Case law

Garcia v. United States

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 30, 2023

Medical Malpractice Claims Under the FTCA “The FTCA offers a limited waiver of the federal government's sovereign immunity from civil liability for negligent acts of government employees acting … Phillips’s report would likely require defendant to secure more than one qualified expert to rebut those opinions due to the number of specialties involved in the aspects of plaintiff’s care.

Butsko

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 23, 2026

On appeal, Butsko argues the ALJ failed to consider certain impairments severe, failed to implement limitations from certain impairments, and failed to properly consider if Butsko qualified for one … Next, Butsko argues the ALJ erred by failing to consider Butsko’s learning disorder and “obvious cognitive issues” to be medically determinable impairments.70 He claims that these impairments “clearly

Nelson v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 9, 2025

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 … To establish a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must establish that the defendants, acting under color of state law, deprived the plaintiff of a right secured by the United States Constitution. , 51

Wartluft v. Milton Hershey Sch.

354 F. Supp. 3d 584 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 7, 2018

Plaintiffs likewise allege that the School breached a fiduciary duty to Abrielle by failing to hire and appoint qualified administrators and board members, failing to implement appropriate institutional policies and controls … Allegations of suicide clearly satisfy the "physical harm" requirement for an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. 7 To the extent plaintiffs assert personal claims for emotional distress, they *595 do not

Gibson v. Mason

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 16, 2024

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 … In proffering only his own personal, lay opinion, and reciting the language of Rule 1042.3(a)(1), Gibson has clearly failed to substantially comply with the requirements of Rule 1042.3(a)(1).

Walker v. Edwards

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

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 … A plaintiff must establish the particulars of conduct, time, place, and the person responsible. Evancho, 423 F.3d at 354; Rode, 845 F.2d at 1207-08.

Smith v. Rowley

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 25, 2020

enough not to delay trial—a party may move for judgment on the pleadings.”37 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), judgment on the pleadings is only appropriate in favor of the moving party when that party “clearly … , of any State or Territory, 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

Doss v. Bureau of Prisons

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 8, 2021

It is undisputed that “medical policy clearly states that everyone will be tested for TB, there is no religious exclusion that was in 5360.09.” (Doc. 27-1, p. 12). … Public Health Service Officer (Doc. 26, at p. 17, Argument VI) has immunity is not sufficiently developed.

Cascella v. United States of America

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 9, 2024

FTCA and the Discretionary Function Exception “The FTCA offers a limited waiver of the federal government’s sovereign immunity from civil liability for negligent acts of government employees acting … Here, whether to give Cascella a small golf pencil and reading glasses to fill out a psychological questionnaire as part of his mental health treatment clearly involved an “element of judgment or choice.”42 Cascella has

Woolums v. NATIONAL RV

530 F. Supp. 2d 691 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 1, 2008

. § 2313(a)(1), and therefore qualifies as an express warranty under the UCC, see, e.g., Pack v. … Clearly, the positions of Woolums and National diverge significantly in their descriptions of the repairs performed and their efficacy in remedying the RV’s alleged defects.

Noble v. Amazon.com Services, Inc.

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 25, 2021

Plaintiff alleges that on March 10, 2018, Amazon hired her as a Tier 1 Employee and that she was “well qualified for her position and performed well.” (Doc. 1, at Jf] 13, 14). … Dizzley, 202 F.R.D. at 148 (“Three months delay, without more, does not establish prejudice to [Plaintiff].”).

Yaronski v. The Meadows at East Mountain-Barre for Nursing and Rehabilitation, LLC

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 2023

Seeking FMLA leave “may qualify, under certain circumstances, as a request for a reasonable accommodation under the ADA.” See id. at 156-57. … Ctr., 691 F.3d 294, 312 n.25 (3d Cir. 2012) (doubting plaintiff’s “automatic right to claim [FMLA] interference where . . . the claim is so clearly redundant to the retaliation claim,” and collecting cases rejecting similar

Zamichieli v. Ficks

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 17, 2022

Lastly, given inmate Zamichieli’s history of sexual inappropriate behaviors during his incarceration, a recommendation for sex offender evaluation is appropriate and PSS-Tice is a qualified … against any person who, under color of law, “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

Torres v. Kauffman

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 27, 2022

In applying it, this Court’s first task is to ascertain what law falls within the scope of the “clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States[,]” 28 U.S.C. §2254(d)(1). … For AEDPA purposes, the Strickland test qualifies as “clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court.” Williams, 529 U.S. at 391, 120 S.Ct. 1495.

United States v. Alberto

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 13, 2020

Understatement of tax returns, guaranteeing payment of tax returns, and misstating tax law so as to deceive those who file returns have all been found to be conduct which is clearly actionable under Section 7407. … Alberto would also qualify as “any person” for the purposes of Section 7408 as long as she engaged in the conduct prohibited.

Snow Shoe Refractories LLC v. Jumper

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 5, 2025

Looking to the causes of action clearly implicated by the complaint, the Court limits its analysis to ERISA’s breach of fiduciary duty cause action. 64 29 U.S.C. § 1002(14). … He therefore qualifies as a de facto fiduciary under Section 1002(21)(A) with respect to those investments.

Getz v. Land O' Lakes / Purina

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 30, 2023

To establish a prima facie case of race discrimination under Title VII, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) he is a member of a protected class; (2) he was qualified for the position in question; (3) he suffered an adverse … As the complaint in its current form does not clearly set forth any claims against Defendant, dismissal is warranted.

Burgess v. Mason

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 4, 2020

Rather, “[t]he state court's application of clearly established law must be objectively unreasonable” before a federal court may grant the writ. Andrade, 538 U.S. at 75. … The two-pronged test established in Strickland “qualifies as ‘clearly established Federal law’” for purposes of the AEDPA. See Rainey v. Varner, 603 F.3d 189, 197 (3d Cir. 2010) (quoting Williams v.

Schengrund v. Pennsylvania State University

705 F. Supp. 2d 425 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 2009

These accrual dates are clearly outside the statute of limitations period and Plaintiff Mulder makes no arguments in support of equitable tolling on these claims. Accordingly, they are untimely. … Accordingly, the Court has no need to determine whether such statement would actually qualify for equitable tolling.

Sears v. Clark

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 31, 2021

not be granted unless: the adjudication of the claim[] (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly … The Supreme Court, however, has held that “[n]egligence on the part of a prisoner’s postconviction attorney does not qualify as ‘cause.’