Donald John Lee

This case is a pharmaceutical products liability action in which plaintiff Lisa Soldo alleged that her ingestion of Parlodel, a drug manufactured by defendant Sandoz Pharmaceuticals (now Novartis), caused an intracerebral hemorrhage. The defendant moved for summary judgment on medical causation grounds, arguing that the plaintiff's expert evidence failed to meet the scientific reliability requirements of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. Following a Daubert hearing, appointment of independent experts in epidemiology, neurology, and pharmacology, and review of extensive evidence, the court found the plaintiff's experts' methodologies unreliable due to insufficient evidence of a valid temporal relationship, inadequate exclusion of alternative causes in the differential diagnosis, and lack of support for vasospasm as the mechanism of injury given contradictory angiogram and diagnostic findings. The court therefore granted summary judgment to the defendant, excluding the expert testimony on general and specific causation.

torts & liabilityhealthcareprocedure

Nancy Riding sued Kaufmann's Department Store and its parent company under Title VII and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, alleging she suffered gender and pregnancy discrimination when demoted from a salaried managerial role to hourly photographer positions in May and November 1998, that the employer retaliated against her complaints, and that she was constructively discharged in December 1998. The district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case in full. The court found no genuine issues of material fact on any claim after reviewing the record, holding that Riding failed to present sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, retaliation, or constructive discharge or to show that the employer's stated reasons were pretextual. The opinion applied the McDonnell Douglas framework and noted that evidence of direct discriminatory bias was lacking.

civil rightslabor & employment

The case involved parents of a toddler with chronic ear infections who sought an evaluation with an ENT specialist; the father, who is deaf and primarily communicates via ASL, requested a qualified interpreter for the appointment, but the doctor's office instead canceled it and suggested they seek care elsewhere, citing a preference for written communication. The parents sued the doctor, his practice, and associated physicians under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and Title III of the ADA, alleging disability discrimination and seeking declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief. The court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the office failed to provide a reasonable accommodation and acted with reckless indifference, and holding that the partner-physicians could be liable as owners of the public accommodation. Core reasoning included application of summary judgment standards under which disputes over the communications and cancellation letter precluded judgment as a matter of law, along with statutory obligations for public accommodations to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability.

civil rightshealthcare

In this case, a mother sued Armstrong County Children and Youth Services and related defendants after a school-reported physical altercation with her teenage daughter led to a CYS investigation and temporary placement with the father. The court granted summary judgment to all defendants on the substantive due process claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and pendent state claims, but denied the motions on the procedural due process claims. The ruling rested on undisputed facts showing the investigation did not shock the conscience and lacked evidence of willful misconduct for state claims, while allowing the procedural claims to continue based on the process followed.

civil rightsfamily lawprocedure

In this case, defendant Ronald Edward Smith filed a pro se motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate or correct his 84-month federal sentence for crack cocaine conspiracy, arguing that the Bureau of Prisons improperly denied credit for time he served on concurrent state sentences and that his counsel was ineffective for failing to request a sentencing continuance or a non-binding BOP recommendation for concurrency. The district court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, finding a colorable ineffective assistance claim under Strickland that warranted an evidentiary hearing and appointment of counsel, while denying the defendant's related motion for equitable relief and summary judgment. The court reasoned that the BOP's treatment of the federal sentence as consecutive to the state sentences—despite the state courts' explicit concurrency orders and the federal sentencing court's consideration of the state offenses as relevant conduct—raised issues about counsel's potential deficiency in not addressing the interaction of federal and state sentences at the time of federal sentencing, though it declined to resolve the merits without further proceedings. The core dispute centered on the authority of courts versus the BOP in computing sentences when state and federal terms overlap.

criminal lawprocedure

This case is an appeal from a bankruptcy court's ruling that Patricia Hornick is personally liable for $87,614.76 in unpaid payroll taxes of her employer under 26 U.S.C. § 6672 as a responsible person, and that this debt is not dischargeable in bankruptcy. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's decision because Hornick failed to provide a complete record, including the transcript of the evidentiary hearing, making it impossible to review whether the factual findings were clearly erroneous. The court therefore dismissed the appeal, upholding the liability and non-dischargeability determination.

taxesprocedure

The case concerned consolidated appeals from bankruptcy court orders that enjoined Pennsylvania's Attorney General from litigating in state Orphans’ Court over matters involving the Allegheny Health, Education and Research Foundation debtors and that nullified a related state court ex parte order. The district court reversed the bankruptcy court orders, ruling that the police powers exception in 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(4) applied and exempted the state proceedings from the automatic stay of § 362(a). The court reasoned that the bankruptcy court lacked authority to oust the state court of jurisdiction via the automatic stay and that the orders were final and appealable under a pragmatic approach to bankruptcy finality. It denied motions to dismiss the appeals but noted the possibility of seeking injunctive relief under 11 U.S.C. § 105(a).

