Filter This View

  • Geisinger Clinic v. Rogan

    Publication Date: 2022-01-17
    Practice Area: Employment Litigation
    Industry: Health Care
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lackawanna County
    Judge: Judge Nealon
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 21-1524

    The court held that plaintiff could amend its complaint sounding in breach of restrictive covenant to drop claim for specific performance and add claim for monetary damages because defendant would suffer no undue prejudice. Decision made by judge in preliminary injunction hearing that the restrictive covenant was unenforceable was not a final decision, so it was not the law of the case or binding. Motion for leave to amend granted.

  • Lageman v. Zepp

    Publication Date: 2022-01-17
    Practice Area: Medical Malpractice
    Industry: Health Care
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Wecht
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 22-0040

    After presenting some direct evidence of negligence, a medical malpractice plaintiff was not precluded from also receiving a res ipsa loquitur jury instruction after presenting substantial circumstantial evidence of the doctor's negligence. Order of the superior court affirmed.

  • Margel v. Noga Ambulance Serv., Inc.

    Publication Date: 2022-01-10
    Practice Area: Health Care Law
    Industry: Health Care | Transportation
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
    Judge: Judge Motto
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 21-1429

    Plaintiff had no private right of action under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act for defendants' alleged disclosure of her private medical information, and she could not circumvent the mechanics of that act by pursuing claims for negligence per se relating to defendants' alleged violations of HIPAA. The court sustained defendants' preliminary objection in part.

  • Alana Healthcare, LLC v. Cigna Corporate Serv., LLC

    Publication Date: 2022-01-10
    Practice Area: Contracts
    Industry: Health Care | Insurance
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
    Judge: District Judge Rufe
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 22-0017

    The alleged duty underlying plaintiff's tortious interference with a prospective contract claim against the defendant insurer was purely contractual; therefore, the claim was barred under the gist of the action doctrine, which ensures that a party does not bring a tort claim for what is, in truth, a breach of contract claim. The court granted in part defendant's motion to dismiss.

  • Dix v. Lenape Valley Found.

    Publication Date: 2022-01-10
    Practice Area: Civil Rights
    Industry: Health Care | Non-Profit
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
    Judge: District Judge Pratter
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 22-0002

    Defendant employer moved for summary judgment in plaintiff's employment race discrimination and retaliation action and court found plaintiff established a prima facie case where supervisor summarily terminated all five African-American employees without interviewing four of them after complaints by Caucasian employees against African-American manager. Motion denied.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    State Antitrust Law

    Authors: William T. Lifland

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Bisher v. Lehigh Valley Health Network, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2022-01-10
    Practice Area: Medical Malpractice
    Industry: Health Care
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Donohue
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 22-0014

    Pleadings unlawfully filed by non-attorneys did not implicate the subject matter jurisdiction of the trial court, but were still voidable in the discretion of the trial court following notice and opportunity to cure. Order of the superior court reversed, case remanded.

  • Steltz v. Meyers

    Publication Date: 2022-01-10
    Practice Area: Medical Malpractice
    Industry: Health Care
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Mundy
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 22-0003

    Superior court erred in affirming trial court's grant of a new trial based on one question for which trial court gave a curative instruction and court found superior court's reliance on Siegal v. Stefanyszyn, 718 A.2d 1274, was misplaced and trial court did not view the question in the context of the entire trial when evaluating appellee's post-trial motion for a new trial. Reversed.

  • Hernandez v. Grandview Hosp.

    Publication Date: 2022-01-03
    Practice Area: Civil Appeals
    Industry: Health Care
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Bucks County
    Judge: Judge Mellon
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 21-1424

    The court reiterated its ruling in this Rule 1925(a) opinion that appellant failed to preserve her issues on appeal because she did not file a post-trial motion to remove defendant's compulsory non-suit. The court advised appellate court to quash the appeal.

  • Snyder v. N. Am. Partners in Anesthesia (Pennsylvania), Inc.

    Publication Date: 2022-01-03
    Practice Area: Medical Malpractice
    Industry: Health Care
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lackawanna County
    Judge: Judge Nealon
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 21-1401

    The court held that defendants were required to subpoena non-party witnesses reasonably in advance of the trial date. Motion to quash defendants' notices to appear granted.

  • Williams v. Benshetrit

    Publication Date: 2022-01-03
    Practice Area: Expert Witnesses
    Industry: Health Care
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
    Judge: District Judge Baylson
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 21-1505

    Plaintiff filed a motion in limine to prevent defendant's expert witnesses from testifying that Percocet use could inhibit the effect of local dental anesthetics and court found experts regularly administered local dental anesthetics, they were qualified to testify to their opinion that Percocet could inhibit the efficacy of such anesthetics and plaintiff's assertion the opinions were not supported by scientific evidence or research was defeated by the deposition testimony of his own expert witness. Motion denied.