Case law

Graham

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 16, 2026

In Wells, the court held that a conclusory complaint “clearly and adequately invokes the second exception to the middleman statement.” Id. … Injury means either a Qualifying Respiratory Injury or a Qualifying Cancer.

MULTIPLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. UNDER ARMOUR, INC

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 13, 2025

(finding that damages expert’s disgorgement analysis did not attempt to define the law, because the Lanham Act “clearly allows for consideration of revenue and costs and allocates the burden of each party as … Schmitt is qualified to opine on) and has been used in infringement cases. Mr.

Bonham v. Dresser Industries, Inc.

424 F. Supp. 891 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 28, 1976

which tends to show that younger, and perhaps as equally qualified, employees were hired as replacements for plaintiff’s former position. … Burroughs Corporation, supra, is clearly distinguishable, since in that case evidence was submitted by plaintiff which revealed that younger employees were hired by the defendant company, allegedly with the intention that

International Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers v. US Airways, Inc.

287 F. Supp. 2d 599 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 21, 2003

Article 2 of the CBA is extremely broad and comprehensive in its coverage of work that must be performed by IAM-represented employees and clearly includes S-Checks. … This factor is established, given our finding that this is a major dispute.

Tribune Review Pub. Co. v. Thomas

120 F. Supp. 362 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 12, 1954

The judges of the' County Courts of Oyer and Terminer and Quarter Sessions have been delegated by the Legislature of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania full power and authority - to' establish such rules for regulating the … The authority for petitioners to secure relief in the highest tribunal of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as a court of original jurisdiction is well recognized and clearly chartered both by statute and legal construction

Schwarzwaelder v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.

606 F. Supp. 2d 546 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 9, 2009

Glenn, 461 F.3d at 673 (noting that plan required only “current medical documentation” and that claimant “be under the regular care of a qualified physician ...”). … It is not uncommon for a plan to require, e.g., that the employee be unable to engage in any gainful occupation for which s/he is, or may reasonably become, qualified by education, training or experience.

HITCH v. THE FRICK PITTSBURGH

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 21, 2023

To establish these discrimination claims, Hitch must show “(1) that he is disabled within the meaning of the ADA, (2) that he is otherwise qualified for the job, with or without reasonable accommodations, … This letter informed Hitch of the dismissal of his charge and of his right to sue, clearly establishing that Hitch engaged in the protected activity of filing a charge against his employer.

Natale v. Commissioner of Social Security

651 F. Supp. 2d 434 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 21, 2009

Plaintiffs activities of daily living likewise did not warrant the ALJ’s rejection of the overwhelming and solidly supported psychological evidence establishing Plaintiffs disability. … There is no evidence of record that Plaintiff was qualified for assistance with his medicines or knew that he could qualify when he began seeing Dr. Gandotra. In fact, at his April 9, 2005 visit, Dr.

Anderson v. Nationwide Insurance Enterprise

187 F. Supp. 2d 447 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 1, 2002

If you feel your clients qualify for presentation of an uninsured motorist claim, you can proceed with a declaratory action on that point. … Your papers were directed in part at establishing that the plaintiffs had failed to establish on the record a triable issue of fact as to the reasonableness of, or unreasonableness, I should say, of Nationwide’s position

BRYANT v. FITZGERALD

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 8, 2021

He alleges he never appeared before “any Judge” and “paternity was never established,” and he takes issue with court orders from the Family Division of the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas from 1994 that established … Factual allegations that are “fanciful,” “fantastic,” and “delusional” are considered “clearly baseless.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992). II.

Papciak Ex Rel. Papciak v. Sebelius

742 F. Supp. 2d 765 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 2010

Personal care services, such as general supervision and maintenance, which do not require the skills of qualified technical or professional personnel are not skilled services; however, special medical complications can render … The MAC’S decision stated that “[t]he record clearly and unequivocally reflects a patient who was unmotivated and resistant to participation in therapy throughout her entire stay.” R. at 6.

Alexander v. Rendell

246 F.R.D. 220 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 23, 2007

Therefore, the AAMR PA members fail to establish the requisites of derivative standing. … Ennis are clearly unrelated and would unduly confuse, delay and prejudice the rights of the former Altoona Center residents.

RICHARD v. GOODWILL SOUTHWEST PENNSYLVANIA

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 22, 2025

does not expressly reference Title VII, the ADA, or the PHRA, we have considered whether this count asserts a state-law tort claim, for which administrative exhaustion would not be required, but it is well established … This is clearly sufficient to satisfy the doctrine of “relation back.” , 86 F.R.D. 127, 130 (E.D. Pa. 1980).

Lichtenstein v. Kidder, Peabody & Co. Inc.

840 F. Supp. 374 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 17, 1993

Her minimum aggregate qualifying value (or net portfolio equity) dropped below $5,000 for eighteen monthly periods. Ex. F-2. … Lichtenstein was lulled into a sense of security by an employee who clearly considered his primary obligation to be to Mr. Lichtenstein. F.

Erie County Retirees Ass'n v. County of Erie, Pa.

192 F. Supp. 2d 369 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 20, 2002

Liability has been established by the collective decisions of the Third Circuit and this Court, and by settling at this time, Plaintiffs are neither foregoing an opportunity to establish liability at trial nor risking the … HMOs are plans offered by federally qualified health maintenance organizations.

STURGIS

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 2, 2026

To establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination, a plaintiff must allege that: (4) he is “disabled” as defined by the ADA; (ii) he is qualified to perform the essential functions of the job, with or without … This is most clearly established where the reprimand effects a tangible, material change in the terms or conditions of employment. See, e.g., Campo v. Mid-Atl. Packaging Specialties, LLC, 564 F.

BETHA v. PIERCE

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 5, 2019

Nor can an inmate avoid this exhaustion requirement by merely alleging that the Department of Corrections policies were not clearly explained to him. Davis, 49 F. App’x at 368. … An appeal to final review cannot be completed unless an inmate complies with all established procedures.

Steele v. Beard

830 F. Supp. 2d 49 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 16, 2011

The “clearly established Federal law” for AEDPA purposes in which to analyze Steele’s claim of ineffective assistance is set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 *72 (1984). … None of the cases cited by Steele represent “clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d) (emphasis added).

Albright v. RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company

350 F. Supp. 341 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 23, 1972

The plaintiff in the City of Pittsburgh case might also have amended the complaint and filed supplemental answers to Interrogatories which would clearly remove any claim for the cancer. This was not done. … Before the present suit was filed he also qualified for a Veterans Administration disability pension.

Mumford v. GNC FRANCHISING LLC

437 F. Supp. 2d 344 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 29, 2006

Kostos, 253 F.Supp. 331, 338 (D.N.J.1966) (granting motion to dismiss where plaintiffs complaint pled facts demonstrating defendant was subject to immunity). … Plaintiffs did not clearly state in their complaint whether their claims under section 2 are based upon a monopoly or attempted monopoly offense.