon her ability and competence to perform her

Seneca Leandro View LLC v. Lycoming County TCB

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 22, 2021

Appellant’s Exceptions, as filed, clearly alleged an irregularity of the 2019 Sale when the Bureau’s auctioneer accepted a bid from a nonregistered bidder over Appellant’s objection. … WOJCIK, Judge 7 Even if Appellant could establish standing, Appellant did not present sufficient grounds to set aside the sale.

BARTA v. L. Katzenmoyer (WCAB)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 8, 2022

Employer’s expert, a board-certified psychiatrist and neurologist, opined that Claimant did not suffer from PTSD, because the October incident, the December incident, or both incidents together “do not qualify as traumatic … establishes abnormal working conditions.”

The Faithful Laurentians v. City of Philadelphia, ZB of Adjustment v. 1600 Berks, LLC

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 12, 2019

Background The legal structure of the Faithful Laurentians is not clearly articulated in the record, but it appears to be an informal group of citizens who advocate for the preservation and reuse of Church, which … To qualify as a “substantial” interest, “there must be some discernible effect on some interest other than the abstract interest all citizens have in the outcome of 11 Added by Act of November 30, 2004,

Delaware County Republican Executive Committee v. Board of Elections ~ Appeal of: G. Stenstrom & L. Hoopes

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 13, 2021

Clearly, the necessity of such an order demonstrates the high level of interest and participation by all involved in the electoral process in that election. … The General Assembly, had it so desired, could have easily established such parameters: however, it did not.

R.J. Spencer v. City of Franklin & County of Venango TCB

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 6, 2023

However, the record demonstrates that Spencer clearly and repeatedly waived this argument during the hearing before the trial court. … Neither of us have a case that clearly says does a disgruntled or an unsuccessful bidder have an administrative remedy.

J.E. Eddington v. Det. D. Bixler

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · May 11, 2020

Thereafter, Defendants filed preliminary objections to the Complaint, in the nature of a demurrer, on the grounds that Eddington’s claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations and/or sovereign immunity and … Although an affirmative defense such as the statute of limitations typically must be raised in new matter, where the defense is clearly applicable from the face of the pleadings and the opposing party has not filed preliminary