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

This case involves an appeal from bankruptcy court orders restraining the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania from pursuing Orphans' Court proceedings against AHERF, a bankrupt nonprofit health foundation, and related non-debtor entities to appoint an interim trustee for endowments, remove conflicted directors, and amend articles of incorporation. The bankruptcy court determined that the state's ex parte order and related litigation violated the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) or could be enjoined under the court's authority in § 105(a) to carry out the Bankruptcy Code. The district court reviewed emergency motions to stay those bankruptcy orders pending appeal, while analyzing the applicability of the police powers exception in § 362(b)(4) to the state's parens patriae actions protecting charitable assets and public interests. The opinion discusses relevant case law on whether such state regulatory actions are subject to the automatic stay and the scope of the Attorney General's authority over nonprofits.

business & regulatoryhealthcareprocedurefederal power

The case involved plaintiff Robert L. Akers seeking judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Social Security Commissioner's final decision denying his application for supplemental security income benefits based on impairments including a seizure disorder, bipolar disorder with panic attacks, and a peptic ulcer condition. The district court granted summary judgment for the plaintiff and ordered an award of SSI benefits. The court reasoned that the administrative record provided almost no support for the ALJ's key findings denying disability while offering compelling evidence of the plaintiff's severe impairments that rendered him unable to work, including the ALJ's inadequate consideration of treating physicians' diagnoses and selective crediting of medical evidence.

federal powerhealthcare

The case involved plaintiff John Sherback's claim that his former employer, Wright Automotive Group, violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by terminating his employment because of his post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff could not establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination. The court denied the motion, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the plaintiff had a qualifying disability under the ADA and whether the termination occurred because of that disability. The decision applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) and related precedents, which require denial of summary judgment when reasonable jurors could differ on material facts after viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

The case concerns a former high school student's claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Title IX against a school district and its administrators, alleging that they violated her constitutional rights by failing to protect her from sexual abuse and harassment by a teacher and wrestling coach despite actual or constructive notice of his prior misconduct with students. The plaintiff described three specific incidents of abuse between November 1992 and February 1993 and asserted that the defendants maintained a policy of deliberate indifference. Defendants moved for summary judgment on statute-of-limitations grounds, dismissal of the § 1983 claims, and lack of intentional discrimination or vicarious liability under Title IX. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part after reviewing the record, applicable Pennsylvania tolling rules for minors, reporting obligations, and agency principles.

civil rightsprocedure

This case concerns a patent infringement suit filed by Zeneca against Mylan after Mylan submitted an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) to the FDA in Maryland, which under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2) constitutes a statutory act of infringement of Zeneca's tamoxifen patent. The action was transferred from the Western District of Pennsylvania to the District of Maryland and then retransferred back to Pennsylvania on the ground that Maryland lacked personal jurisdiction over Mylan because its ANDA filing fell within the government contacts exception. The court granted Zeneca's motion to retransfer the case to Maryland, holding that the law of the case doctrine did not bar review of the Maryland court's transfer order, and certified for interlocutory appeal the question of whether the government contacts exception applies to an ANDA filing for purposes of personal jurisdiction under the Maryland long-arm statute and the Due Process Clause.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case concerns Titan Sports' motion to enforce a subpoena against non-party Mark Madden, a wrestling commentator for TBS and WCW, to obtain the identities of sources and details of consultations related to allegedly false statements Madden made on a 900-number hotline. Titan asserted defamation and libel claims (among others) against TBS and WCW, alleging that Madden's comments were authorized and reviewed by the defendants and made with actual malice. The court applied federal common law of privilege rather than state shield law because the action involved both federal and state claims, found that Madden qualified as a news gatherer entitled to invoke a qualified journalist's privilege, and granted the motion in part to permit discovery of the editorial review process and participant identities while denying broader source disclosure.

procedurefree speechtorts & liability

The case involved claims by Lori Stilley, a doctoral student and employee at the University of Pittsburgh, and her husband against the University and professor Anthony Petrosky, alleging that Petrosky sexually harassed her in his roles as her academic advisor, dissertation committee chair, and supervisor, and that the University failed to address it. The claims included assault and battery, intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress, loss of consortium, violations of Title VII (42 U.S.C. § 2000e), 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Title IX (20 U.S.C. § 1681). On the defendants' motions for summary judgment, the court granted the motions in part by dismissing the assault and battery claims against both defendants, the Title VII and § 1983 claims against the University, and the Title VII claim against Petrosky, while denying the motions as to the remaining claims. The court reasoned that certain claims were barred by statutes of limitations or lacked a basis for employer liability, but factual disputes remained on other issues such as hostile environment harassment and the University's potential liability under Title IX.

