In the case of Gamble v. PACCAR, Inc., No. 23-CV-2147 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 28, 2024 Schwab, J.), the court denied a Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss in which the content of a Plaintiff’s Complaint was challenged. According to the Opinion, this lawsuit revolved around the mechanisms of a cement truck that had allegedly caused injuries to the Plaintiff.     The court ruled that, although the Plaintiff’s allegations against three (3) different Defendants were substantively identical, the Plaintiff did not improperly “lump together” the Defendants in the Complaint given that each Defendan ..read more

In the case of Redos v. UPMC Susquehanna, No. 19-00528 (C.P. Lyc. Co. Sept. 6, 2023 Carlucci, J.), the court denied Defendant medical providers’ Motion for Summary Judgment on a Plaintiff’s claim alleging professional liability regarding the treatment of a patient who was allegedly suffering from a mental illness. According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff’s decedent sought emergency room treatment for symptoms allegedly stemming from his alleged recent drug use. The decedent was transported to another hospital for medical clearance prior to being admitted to a third facility for in-patient psy ..read more

  ..read more

In the case of Ford v. Cheltenham Nursing and Rehab. Center, No. 2880 EDA 2023 (C.P. Phila. Co. Dec. 14, 2023 Lane, J.), the trial court asserted in its Rule 1925 Opinion to the Superior Court that its granting of a summary judgment motion in a slip and fall case involving a nursing home should be affirmed. The court noted that the record before it showed that the Defendant had no prior notice of the alleged roof leak that allegedly caused water to puddle next to the Plaintiff’s bed at the facility. The record before the court showed that the roof was inspected monthly. Also, the first ind ..read more

Don't forget to say "Thank you" to your Administrative Assistant(s) on Administrative Professionals' Day this Wednesday, April 24, 2024 ..read more

In the case of Lucykanish v. Flurer, No. 2545-CV-2022 (C.P. Monroe Co. Feb. 1, 2024 Williamson, J.), Judge David J. Williamson granted summary judgment to a Defendant driver in a motor vehicle accident case in which the Plaintiff was a passenger in that Defendant’s vehicle. According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff was a rear seat passenger in the Defendant’s truck when another passenger dropped her cell phone in the rear footwell. The Plaintiff removed her seat belt to crawl around in the footwell to look for the phone. At the same time, another vehicle improperly passed the Defendant’s tru ..read more

In the case of Chase v. Kriger Construction, Inc., No. 2021-CV-5174 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Feb. 9, 2024 Nealon, J.)., Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas reviewed the current status of Pennsylvania law relative to certain aspects of class action. Among the issues reviewed by the court were a request for a certification of a class action in accordance with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, an approval of a class action settlement, and a ruling on the attorney’s fees allowed. Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK ..read more

In the case of Sharr v. City of Scranton, No. 3:23-CV-00826-JFS (M.D. Pa. March 13, 2024 Saporito, C.M.J.), Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr. granted a Motion to Dismiss in a civil rights action brought by three (3) retirees against their former employer, The City of Scranton, relative to issues surrounding their monthly pension benefit payments that were reduced by The City. The Plaintiffs had presented a claim that The City had violated their Fourteenth Amendment Due Process and Equal Protection Rights and had presented a 42 U.S.C. §1983 civil rights action. The Defendant, Ci ..read more

In the case of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Hamilton, No. AD 2020-10 (C.P. Crawf. Co. Feb. 12, 2024 Stevens, J.), the court ruled that State Farm was not required, based upon the facts presented, to provide coverage to a Defendant under the relevant insurance policy for an incident that occurred given that the party at issue was not authorized to be driving the insured’s vehicle on the date of the incident and, therefore, did not qualify as an insured under the liability coverage at issue.  Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK ..read more

In the case of Hicks v. DEPG Stroud Associates, No. 0807-CV-2021 (C.P. Monroe Co. April 2, 2024 Williamson, J.), the court denied a Motion for Summary Judgment in a “black ice” slip and fall case. According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff pursued this slip and fall litigation against a shopping center owner and its snow removal contractor. According to the Opinion, it had snowed in the area three (3) days before the incident. The weather on the day of the incident was clear. The record before the court indicated that the snow removal contractor had completed snow removal efforts on the day o ..read more