Your Resource for Pending Pennsylvania Appellate Issues and Recent Decisions

August 2017 (Allocatur Grants) Archive

Com. v. Popielarcheck, 151 A.3d 1088 (Pa. Super. 2016), appeal docket 41 WAP 2017

Allocatur granted Aug. 29, 2017. DUI Sentencing Requirements.

Review of Commonwealth’s challenge to Superior Court’s affirmance of trial court’s imposition of sentence for driving under the influence (DUI) based on interpretation of apparently conflicting statutory sentencing provisions.

[Read More]

Dep’t of Labor and Industry v. WCAB (Lin and Eastern Taste), 155 A.3d 103 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017), appeal docket 27 EAP 2017

Allocatur granted Aug. 23, 2017.  Workers’ Compensation; statutory construction; whether Construction Workplace Misclassification Act (CWMA) only applies to circumstances where the putative employer’s industry or business is construction

Statutory construction issue of first impression whether CWMA only applies to circumstances where the putative employer’s industry or business is construction.

[Read More]

Nicolau v. Martin, 153 A. 3d 383 (Pa. Super. 2016) (en banc), appeal docket 44 MAP 2017

       Allocatur granted Aug. 18, 2017. Statute of Limitations; Discovery Rule.

Whether Patient’s Due Diligence is Factual Question that Bars Grant of Summary Judgment in Medical Malpractice Action

[Read More]

Hartford Ins. Group on behalf of Chen v. Kamara, 155 A. 3d 1108 (Pa. Super. 2017), appeal docket 25 EAP 2017

Allocatur granted Aug. 9, 2017. Workers’ Compensation Act; Proper Application of Liberty Ins. Co. v. Domtar Paper Co.

Whether (a) the “on behalf of the injured employee” designation is sufficient to bring the action in the name of the injured employee, as required in Domtar; (b) use of the insurer’s employee rather than the injured employee himself to verify the complaint supports the argument that insurer was acting without the consent of the injured employee; and (c) the “[Employer’s Insurer] on behalf of the injured employee” designation is synonymous with “[Employer’s Insurer] as subrogee for [injured employee]” and thus prohibited by Domtar.

[Read More]

Com. v. Wilmer, 2015 WL 9593615 (unreported), appeal docket 40 MAP 2017

Allocatur granted Aug. 9, 2017.  Warrantless search exigent circumstances exception; whether law enforcement may reenter residence after exigency has dissipated

Whether law enforcement may reenter a residence after the exigency that permitted the initial entry has dissipated?

[Read More]

Gallagher v. GEICO Indemnity Co., 2017 WL 394337 (unreported), appeal docket 35 WAP 2017

Allocatur granted Aug. 8, 2017.  Motor vehicle insurance, inter-policy stacking; motorcycles; whether “household vehicle exclusion” violates Section 1738 of the MVFRL

Whether the “household vehicle exclusion” violates Section 1738 of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (MVFRL) where GEICO issued all household policies and unilaterally decided to issue two separate policies, when the insured desired stacking, elected stacking, paid additional premiums for stacking and never knowingly waived stacking of underinsured motorist benefits?

[Read More]

Davis v. NVR, Inc., 2017 WL 417191 (unreported), appeal docket 37 WAP 2017

Allocatur granted Aug. 8, 2017.  Duty of care by contractor to subsequent user of land for discoverable dangerous condition created by contractor

Whether “a contractor who creates a dangerous condition on land is relieved of his duty of reasonable care to subsequent users of the land by the fact that the dangerous condition was discoverable by either the owner of the land or by the user of the land[?]”

[Read More]

In Re A.J.H. and I.G.H., 2017 WL 1573229 (unreported), appeal docket 38 MAP 2017

Allocatur granted Aug. 1, 2017.  Hearsay; business record exception; hearsay within business records; harmless error

Whether the Superior Court overlooked and misapprehended controlling precedent from the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania as well as its own precedent when the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision to admit into evidence exhibits that were not authenticated, submitted for the truth of the matter asserted therein, contained medical/psychiatric opinions and diagnosis and did not fall under any hearsay exception? Did the Superior Court misapply the law when it affirmed, on the grounds of harmless error, the trial court’s admission of exhibits?

[Read More]

For more information, contact Kevin McKeon or Dennis Whitaker