Legal Opinion
Uhl v. C.H. Shoemaker & Son, Inc.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Decided March 1, 1994No. 1676PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OLSZEWSKI, Judge.
C.H. Shoemaker & Son, Inc. (“Shoemaker”) appeals from the lower court’s order denying its motion for an independent medical examination (“IME”). Shoemaker argues that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that Shoemaker failed to show good cause for the IME. We affirm.
On February 3, 1987, Donald and Janice Uhl filed a complaint against Shoemaker, alleging that Donald sustained serious injuries to his right arm after falling from a substandard scaffold owned by Shoemaker.
On March 12, 1987, the Uhls sent Shoemaker a set of interrogatories, including a request that…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- John M. v. Paula T.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
- MacKarus EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1968
- Lombardo v. DeMarcoSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
- State Farm Insurance Companies v. SwantnerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
- Wertz v. KephartSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Consolidated Reports & Return by the Tax Claims Bureau of Northumberland County of PropertiesCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2016
- McGratton v. BurkeSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1996
- Wilczynski v. Lackawanna County Multi-Purpose Stadium Authority, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lackawanna County1999
- DiGiacinto v. Obelinas, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lackawanna County2014
- Driscoll v. Walker, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lackawanna County2001
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.