Publications
Del.R.Civ.P. 15(c)(3) permits plaintiff to amend complaint after expiration of statute of limitations because defendant was served within 120 days required by Del.R.Civ.P. 4(j) and knew/should know it should have been named efendant in original complaint.
Handler was allegedly working as a pizza delivery man for Nino's Pizza when his car impacted the plaintiffs' vehicle.
Case Law Alert - 1st Qtr 2011
Testimony from a physician who performed an IME of a claimant after the employer filed a petition for review of a utilization review determination can still be considered by the court.
The claimant filed a utilization review Request, seeking to increase unskilled home assistance that was being provided to her.
Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that her migraine headaches, caused by her attempts to comply with her employer's hair grooming policy, precluded her from performing a broad class of jobs to support a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The plaintiff alleged that her former employer discriminated against her and forced her to resign her position as a correctional officer, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, by refusing to accommodate her inability to comply with
Case Law Alert - 1st Qtr 2011
An order granting a penalty petition, based on a failure to make payment, is vacated when there was no finding as to whether proper notice of correct address was given and no determination was made whether the employer acted with reasonable diligence.
The claimant filed a penalty petition for late payment of a settlement that was part of an approved Compromise and Release Agreement.
The claimant’s failure to pass a drug screen is not conduct equating to a refusal of the employer’s modified job offer. Therefore, the board denies the employer’s motion seeking forfeiture of the claimant’s entitlement to total disability.
This case involved a claimant who had a severe work injury on June 3, 2008, in which his left leg was amputated and his thoracic spine was broken.
No individual liability for an owner in an arbitration, despite the fact he failed to raise a timely objection to his inclusion in the arbitration, because the arbitrator did not set forth a legal basis for individual liability.
In this case, the homeowner was alleging a breach of contract for the repair and remodeling of a home. The homeowner’s arbitration demand named both the contracting company as well as its owner individually.
Case Law Alert - 1st Qtr 2011
Supreme Court holds that the employer does not need to present evidence of earning power to change a claimant's status from total to partial disability under section 306(a.2) of the Act based on an impairment rating evaluation.
Section 306 (a.2) of the Act authorizes an automatic change of disability status from total to partial when an employer obtains an Impairment Rating Evaluation ("IRE") within 60 days after a claimant has received 104 weeks of total disab
The employer is not entitled to a suspension of the claimant's benefits when the employer did not provide sufficient evidence to show that under the totality of circumstances the claimant intended to terminate her career.
In this case, following the claimant's work injury, she returned to light-duty work for the employer.
Party was not entitled to a new trial based on after-discovered evidence that testifying experts were not licensed where party had the ability to discover that evidence at the time of trial through reasonable diligence.
The appellant was not entitled to a new trial based on after-discovered evidence that the opposing party's testifying experts were not licensed where the appellant had the ability to discover that evidence at the time of trial through reasona
Case Law Alert - 1st Qtr 2011
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court holds that a third-party agency employer is not entitled to the domestic services exemption of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and, therefore, must pay its home health aides overtime.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court was required to determine whether a third-party agency employer qualifies for the domestic services exemption and, therefore, was exempt from paying its home health aides overtime.
Case Law Alert - 1st Qtr 2011