Oliver v. City of Pittsburgh
987 A.2d 680, 605 Pa. 72, 2009 Pa. LEXIS 2778
Opinion
ORDER
AND NOW, this 29th day of December, 2009, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, LIMITED TO the issues set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to all remaining issues. The issues, rephrased for clarity, are:
(1) In light of Section 25(b) of Act 44, does the City of Pittsburgh have a valid subrogation claim against Petitioner Cassandra Oliver’s settlement with the third party tortfeasor equal to the amount of benefits that she received under the Heart and Lung Act?
(2) Does Petitioner Cassandra Oliver have immunity from the City of Pittsburgh’s reimbursement claim under Section 23 of Act 44?
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Oliver v. City of Pittsburgh, 987 A.2d 680, 605 Pa. 72, 2009 Pa. LEXIS 2778 (Pa. 2009).
987 A.2d 680 (Oliver v. City of Pittsburgh) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
City of Wilkes-Barre v. Sheils
450 B.R. 76 (M.D. Pennsylvania, 2011)
Oliver v. City of Pittsburgh
11 A.3d 960 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2011)