Case law

Rhaburn v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 13, 2022

(AR 24-25).3 This was a string citation, so the ALJ presumably did not mean that each page separately established each of those conclusions. … Given the conflicting medical evidence described above, the record does not clearly show that Plaintiff is disabled, so the Court remands without awarding benefits.

Phillips v. Redkey Town Board

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Oct 22, 2019

Phillips fails to even allege, let alone establish, a basis for subject matter jurisdiction in this Court and the case must be dismissed. … A sister court, dealing with a recalcitrant litigant, held as follows: [T]he court concludes that Smith’s conduct in filing numerous unfocused complaints with overlapping, duplicative claims qualifies as vexatious.

Matthew Thies v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 28, 2012

Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. … It clearly goes to the part of her credibility, and Judge, for that basis we ask you to reconsider. (Tr. 308-09).

AMERICAN ART CLAY COMPANY, INC. v. THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 31, 2025

First, it is well established in Indiana that "[t]he lack of diligent investigation alone is not sufficient to support an award" for a breach of the duty of good faith. Erie Ins. Co. v. … As discussed above, the Asbestos Exclusions clearly bar coverage for the Lawsuits. It is also important to note that AMACO has not pleaded facts which evidence any dishonesty or ill will. Colley v. Ind. Farmers Mut.

Graham v. Coca-Cola Consolidated

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Oct 27, 2021

Graham filed a motion to strike certain documents, though she doesn’t clearly articulate what she is seeking to have stricken. These motions are now ripe for review. … Moeller in Human Resources told her that she didn’t qualify for the Coke Hardship Program. She says “she repeatedly tried for a month but, to no avail” [ECF 1- 1].

L.W. v. ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE OF INDIANAPOLIS, INC.

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 21, 2022

She noted that the Retaliation Incident was "clearly not the first or only issue of concern." [Filing No. 69 at 2-3.] … Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act provides that "[n]o otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States ... shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in

A WOMAN'S CHOICE-EAST SIDE WOMEN'S CLIN. v. Newman

132 F. Supp. 2d 1150 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 30, 2001

Both decisions left open the possibility, however, that additional evidence on the effects of such laws could establish an undue burden. … Notwithstanding the contention and controversy, some broad principles have been established by the Supreme Court.

Putz v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 29, 2020

It is well established that the burden of proving entitlement to disability insurance benefits is on the plaintiff. See Jeralds v. Richardson, 445 F.2d 36 (7th Cir. 1971); Kutchman v. … This distinction is an important one, since the mere absence of detailed treatment notes, without more, is “insufficient grounds for disbelieving the evidence of a qualified professional.” Herrmann v.

WEST v. WILCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 12, 2023

Nor has it clearly articulated a basis on which the Court can find that what Plaintiff seeks is overly broad or not proportional to the case. … A document does not become immune to discovery simply because it intertwines or "embeds" relevant information with the non-relevant.

DULWORTH v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS INC.

District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 22, 2024

ourts may pass over the antecedent question of whether a violation occurred, moving directly to whether the defendant negligently or willfully violated the statute," which "is akin to the sequencing dilemma courts face in qualified … immunity cases."

RANSOM v. KNIGHT

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 10, 2022

They may be correct that an amputated limb, without more, does not qualify as a serious medical need. See Johnson v. … Classifications "B" and "D" clearly do not apply, leaving "C" as the only plausible alternative. No reasonable jury could find that Nurse Shuck was deliberately indifferent for concluding that Mr.

Surfrider Foundation The v. United States Steel Corporation

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 22, 2022

Second, in the alternative, the Plaintiffs’ claims are sufficiently similar to the governmental entities’ claims to qualify for res judicata. … In doing so, the Court clearly meant compliance in the sense that FMR I used that term which means an end to the violations. 432 F.3d at 764 (“Compliance means an end to violations”) (emphasis added).5 Given the Court previously

Schnelker v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 12, 2022

Ind. 2004) (“The regulations, and this Circuit, clearly recognize that reviewing physicians . . . are experts in their field and the ALJ is entitled to rely on their expertise.”). … “The Seventh Circuit has not affirmatively established the threshold for the number of jobs in the national economy that qualifies as significant.” John C. v.

DAVIS v. KIJAKAZI

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 2, 2022

ALJ Decision In determining whether Glenda qualified for benefits under the Act, the ALJ employed the five-step sequential evaluation process set forth in 20 C.F.R … When confronted with a situation where the record does not clearly demonstrate that a claimant's past work was a composite job, courts in this Circuit have examined several factors in reviewing the ALJ's determination,

BERRY v. COMMISSIONER OF INDIANA

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 26, 2021

Accordingly, his treatment and the conditions of his confinement are evaluated under standards established by the Eighth Amendment's proscription against the imposition of cruel and unusual punishment. … Assuming that Berry's mental health diagnoses qualified as serious medical conditions, there is no evidence that any Defendant was deliberately indifferent to those conditions.

Duchatellier

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Oct 22, 2025

Further, the Court has a well-established duty to ensure that the claims of a pro se litigant are given fair and meaningful consideration. Palmer v. City of Decatur, 814 F.2d 426, 428-29 (7th Cir. 1981). … Defendants argue that the Court was clearly acting within it is discretion when it denied the hearing on the spoliation issue relying on Plaintiff’s failure to file his motion for relief prior to the deadline reset by the

Harris v. Warsaw Community School Corporation

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 7, 2023

Plaintiffs fail to both establish a prima facie case and rebut Defendants’ legitimate reason for the disciplinary action. … Ill. 2018) (no adverse action where employee did not automatically qualify for excess insurance benefit).

Tedesco v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Apr 22, 2022

Thus, when a plaintiff attaches to the complaint a document that qualifies as a written instrument, and [his] complaint references and relies upon that document in asserting [his] claim, the contents of that document become … [and] [m]ultiplying figures clearly stated in a complaint is an aspect of that duty.” Id. (quoting Whitaker v. Am. Telecasting, Inc., 261 F.3d 196, 206 (2d Cir. 2001)).

Oliver v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 31, 2020

The standard that a symptom “can reasonably be accepted as consistent” with objective evidence, as one court explained, “is clearly a different, and a not as rigorous, [] standard than the ALJ[] demanded in this case, namely … “[a]n award of benefits is appropriate . . . only if all factual issues involved in the entitlement determination have been resolved and the resulting record supports only one conclusion—that the applicant qualifies

DURHAM v. FRESHREALM, LLC

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jul 22, 2021

The fact that Nguyen is non-white—of East Asian descent—is insufficient by itself to qualify as a background circumstance or evidence of something suspicious. … A legitimate expectation of employee conduct was clearly established, and Durham has not demonstrated that he was meeting FreshRealm's performance expectations during and after the July 8 Call preceding his termination.