civil rightslabor & employmenttorts & liability

In this case, the musical group Raquel sued Education Management Corporation, Geffen Records, and Nirvana for copyright infringement under federal law, alleging unauthorized use of their song in a television commercial; EMC then filed a third-party complaint against Elias/Savion Advertising for indemnification. The magistrate judge recommended dismissing the copyright claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the complaint did not properly assert a federal copyright claim and there was no diversity of citizenship, and also recommended dismissing the related state-law breach of contract and conversion claims for lack of supplemental jurisdiction. The district court adopted the report and recommendation after de novo review, granting the motion to dismiss all claims without prejudice and denying requests for attorney fees.

procedurepropertyfederal power

This case involves motions in limine by defendants in a securities fraud action brought by opt-out plaintiffs from the Chambers Development Securities Litigation class settlement, alleging violations of sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5. The motions sought to exclude references to SEC consent decrees, enforcement releases, and settlements from parallel administrative proceedings that sanctioned certain defendants and auditors for GAAP and GAAS violations without their admitting the allegations. The court granted the motions in part and denied them in part, holding that the SEC factual findings and sanctions are admissible but not binding on other parties or proceedings, and requiring any objections under Fed. R. Evid. 403 to be raised at sidebar before presentation to the jury. The reasoning centered on the releases' explicit non-binding proviso, the policy against consent judgments while denying allegations, and the need to weigh probative value against risks of prejudice or confusion.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a Medicare beneficiary with chronic myelogenous leukemia who sought coverage for an autologous bone marrow transplant that the Secretary of Health and Human Services had excluded under a 1989 national coverage decision finding insufficient evidence of efficacy. The plaintiff challenged the denial as unsupported by substantial evidence and sought judicial reversal under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The court granted summary judgment to the Secretary, holding that the coverage determination was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law under the Administrative Procedure Act because it resulted from a thorough review of medical literature and expert input. The court emphasized deference to the agency's medical expertise in applying the statutory "reasonable and necessary" standard.

healthcareprocedurefederal power

This case involved a Section 1983 federal civil rights claim brought by the estate of Robert Fortunato, who was shot and killed by Pennsylvania state police during execution of an arrest warrant for misdemeanor harassment and terroristic threats charges on December 31, 1992. The administrator filed suit one day before the two-year statute of limitations expired, alleging violations by county and state police defendants. The court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, dismissing the federal claim with prejudice on the basis of qualified immunity. It declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims for assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, dismissing those without prejudice. The decision followed analysis under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 standards for summary judgment and applicable precedents on immunity and jurisdiction.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

In this case, plaintiff Joel Radman sought to hold defendant Jones Motor Company, Inc. liable for a $1.3 million judgment obtained against the estate of Jeffrey Peden, who had been operating a tractor-trailer under a trip lease with Jones when it collided with Radman's vehicle in 1987. Peden was driving under Jones' Interstate Commerce Commission permits and authority, and Jones had filed proof of financial responsibility including a $1 million surety bond, but the liability policy did not cover Peden as an insured. Radman pursued theories including liability under the Interstate Commerce Act and regulations, breach of the trip lease's insurance requirements, respondeat superior, and others, but narrowed his claim before summary judgment. The court granted Jones' motion for summary judgment and denied Radman's, holding that the ICA and ICC regulations do not impose liability on the lessee carrier for a judgment against the lessor driver, that Peden was not covered by Jones' insurance, and that alternative claims were either abandoned or barred by statutes of limitations.

business & regulatoryfederal powertorts & liability

The case concerned Capt. John Paul Jordan, a disabled airline pilot who elected a Joint and Survivor 50% annuity option under merged Seaboard and Flying Tiger pension plans administered by Federal Express after his 1989 disability retirement; after his wife’s death he sought to rescind the election or change the beneficiary and pursued ERISA claims for declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief plus breach of fiduciary duty. The court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiff’s cross-motion on all counts. It held that the unambiguous plan terms (Section 7.3 of the Seaboard Plan and Section 6.3 of the Flying Tiger Plan) bar any post-retirement rescission or change of the joint annuitant, that no material misrepresentation occurred, and that ERISA provides no federal-common-law basis for the additional equitable claims asserted.

labor & employment