Publications
The Supreme Court reiterates that “clearly established law” is not judged on generalities and must be considered against the particular facts of a case.
This case involves a civil suit against the District of Columbia and five of its police officers brought by 16 individuals who were arrested for holding a raucous, late-night party in a house they did not have permission to enter.
Case Law Alerts, 2nd Quarter, April 2018
Collective knowledge doctrine expanded to include when an arresting officer lacking firsthand knowledge of the facts is working with the investigating officer with firsthand knowledge of the probable cause or reasonable suspicion.
The defendant moved to suppress evidence obtained during the execution of a search warrant by an officer who did not have any firsthand knowledge of the facts creating probable cause for the warrant.
Case Law Alerts, 2nd Quarter, April 2018
Statutory immunity does not protect police officers when there is a material factual dispute as to whether the officer operated his zone car in a wanton, willful or reckless manner.
A local police officer was driving his patrol car at a high rate of speed when responding to a call. According to the officer who was driving the patrol car, the overhead lights and sirens were activated. This information was controverted.
Case Law Alerts, 2nd Quarter, April 2018
No duty to seek work elsewhere when given reasonable expectation of employment by employer.
The parties stipulated that the claimant sustained a compensable low back injury and that the employer paid the claimant wages in lieu of compensation up through January 20, 2017.
Case Law Alerts, 2nd Quarter, April 2018
Board committed legal error by applying the “going and coming” rule.
On appeal, the Superior Court made reference to the “going and coming” rule, which provides that injuries resulting from accidents during an employee’s regular travel to and from work are not compensable.
Case Law Alerts, 2nd Quarter, April 2018
Court offers ray of hope in the major contributing cause defense.
The 1st DCA held that the 120-day defense must be timely and specifically plead by claimants and may not be raised sua sponte by the Judge of Compensation Claims.
Case Law Alerts, 2nd Quarter, April 2018
In order to give expert medical testimony, the treating physician is in better position to express opinion as to cause and effect than the examining petitioner.
The Judge of Compensation discredited Dr. Halejian’s testimony (who evaluated the petitioner in anticipation of litigation) because it was based primarily on his review of records of other providers. However, it found Dr.
Case Law Alerts, 2nd Quarter, April 2018
Petitioner must demonstrate actual lost wages.
In affirming the Judge of Compensation’s denial of the petitioner’s petition for benefits, the Appellate Division relied on Cunningham v. Atlantic States Cast Iron Pipe Co., 386 N.J. Super. 423 (App.
Case Law Alerts, 2nd Quarter, April 2018
An employer is entitled to a modification of benefits based on a proof of earning power from certain positions as long as there is proof the jobs remained open and available until claimant had a reasonable opportunity to apply for them.
The Commonwealth Court agreed that the Workers’ Compensation Judge and the Appeal Board incorrectly reasoned that it was the claimant’s burden to prove that all five jobs found by a vocational counselor were not open.
Case Law Alerts, 2nd Quarter, April 2018
The mere presentation of evidence of unsuccessful applications to jobs listed in a Labor Market Survey does not mandate a finding that the positions were not open and available and that the claimant lacked an earning capacity.
The Commonwealth court found this was a case of first impression regarding the rights of claimants and employers under § 306(b) of the Act after the Supreme Court’s decision in Phoenixville Hospital v. WCAB (Shoap), 81 A.3d.
Case Law Alerts, 2nd Quarter, April 2018