Filter This View

  • Beard v. Williams

    Publication Date: 2020-05-04
    Practice Area: Medical Malpractice
    Industry: Health Care
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Northampton County
    Judge: Judge Murray
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 20-0444

    The court denied defendant physician's motion for summary judgment, because genuine issues of material fact existed regarding matters associated with a collaboration agreement between the physician and a nurse practitioner.

  • Leo v. Geisinger Cmty. Med. Ctr

    Publication Date: 2020-05-04
    Practice Area: Discovery
    Industry: Health Care
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lackawanna County
    Judge: Judge Nealon
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 20-0447

    While plaintiff was entitled to responses to discovery demands served upon defendants long before the applicable discovery deadline, she could not compel the defendant hospital to answer requests for admissions served long after the deadline had expired. The court granted defendant's motion for a protective order and granted plaintiff's motion to compel in part.

  • Fisher v. Corr. Care, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2020-05-04
    Practice Area: Employment Litigation
    Industry: Health Care
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lackawanna County
    Judge: Judge Nealon
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 20-0445

    While defendant demonstrated plaintiff's lack of due diligence in prosecuting this matter with reasonable promptness and the lack of any compelling reason for the delay, the company failed to show that it suffered any actual prejudice resulting from a substantial diminution of its ability to properly defend plaintiff's case. The court denied defendant's motion for a judgment of non pros.

  • Adkins v. Johnson & Johnson

    Publication Date: 2020-04-27
    Practice Area: Civil Procedure
    Industry: Health Care | Manufacturing
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Ford Elliott
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 20-0426

    Plaintiff's inconsistent verdict challenge could not be corrected in pre-trial proceedings or during trial and only ripened after the verdict was announced; therefore, she properly raised the challenge for the first time in a post-trial motion. The superior court affirmed a trial court order granting plaintiff a new trial.

  • Commonwealth v. Cook

    Publication Date: 2020-04-27
    Practice Area: Evidence
    Industry: Health Care
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Olson
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 20-0428

    The trial court erred in finding that the psychotherapist-client privilege in 42 Pa.C.S. §5944 applied to incriminating statements defendant made to a fellow patient while at a mental health treatment center since he did not make the statements to a member of his treatment team during treatment and the statements were not confidential. The superior court vacated in part and remanded.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Merit Systems Protection Board: Rights and Remedies

    Authors: Robert G. Vaughn

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Ragsdale v. Univ. of Pennsylvania Health Sys.

    Publication Date: 2020-04-27
    Practice Area: Civil Rights
    Industry: Health Care
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
    Judge: District Judge Savage
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 20-0439

    Defendant moved for summary judgment in plaintiff's ADA action asserting failure to accommodate, discrimination and retaliation after he was denied permission to use his cellphone at work and then was fired for using it because defendant offered a reasonable alternative accommodation, plaintiff was fired for using his cell phone for a personal call unrelated to his disability and he received no greater discipline than other coworkers who engaged in similar misconduct. Motion granted.

  • Nigon v. Jewell

    Publication Date: 2020-04-13
    Practice Area: Medical Malpractice
    Industry: Health Care
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
    Judge: Judge Hodge
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 20-0305

    Where medical providers failed to address known risks of a patient's condition, the court overruled certain preliminary objections, but sustained others.

  • Garman v. Angino

    Publication Date: 2020-04-13
    Practice Area: Medical Malpractice
    Industry: Health Care
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Bowes
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 20-0389

    Trial court erred in ruling that attorneys' negligence was not the proximate cause of clients' loss where damages in second medical malpractice action were not barred under doctrines of collateral estoppel, res judicata, or one recovery rule by prior medical malpractice action arising from the same surgery. Summary judgment vacated, case remanded.

  • Pasquini v. Fairmount Behavioral Health Sys.

    Publication Date: 2020-04-06
    Practice Area: Discovery
    Industry: Health Care
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Stevens
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 20-0372

    Trial court correctly found that appellee's requests for admission as to defendant addiction treatment facility's knowledge of other patient's sex offender status was not privileged and did not require the disclosure of confidential health records because sex offender status was not the type of information protected by the mental health procedures act, did not require exposure of confidential communications in other patient's treatment record and sex offender status was publicly available information. Affirmed.

  • Forbes v. King Shooters Supply

    Publication Date: 2020-04-06
    Practice Area: Personal Injury
    Industry: Health Care | Retail
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Stevens
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 20-0366

    Store employees' report to police leading to plaintiff's commitment was absolutely privileged and could not serve as basis of defamation claim where policy preferences outweighed plaintiff's right to seek redress for the statements. Judgment on the pleadings affirmed.