Case law

McCammon

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 15, 2019

We need evidence from acceptable medical sources to establish whether you have a medically determinable impairment(s)”). … The ALJ also erred in determining that Plaintiff’s unsuccessful work attempt also qualified as past relevant work.

Marquart

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 22, 2026

Because this is clearly a factual question, summary judgment is in fact rarely appropriate in this type of case. Marzano v. Computer Sci. Corp. … As defined by law, the term “discriminate against a qualified individual with a disability” includes “not making reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual

Merritts v. Department of Corrections, SCI Houtzdale

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 12, 2020

To establish a prima facie case of sex discrimination at the first step of the McDonnell Douglas framework, a plaintiff must show (1) that she is a member of a protected class, (2) that she was qualified for the position … It is undisputed that Merritts is a member of a protected class and that she was qualified for the position that she had.

Lenchick v. Easter

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 3, 2020

April 10, 2020) (the court held that since defendant did not exhaust his BOP administrative remedies as required, “it [did] not decide whether he has established that there are ‘extraordinary and compelling reasons … The determination of which inmates qualify for home confinement under the CARES Act is with the BOP Director. See United States v. Doshi, 2020 WL 1527186, *1 (E.D.Mi.

Signature Building Systems of Pennsylvania LLC and Signature Building Systems, Inc. v. Motorists Mutual Insurance Company

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 14, 2021

In evaluating remand motions, “it is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. … Pa. 2018) (“written pre-suit communications do not qualify as ‘other paper” under Section 1446(b)(3)).

Walker v. The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 11, 2022

In the instant case, the second factor is clearly satisfied with respect to Defendants Wetzel, Kauffman, Kohler, Walters, Spyker, Price, Scalia, Powell, and Houp because Plaintiffs named them as Defendants in their prior … To establish an Eighth Amendment claim based on a prison’s denial of medical care, an inmate must allege acts or omissions by prison officials that were sufficiently harmful to establish deliberate indifference to a serious

Millbrook v. United States

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 8, 2024

FTCA claims are only cognizable in certain limited circumstances in which the United States has waived its sovereign immunity from suit. 28 U.S.C. §1346(b); FDIC v. Meyers, 510 U.S. 471, 477 (1994). … The court agrees that summary judgment is appropriate for Millbrook’s failure to establish that he suffered any physical injury.

Brice v. City of York

528 F. Supp. 2d 504 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 28, 2007

any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities … Conduct undertaken with “deliberate indifference” or "reckless disregard” will fail to qualify as conscience-shocking under these circumstances. See County of Sacramento v.

Sweeney

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 17, 2026

Here, Plaintiff has failed to plead facts to establish that the limited circumstances in which a private entity qualifies as a state actor are present. … Breach of Fiduciary Duty Turning to Plaintiff’s breach of fiduciary duty claim, we note that in order to establish such a claim, under Pennsylvania law, a plaintiff must establish “(1) the

Jones v. Donlin

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 5, 2023

immunity. … In light of this ruling, the Court need not address Defendants Cullen and Powanda’s alternative argument that they are entitled to qualified immunity. B.

Diodato v. Wells Fargo Insurance Services, USA, Inc.

44 F. Supp. 3d 541 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 8, 2014

His theory of fraud liability falls squarely within this established exception. … As a general rule, statements of opinion are immune from defamation liability. See Green v. Mizner, 692 A.2d 169, 174 (Pa.Super.Ct.1997) (citing Mathias v. Carpenter, 402 Pa.Super. 358 , 587 A.2d 1, 2-3 (1991)).

EDWARD JOHNSON v. MEDICAL DOCTOR MALHI, et al.

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 12, 2026

Deliberate Indifference To succeed on a deliberate indifference claim, a plaintiff must establish “(i) a serious medical need, and (ii) acts or omissions by prison officials that … clearly not a “sufficient fund of common knowledge” among lay people as to how and when H. Pylori infections must be diagnosed to permit an inference of negligence without expert testimony.

Ezeibe v. City of York

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 21, 2020

It is clearly established that “[i]n order to maintain a cause of action under § 1986, the plaintiffs must show the existence of a § 1985 conspiracy.” See Clark v. Clabaugh, 20 F.3d 1290, 1295 n.5 (3d Cir. 1994). … It is clearly established that bare allegations “of ‘conspiracy’ or ‘concerted action’ will not suffice” to state a claim under Section 1985. See Flanagan, 783 F. Supp. at 928.

Williams v. Little

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 25, 2024

Instead, it is apparent that the DOC will be following the November 15, 2023 memorandum and its established policy of “Religious Meals.” … This is significant because the complaint clearly challenges the establishment of the 2 On March 5, 2024, the court received and docketed Plaintiff’s status report alleging that pre- packaged food items labeled “Muslim

Scott v. Blossburg Borough

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 20, 2024

The statute itself is silent as to the meaning of minor, but “the ADA regulations clearly state that an employer must establish that the perceived impairment is objectively both transitory and minor.” Eshleman v. … The parties dispute the showing required to establish a “regarded as” disability.

Buterbaugh v. Kauffman

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 21, 2025

This conclusion is reasonable and not contrary to clearly established federal law. … The Superior Court’s conclusion is reasonable and not contrary to clearly established federal law.

Long, Jr. v. SCI-Benner Township

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 2, 2023

He must allege: 1) that the alleged misconduct was committed by a person acting under color of state law; and 2) that as a result, he was deprived of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws … Here, the amended complaint clearly sets forth a claim that Plaintiff disagrees with Defendant Khatri’s treatment, but not that Defendant Khatri was deliberately indifferent and liable under the Eighth Amendment.

Federoff v. Geisinger Clinic

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 23, 2021

Section 1 provides that “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without … individual to obtain employment for which he is qualified . . . without discrimination because of . . . religious creed . . . is hereby recognized as and declared to be a civil right which shall be enforceable as set forth

Sawicki v. Kipphan

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 18, 2024

Where both prongs of the test are satisfied, ‘a qualified First Amendment right of public access attaches.’” Id. (citation omitted.) … of antagonism coupled with timing to establish a causal link.”

Ganoe

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 2026

qualified and can perform the essential functions with reasonable accommodation. … To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act, a plaintiff must initially show, (1) that he or she has a disability; (2) that he or she is otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions