text:
Chicken and mushrooms with cheese
Total Time
Prep 10 mins
Cook 2 hrs
This dish was served at a party I went to, and everyone wanted seconds, and the recipe. I haven't yet made it myself but do plan on it. It was very tasty and delicious!
Ingredients Nutrition
- 4 -6 boneless skinless chicken breasts
- 1 can cream of mushroom soup
- 1 can cream of celery soup
- 3⁄4 cup white wine
- 1 cup cheddar cheese
- 1 can mushroom, drained (or I like to use a cup of fresh mushrooms)
- 2 -3 green onions, sliced
- Arrange chicken in a greased casserole dish.
- Combine soups and wine together and pour over chicken.
- Stir in mushrooms, green onions, and cheese.
- Bake at 300 uncovered for 1 1/2-2 hours.
- Let casserole sit about 20 minutes before serving.
Most Helpful
This was really tasty, the chicken has a nice 'smooth' texture. I cut back on the chicken and soup amounts, used 3 breasts and half a can each of the soup, still had lots of 'gravy'. Thanks for posting.
Tried this tonight for a quick and easy meal. It was delicious. I served it with white rice and asparagus. The extra sauce with the chicken was soooo good with the rice. Very good!
This dish had a great flavor and was so easy to make. I served it over pasta and a caesar salad on the side.


text:
You are a fan of busy animagic ? Come to discover the best forums busy animagic on the internet and share your experience with a community fan of busy animagic . You can also build a forum busy animagic and create your online discussion.
A friendly Pokémon roleplay forum.
In this forum, anyone can fellowship to express their love of all things American Girl doll at a busy forum full of friendly members and expert advice.
american, girl, doll, collector's, fellowship, express, love, #busy, friendly, members
Please feel free to join and take part in the many rps that have been posted up! The site is currently trying to bring in new people, so please! Bring your Magic! ! ! ! : )
free, forum, #animagic, site, text, based, role, play, group, anime, manga, writing, discussion, poetry, poems, japan, roleplay, creative, video, games, naruto, inuyasha
Looking for diet & fitness support? It doesn't matter whether your baby is 6 weeks or 60 years -- come join us for motivation, inspiration & perspiration!
frazzled, fitness, #busy, moms, diet, support?, doesn't, matter, baby, weeks, years, join, motivation, inspiration, perspiration!

subset: commoncrawl


text:
A Good Deal: No Evil 022
Round up4.30 / 5.00 1,960 Views
Park Bench
A short film about a park bench4.15 / 5.00 1,474 Views
frog thing
frogggsgsgs3.82 / 5.00 1,720 Views
That is sooo... wierd, i really liked it and all of your animations. I wish they had them on TV or something, lol.
still a great flash from you !
Well , the first time I saw it , I thought it was not so great but I watched it some other times and now I see what is so great in it , the style is also awesome !
You, are fantastic, I just love the music to that movie, perfect choice, sad but still some happiness in it, and the sudden flashes and sturbing sounds are great, what do you get it all from, I really feal sorry for that poor old man, everything seems to bugg him, and that nice old lady, she became a widdow after all, sad story, in true David Firth spirit! iThis was actuarrly the first time i saw this movi, strange how i could miss it.
But im glad that i've seen it now, cous its definetly something to see! so press your buttons and lod this shit. Cool preloader to man, you really rock this place.
Definetly a 5 er, you are just great, keep rockin with this strange style! cya dude.
That was so beautiful and quite sad, i liked how it showed the torment in the man by the fuzzing background...a true masterpiece...the music was beautiful to.
This submission is so cool!
I like this submission because of the depression and darkness of it. Many submissions by him are like this but this has to be my favorite one! It is such a good story to me, I love it.


text:
Selection criteria
Selection criteria
1. Eligibility
All applicants must hold a bachelor's degree from a research university that is comparable in level and content with a Bachelor of (International) Business Administration at RSM. Applicants who possess a university degree from a Dutch university of applied science (HBO) must first complete the RSM pre-master before starting the International Management/CEMS programme (see www.rsm.nl/premaster for more details). Students with a bachelor degree from outside the Netherlands are required to pay a non-refundable application fee of €100.
2. Grade point average
Applicants are expected to have obtained a GPA that is equivalent to at least a 7 out of 10 in the Dutch education system, which is considered to be above average. Grade point averages can be expressed differently in other education systems. Examples of acceptable GPA's can be found on the RSM website.
Submission of a GMAT score is mandatory for most applicants. Applications without a valid and/or sufficient GMAT score will not be considered for admission to IM/CEMS. For full details, please see the Admissions and Recruitment Office's page on GMAT score requirements for RSM's master programmes.
3. Language proficiency
Students must have proven proficiency in two languages in addition to English. Therefore, upon application, students must submit test results for two foreign languages. For more information, please click here.
4. Motivation and Suitability
In the online application form (OLAF) you will be asked 4 questions regarding your motivation. You also have the opportunity to add letters of recommendation, but these are not a required.
5. Curriculum Vitae
A CV of two pages maximum.


text:
3/37 Roberts Avenue, Barrack Heights
Modern unit
- 2 Beds
- 1 Baths
- 0 Cars
3/37 Roberts Avenue, Barrack Heights
Modern unit
6/15-17 Lendine Street, Barrack Heights
5B Bourke Avenue, Barrack Heights
Modern 2 bedroom Unit
Important: No warranty of accuracy of information contained in this document is given by rent.com.au. Persons should check the accuracy of this information by independent inquiry prior to its use.
rent.com.au is Australia's #1 website dedicated to rental properties. Because we are focused on rental properties we are able to provide a more relevant experience for you as a renter. Search over 70,000 properties across Australia, including properties in Barrack Heights. Refine your search to include homes, apartments, and units in Barrack Heights. Add the properties you like to a shortlist and register so you can access this on any device. Be the first to hear about new rental properties in Barrack Heights by creating an instant alert for Barrack Heights.
View our rental suburbs


text:
To support Dealer / Distributors in providing after sales service to assigned territory and improve profitability through spares business.
Key Thrust Areas / Job Responsibilities
Responsible for providing after sales service to Distributors and complaint redressal.
Responsible for after sales network Expansion and infrastructure development.
Effective communication of product feedback from Distributor to HO.
Responsible for Spare Parts Management
Support Distributors in Service Promotion activities.
Responsible for manpower development through technical training on products.
Workshop Management /Revenue
Warranty Management
Sales Training Sales Service Technical Training Profitability Warranty Management


text:
No products
Check out
Customise the click value of the Sidewinder ED with patented exposed, locking and interchangeable turrets.
More details
89,95 €
Add to cart
This product is not sold individually. You must select at least 1 quantity for this product.
1/10 MRAD turret clicks correspond to the Mil-Dot based reticle. 10 clicks = 1 Mil-Dot spacing.
1 click = 1/10 MRAD = 0.36" @ 100yds = 10mm @ 100m.
Each full rotation contains 30 clicks, equivalent to 3 full MRAD.
Seja o primeiro a avaliar este produto !


text:
Home /
Our Sources / About Us
/ FAQs /
Advanced Search
Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
August 3, 2009
WILLIAM ADAMSv.LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, ET AL.
William Adams brings this action against the Life Insurance Company of North America ("LINA") and the Trustees of Philadelphia Federation of Teachers a/k/a Philadelphia Federation of Teachers ("PFT"), seeking long term disability benefits under a policy of insurance administered by LINA for PFT. Defendants have filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, seeking dismissal of Plaintiff's claim. For the reasons that follow, the Motion is denied.
Plaintiff was an apprentice teacher with the Philadelphia School District beginning on September 24, 2001 at Bartram High School. (Defs. Ex. A at 1.) He worked for approximately 74 days before going on sick leave on March 1, 2002 as a result of a pre-existing back condition.*fn1 (Id.) He remained on sick leave for the remainder of the 2001-02 school year. (Id.) Plaintiff was approved to return to full duty effective September 13, 2003, but remained absent without authorization. (Id.) After a hearing, he was directed to return to work as of January 2, 2003. (Id.) He returned to work at Bartram High School as directed, on January 2, 2003, as a co-teacher of mathematics with another teacher. (Id.) On January 30, 2003, a student bumped into Plaintiff, knocking him off balance and aggravating a previous back injury. (Def. Ex. D at 1; Workers' Comp. Decision at 4.) Plaintiff did not return to work after this incident, but received Workers' Compensation benefits. (Def. Ex. A at 1, Workers' Comp. Decision at 1.) Plaintiff continued to receive Workers' Compensation benefits until February 8, 2006, when a Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") granted the School District of Philadelphia's petition to terminate his benefits. (Workers' Comp. Decision at 8.) The Workers' Compensation ALJ found that Plaintiff had "fully recovered from his January 30, 2003 work injury effective June 11, 2003" and terminated his benefits effective June 11, 2003. (Id.)
On September 6, 2001, before he began working as an apprentice teacher at Bartram High School, Plaintiff applied for Disability Insurance Benefits under the Social Security Act. (8/13/03 Soc. Sec. Admin. Decision at 1.) On August 13, 2003, a Social Security ALJ found that Plaintiff was able to "perform the demands of the full range of sedentary work" and denied Plaintiff's application for Disability Insurance Benefits because he was not disabled. (Id. at 7-9.) Plaintiff appealed this decision, which was vacated and remanded. (3/15/06 Soc. Sec. Admin. Decision at 1.) On remand, the ALJ found that Plaintiff's impairment, "degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine," was severe and that he had been disabled since May 15, 2000. (Id. at 4-5.) The ALJ further found that Plaintiff was entitled to Disability Insurance Benefits. (Id. at 5.)
Plaintiff filed his claim for long term disability ("LTD") benefits with LINA on February 23, 2006.*fn2 (Pl. Ex. B at 231.) In his claim, Plaintiff stated that the January 30, 2003 incident aggravated a pre-existing injury. (Id.) He described his injury as "herniated lumbar disk, L3, L4 and bulging disks L2-3 and L4-5. Herniation resulted from moving a wooden pallet while working for Eckerd Drugs 9/7/99. Out from school district 3/02 til 12/02, then out from school district 2/03 until present." (Id.)
PFT's LTD policy no. LK-030510 (the "Policy") became effective on June 1, 2001 and covered all active, permanent, full-time employees of PFT. (Policy at 1, 3.) Pursuant to the Policy, LINA will pay disability benefits to employees who become disabled as defined by the Policy while covered by the Policy. (Id. at 8.) In order to be eligible for benefits, an employee must be continuously disabled for 365 days. (Id. at 4, 8.) The Policy defines disability/disabled as follows:
An Employee is Disabled if, because of Injury or Sickness,
1. he or she is unable to perform all the material duties of his or her regular occupation, or solely due to Injury or Sickness, he or she is unable to earn more than 80% of his or her Indexed Covered Earnings; and
2. after Disability benefits have been payable for 24 months, he or she is unable to perform all the material duties of any occupation for which he or she may reasonably become qualified based on education, training or experience, or solely due to Injury or Sickness, he or she is unable to earn more than 80% of his or her Indexed Covered Earnings.
(Id. at 4.) The Policy excludes coverage for pre-existing conditions. (Id. at 9.)
LINA denied Plaintiff's application for LTD benefits on May 17, 2006, based on the findings of the Workers' Compensation ALJ who terminated Plaintiff's Workers' Compensation benefits. (Defs. Ex. P.) LINA specifically relied on the following findings of the Workers' Compensation ALJ:
2.b. "Dr. Meller examined Claimant on June 11, 2003. Claimant provided a history of an injury in 1999 while he was lifting items [off] a pallet while working for Eckerd Drugs. For this injury, Claimant treated with a Workers' compensation facility at the Mercy Wellness Center with Dr. Malumed, Dr. Albert, Dr. Bridges, Dr. Friedman and Dr. Salkind. An MRI showed a disc herniation at L3-4, and Claimant underwent epidural injections, one of which provided significant relief. Claimant was out of work until September 2001, when he began working for Employer. After one month, his symptoms worsened. The complaints noted in these records prior to January 30, 2003 are essentially identical to the complaints noted after January 30, 2003. The records of Dr. Salkind noted an April 2, 2000 motor vehicle accident after which claimant underwent a fourth epidural injection and began physical therapy and a medrol dosepack. Claimant failed to mention any motor vehicle accident to Dr. Meller. Surgery was being considered before January 30, 2003."
2.g. "After examining Claimant, taking his history and reviewing the multiple medical records. Dr. Meller concluded that the clinical examination was normal. Claimant has degenerative disc disease that existed prior to January 30, 2003. Claimant was fully recovered from his January 30, 2003 work injury. He may return to his pre-injury employment without restriction. Claimant needs no additional care for his January 30, 2003 work injury. . . . Any symptoms Claimant has are related to the 1999 work injury and 2000 motor vehicle accident. Claimant may perform medium duty work, and any restrictions on his vocational abilities are not related to the January 30, 2003 work injury." (Id. at 1-2.) LINA also relied on the Workers' Compensation ALJ's findings that Plaintiff's testimony about his symptoms was not credible and that Plaintiff had "fully recovered from his January 30, 2003 work injury effective June 11, 2003." (Id. at 2 ¶¶ 6.c., 8, emphasis omitted.) Plaintiff appealed LINA's decision and asked that LINA consider the decision of the Social Security ALJ granting his application for Social Security Disability Benefits on appeal. (Defs. Ex. Q.)
On December 4, 2006, LINA denied Plaintiff's appeal and affirmed the denial of his LTD claim. (Defs. Ex. R.) In its letter explaining its denial of benefits, LINA stated that Plaintiff's position as an apprentice teacher is classified by the Department of Labor as a light duty position. (Id. at 1-2.) The letter characterized the reason Plaintiff stopped working on January 31, 2003 as being due to "degenerative disc disease of his lumbar spine, neck, back and leg pain, tightness in both legs and increased muscle spasms secondary to a work related injury in 1999." (Id. at 2.) The letter also stated that a medical director employed by LINA reviewed Plaintiff's "entire medical chart, concluding that the medical information only documents subjective complaints and provides no objective findings of a functional impairment to support restrictions to preclude Mr. Adams from his regular light demand level occupation." (Id. at 3.) The letter further stated that Plaintiff was ineligible for LTD benefits because his medical records failed "to support a severity of impairment to preclude [him] from performing his regular occupation from January 31, 2003 through January 30, 2004, and to present." (Id.)
LINA later sought an Independent Peer Review of Plaintiff's file, which was completed by Dr. Renat Sukhov, who is Board Certified in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. (Defs. Ex. S at 2.) On August 17, 2007, after Dr. Sukhov's review, LINA again denied Plaintiff's claim for LTD. (Defs. Ex. S.) LINA's August 17, 2007 letter denying Plaintiff's claim summarizes Dr. Sukhov's conclusions as follows:
Dr. Sukhov reviewed the medical documentation on file in [its] entirety and advised there is a multitude of medical evidence that supports Mr. Adams [sic] ability to perform at the light functional capacity level for the time period of January 31, 2003 through January 30, 2004 and through the present time. He noted this is consistent with provisions for avoiding excessive lifting [of] more than twenty pounds frequently and pushing and pulling heavy loads above thirty to thirty-five pounds frequently.
In summary, a review of the medical information provided did not reveal a severity of Mr. Adams [sic] condition resulting in restrictions preventing light work activities throughout the Benefit Waiting Period. In addition, the restrictions outlined by Dr. Sukhov do not prevent light physical demand activities. Although Mr. Adams has a history of spinal problems, the documentation does not support a severity of his condition during the Benefit Waiting Period preventing him from performing his occupation as a Teacher. Therefore, we must affirm our previous decision to deny benefits. (Id. at 2.)
Plaintiff subsequently filed the instant lawsuit in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, alleging that Defendants improperly denied his claim for LTD benefits. Defendants properly removed the action to this Court on the basis that it is covered by the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq.
Summary judgment is appropriate "if the pleadings, discovery and the disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). An issue is "genuine" "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A factual dispute is "material" if it might affect the outcome of the case under governing law. Id.
"[A] party seeking summary judgment always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of the [record] which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Where the non-moving party bears the burden of proof on a particular issue at trial, the movant's initial Celotex burden can be met simply by "pointing out to the district court --that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case." Id. at 325. After the moving party has met its initial burden, the adverse party's response "must -- by affidavits or otherwise as provided in this rule -- set out specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2). That is, summary judgment is appropriate if the non-moving party fails to rebut by making a factual showing "sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial." Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322. "Speculation, conclusory allegations, and mere denials are insufficient to raise genuine issues of material fact." Boykins v. Lucent Techs., Inc., 78 F. Supp. 2d 402, 408 (E.D. Pa. 2000) (citations omitted). Indeed, evidence introduced to defeat or support a motion for summary judgment must be capable of being admissible at trial. See Blackburn v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 179 F.3d 81, 95 (3d Cir. 1999); Petruzzi's IGA Supermarkets, Inc. v. Darling-Delaware Co., 998 F.2d 1224, 1234 n.9 (3d Cir. 1993).
A. ERISA Standard of Review
ERISA provides that a plan participant may bring a civil action "to recover benefits due to him under the terms of his plan, to enforce his rights under the terms of the plan, or to clarify his rights to future benefits under the terms of the plan . . . ." 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B). When we evaluate a challenge to a denial of benefits in an action brought under § 1132(a)(1)(B), we utilize "a de novo standard of review, unless the plan grants discretionary authority to the administrator or fiduciary to determine eligibility for benefits or interpret the terms of the plan." Schwing v. The Lilly Health Plan, 562 F.3d 522, 525 (3d Cir. 2009) (citing Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101 (1989)). "'De novo means here, as it ordinarily does, [that] . . . the court's inquiry is not limited to or constricted by the . . . record, nor is any deference due the . . . conclusion [under review].'" Luby v. Teamsters Health, Welfare, & Pension Trust Funds, 944 F.2d 1176, 1184 (3d Cir. 1991) (quoting Doe v. United States, 821 F.2d 694, 697 (D.C. Cir. 1987)). A district court conducting a de novo review may, but is not required to, conduct an evidentiary hearing or hold a trial: "[i]f the record on review is sufficiently developed, the district court may, in its discretion, merely conduct a de novo review of the record of the administrator's decision, making its own independent benefit determination." Id. at 1185 (footnote omitted) (citing McMahan v. New England Mut. Life Ins. Co., 888 F.2d 426, 431 (6th Cir. 1989)).
Conversely, "[w]here . . . an insurance policy vests discretion in an insurance company with a dual status as administrator and payer of benefits, the Court must review the determination under an arbitrary and capricious standard." Hoch v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., Civ. A. No. 08-4805, 2009 WL 1162823, at *10 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 29, 2009) (citing Firestone, 489 U.S. at 111-12). "The 'arbitrary and capricious' standard is essentially the same as the 'abuse of discretion' standard." Abnathya v. Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc., 2 F.3d 40, 45 n.4 (3d Cir. 1993) (citations omitted). "Under the arbitrary and capricious (or abuse of discretion) standard of review, the district court may overturn a decision of the Plan administrator only if it is 'without reason, unsupported by substantial evidence or erroneous as a matter of law.'" Id. (footnote omitted) (quoting Adamo v. Anchor Hocking Corp., 720 F. Supp. 491, 500 (W.D. Pa. 1989) and citing Miller v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 925 F.2d 979, 984 (6th Cir. 1991)). LINA contends that the Policy grants it the discretion to determine eligibility for long term disability benefits and, consequently, that the arbitrary and capricious standard applies in this case.
"Whether a plan administrator's exercise of power is mandatory or discretionary depends upon the terms of the plan." Luby, 944 F.2d at 1180; see also Post v. KidsPeace Corp., 98 Fed. App'x 116, 120 (3d Cir. 2004) ("To determine the proper standard of review, we begin with the language of the plan." (citing Luby, 944 F.2d at 1180)). We construe the terms of the Policy "without deferring to either party's interpretation." Luby, 944 F.2d at 1180 (citing Firestone, 489 U.S. at 112). "There are no 'magic words' that grant discretion to the administrator -- discretion may be granted implicitly or explicitly -- however, when a plan is ambiguous, its terms are construed in favor of the insured." McKinnis v. Hartford Life, Civ. A. No. 02-3512, 2009 WL 1444429, at *3 (E.D. Pa. May 22, 2009) (citing Farina v. Temple Univ. Health Sys. Long Term Disability Plan, Civ. A. No. 08-2473, 2009 WL 1172705, at *10 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 28, 2009) and Heasley v. Belden & Blake Corp., 2 F.3d 1249, 1258 (3d Cir. 1993)).
LINA maintains that the following Policy language gives it the discretion to determine eligibility for benefits:
Satisfactory proof of Disability must be provided to the Insurance Company, at the Employee's expense, before benefits will be paid.
The Insurance Company will require continued proof of the Employee's Disability for benefits to continue. (Policy at 8.) It is unclear whether "a plan that requires an insured to submit 'satisfactory proof' to the claim administrator confers sufficient discretion upon the administrator to warrant arbitrary and capricious review . . . in the Third Circuit." Farina, 2009 WL 1172705, at *10.*fn3 "Although other circuits are split on the issue, the weight of recent authority indicates that a plan term requiring a claimant to support his claim with satisfactory proof, absent more, fails to confer discretion upon an administrator." Id.
The United States Courts of Appeals for the First, Second, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits have all considered this issue. The First, Second, Fourth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Circuits agree that a requirement that the claimant submit "satisfactory proof" of disability does not confer discretionary authority upon the administrator.*fn4 As the Tenth Circuit has explained:
Most circuits that have considered the issue have concluded that the mere requirement to submit satisfactory or adequate proof of eligibility does not confer discretion upon an administrator. To say that proof must be "satisfactory" may be to say only that it must meet some objective standard-what a reasonable person would find to be satisfactory. Construing any ambiguity in plan language in favor of the beneficiary, courts are likely to interpret the term "satisfactory" as conveying such an objective standard, without granting any deference to the factual determinations of the plan administrator.
Nance v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 294 F.3d 1263, 1267 (10th Cir. 2002) (citations omitted).
The Sixth and Eleventh Circuits, on the other hand, both hold that a requirement that the plan participant submit "satisfactory proof" of disability to the insurance company confers discretionary authority on the insurance company. See Yeager v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 88 F.3d 376, 381 (6th Cir. 1996) (stating that "[a] determination that evidence is satisfactory is a subjective judgment that requires a plan administrator to exercise his discretion"); Tippet v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 457 F.3d 1227, 1233-34 (11th Cir. 2006) (concluding that a requirement that a plan participant submit "satisfactory proof of Total Disability to [the insurer]" was sufficient to confer discretionary authority on the insurance company to determine eligibility for benefits (citing Levinson v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 245 F.3d 1321, 1324-25 (11th Cir. 2001))).
We believe that the First, Second, Fourth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits have properly determined that requiring a plan participant to submit "satisfactory proof" of disability to his or her insurance company does not unambiguously convey discretionary authority to that insurance company. Consequently, we hold that the Policy's requirement that "[s]atisfactory proof of Disability must be provided to the Insurance Company, at the Employee's expense, before benefit will be paid" does not convey to LINA discretionary authority to determine whether Plaintiff is disabled, and we will apply the de novo standard.*fn5
B. LINA's Reasons for Denying Plaintiff's LTD Claim
LINA claims that it is entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff's claim for LTD benefits under the Policy because it properly denied Plaintiff's claim.*fn6 Defendants argue that Plaintiff is not entitled to LTD benefits under the Policy for the following reasons: 1) he was not disabled as a result of a covered injury or illness; 2) he did not satisfy the Policy's waiting period; 3) he failed to submit satisfactory proof that he was unable to perform the material duties of his occupation; and 4) his disability resulted from a pre-existing condition. We examine each of these arguments in turn.
1. Covered Injury or Illness
Defendants argue that they are entitled to the entry of summary judgment in their favor because Plaintiff's disability is not covered by the Policy. According to the Policy, an Employee is "Disabled if, because of Injury or Sickness . . . he or she is unable to perform all the material duties of his or her regular occupation . . . ." (Policy at 4.) The Policy defines Injury as "[a]ny accidental loss or bodily harm which results directly and independently of all other causes from an Accident." (Id. at 19.) The Policy defines Sickness as "[a]ny physical or mental illness." (Id. at 20.) Defendants argue that Plaintiff was not disabled due to an Injury or Sickness because, as Plaintiff has conceded, his disability resulted from an intentional assault, not an accident. Defendants rely on Plaintiff's Proof of Loss form, which Plaintiff signed on March 26, 2006, and which describes the cause of Plaintiff's injury as "assault from student." (Defs. Ex. D.)
Plaintiff maintains that his claim cannot be denied on this basis, because the Summary Plan Description ("SPD") for the PFT's LTD Plan does not define "Disability" and, therefore, does not notify plan participants that covered disabilities must result from accidents or sickness. Plaintiff contends that the SPD thus conflicts with the Policy as to the definition of Disability and the LTD Plan must, therefore, cover disabilities arising from any cause except for those causes specifically excluded in the SPD. Plaintiff is, however, attempting to create a conflict where none exists.
It is true that, "where a summary plan description conflicts with the plan language, it is the summary plan description that will control." Burstein v. Ret. Account Plan for Employees of Allegheny Health Educ. & Research Found., 334 F.3d 365, 378 (3d Cir. 2003). However, "the mere absence of terms in the SPD does not necessarily create a conflict. To equate silence with conflict would reduce any . . . plan to the specific terms contained in the summary plan description -- an absurd result since by its own definition the summary plan description is meant to summarize, not recite, the detailed . . . plan." Nash v. Mercedes Benz USA, 489 F. Supp. 2d 411, 416 (D.N.J. 2007) (citations omitted). Consequently, the mere absence of a definition for the word "disability" in the SPD is not equivalent to the creation of a conflict between the SPD and the Policy, the more detailed document that contains the definitions of terms used to describe the Plan. As there is no conflict between the SPD and the Policy as to this matter, we turn to the definition of "Injury" contained in the Policy and consider whether the cause of Plaintiff's injury could fall within that definition.
As mentioned above, the Policy defines Injury as "[a]ny accidental loss or bodily harm which results directly and independently of all other causes from an Accident."*fn7 (Id. 19.) The Policy does not define "Accident" and does not specifically exclude disabilities resulting from assaults. (See Policy at 13-14.) Consequently, we find that the Policy's definition of "Injury" is ambiguous and this term must be construed in favor of the Plaintiff. See McKinnis, 2009 WL 1444429, at *3. Black's Law Dictionary defines "accident" as "[a]n unintended and unforeseen injurious occurrence; something that does not occur in the usual course of events or that could not be reasonably anticipated." Black's Law Dictionary 15 (7th ed. 1999).
Plaintiff's Proof of Loss form contains no information that would allow us to discern what happened on January 30, 2003. However, the record before us contains two descriptions of the events leading to Plaintiff's January 30, 2003 injury. First, on August 16, 2004, Plaintiff testified as to the cause of his injury in his Workers' Compensation proceeding, which the Workers' Compensation ALJ summarized as follows:
On January 30, 2003, Claimant was conducting a classroom himself because the main teacher had taken the day off. He was having a student escorted out of the classroom for being disruptive, when the student walked into Claimant, knocking him off balance. Claimant pushed the student with his left hand, and the student stumbled and walked back toward him. (Workers' Comp. Decision at 4.) Second, an Incident Follow-Up Report prepared by Bartram High School Police Officer Darius Parker states that Plaintiff called for assistance with removing a student who was acting disruptively inside the classroom. (Pl. Ex. B at 496.) The student exited the classroom and then reentered, "bumping the teacher forcefully and making physical threats." (Id.) Viewing the record in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, and construing the Policy's use of the word "accident" in Plaintiff's favor, we find that the student's actions (walking into Plaintiff, bumping him, knocking him off balance, and stumbling) could be characterized as "unintended and unforeseen[,]" not occurring "in the usual course of events[,]" and of the type that Plaintiff would not reasonably anticipate. Consequently, we find that there is evidence showing that Plaintiff's January 30, 2003 injury was accidental and, therefore, covered by the LTD Plan and we conclude that there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Plaintiff's disability was caused by an "Injury" as that term is defined by the Policy. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is, accordingly, denied as to their argument that Plaintiff was not disabled as a result of a covered Injury or Illness.
2. Covered Waiting Period
Defendants also argue that they are entitled to the entry of summary judgment in their favor because Plaintiff has not satisfied a condition precedent to entitlement to benefits. The Policy includes a Benefit Waiting Period of 365 days, meaning that "an Employee must be continuously Disabled" for 365 days "before Disability Benefits may be payable." (Policy at 4, 8.) Defendants maintain that Plaintiff has not satisfied this condition because he was not continuously disabled for 365 days following his January 30, 2003 injury. Defendants rely on the finding of the Workers' Compensation ALJ that Plaintiff had fully recovered from the January 30, 2003 injury by June 11, 2003. (Workers' Comp. Decision at 8.) Defendants further rely on the evaluations prepared by one of Plaintiff's treating physicians, Dr. Michael E. Frey, who cleared Plaintiff for light duty work in both April and July 2003. (Defs. Ex. F, G.)
The Workers' Compensation ALJ based her determination that Plaintiff had "fully recovered from his January 30, 2003 work injury effective June 11, 2003" primarily on the deposition of Dr. Menachem M. Meller, an orthopedic surgeon who examined Plaintiff on January 11, 2003. (Workers' Comp. Decision at 1-3, 6-7, 8.) The Workers' Compensation ALJ summarized Dr. Meller's testimony, in relevant part, as follows:
After examining Claimant, taking his history and reviewing the multiple medical records, Dr. Meller concluded that the clinical examination was normal. Claimant has degenerative disc disease that existed prior to January 30, 2003. Claimant was fully recovered from his January 30, 2003 work injury. He may return to his pre-injury employment without restriction. Claimant needs no additional care for his January 30, 2003 work injury. . . . Any symptoms Claimant has are related to the 1999 work injury and 2000 motor vehicle accident. Claimant may perform medium duty work and any restrictions on his vocational abilities are not related to the January 30, 2003 work injury. (Id. at 3.) Dr. Meller's deposition has not been made a part of the record of this Motion, and we are thus unable to review it and draw our own conclusions from it.
Plaintiff's job as a high school teacher was classified as light duty. (Defs. Ex. C.) Dr. Frey examined Plaintiff at the University of Pennsylvania Health System Spine Center on April 29, 2003. (Defs. Ex. F.) He found that Plaintiff was capable of only light duty work. (Id.) Dr. Frey examined Plaintiff again on July 22, 2003. (Defs. Ex. G.) He recommended that Plaintiff go on light duty work. (Id.) We find that this evidence supports Defendants' argument that Plaintiff was capable of performing his job, which was classified as light duty, within 365 days of his January 30, 2003 injury.
Nevertheless, the record also contains evidence that Plaintiff was unable to perform all of the physical requirements of his job for the 365 days following his January 30, 2003 injury. Plaintiff's job as a high school teacher includes the following physical requirements: "Lifting, Carrying, Pushing, Pulling 20 Lbs. occasionally, frequently up to 10 Lbs., or negligible amount constantly. Can include walking and or standing frequently even though weight is negligible. Can include pushing and or pulling of arm and or leg controls." (Defs. Ex. C.) The record before us contains evidence that Plaintiff's treating physicians, including Dr. Frey, considered him to be unable to satisfy the lifting, carrying, and standing requirements of his job, and otherwise physically unable to perform his job, during the year following his injury. There is also medical evidence on the record of this Motion that supports those opinions.
Dr. Frey prepared a progress report for Plaintiff on April 18, 2003 stating that Plaintiff complained of severe lumbosacral junction pain, that his pain was exacerbated by sitting or standing for more than one hour, and that Plaintiff should remain off work. (Pl. Ex. B at 46.) Dr. Frey wrote a note for Plaintiff on April 18, 2003, stating that he was unable to sit for more than one hour and should not return to work due to back pain. (Id. at 1147.) On May 20, 2003, Dr. Frey reevaluated Plaintiff based on a new MRI. (Id. at 44.) The MRI, dated May 10, 2003, demonstrated "spondylitic changes of the lumbar spine" as well as "disc desiccation at L3-4 with 0-25% loss of disc height at L3-4." (Id.) Dr. Frey diagnosed Plaintiff with "lumbar discogenic pain with somatic referral[,]" as well as "internal disc disruption syndrome with a positive concordant discography at L3-4." (Id.) Dr. Frey wrote another note for Plaintiff on May 20, 2003, stating that Plaintiff needed additional tests and "should be off work until further notice." (Id. at 1142.) Dr. Frey evaluated Plaintiff again on September 29, 2003 and diagnosed him with "internal disc disruption syndrome with somatic referral" and with "soft tissue tightness and deconditioning." (Id. at 29.)
Plaintiff was also treated by Dr. Curtis Slipman, Director of the Penn Spine Center. On June 9, 2003, Dr. Slipman prepared a report on a lumbar discogram performed on Plaintiff on June 5, 2003. (Id. at 36, 43.) The discogram revealed that Plaintiff had a ruptured disc at L4-5 that "produced discordant bilateral low back pain that was higher than his normal low back pain." (Id.) This was a new finding, as a previous discogram on September 18, 2002, was concordant at L3-4 and discordant at L5-S1. (Id. at 36.) Plaintiff subsequently had a 5-level lumbar discography on September 3, 2003. (Id. at 27.) According to Dr. Slipman, the September 3, 2003 discography revealed that Plaintiff had a lobular disc at T12-L1, a lobular disc at L1-2, a fissured disc that produced low back pain at L2-3, and a ruptured disc which produced bilateral lumbosacral junction pain at L3-4. (Id.) On November 18, 2003, Dr. Slipman completed a "Statement of Claimant's Ability to Perform Work-Related Physical Activities" for Plaintiff that stated that Plaintiff could stand and walk for two to less than six hours, could never stoop, kneel, crouch, or crawl, could never move machinery, and could never lift 20 pounds or more. (Id. at 1234-35.)
Plaintiff was also treated by Dr. William Murphy at S.M.A.R.T. Rehabilitation. Dr. Murphy examined Plaintiff on September 11, 2003. (Id. at 23-25.) Plaintiff complained of "low back pain with radiating pain into both lower extremities . . . [and] a sensation of stiffness in his lumbar area." (Id. at 23.) Plaintiff's pain was exacerbated by prolonged standing or attempting to bend, lift, climb, push, pull or carry. (Id.) Dr. Murphy concluded that the January 30, 2003 incident aggravated Plaintiff's "pre-existing lumbar disc disease with clinical evidence of lumbar radiculopathy" and noted that he continued to be symptomatic. (Id. at 24.) Dr. Murphy recommended that Plaintiff avoid repetitive bending at the waist, repetitive stooping, kneeling, crawling or climbing, prolonged sitting (greater than 30 minutes) or standing longer than 15 minutes. (Id.) Dr. Murphy also reached the opinion that Plaintiff remained "disabled from all employment" and that he had a poor prognosis for recovery. (Id. at 25.) Dr. Murphy saw Plaintiff again on October 2, 2003 and October 15, 2003. (Id. at 14, 20.) On October 15, 2003, Dr. Murphy conducted nerve conduction studies of both of Plaintiff's lower extremities and a monopolar needle electromyography examination of Plaintiff's lumbar spine and lower extremities. (Id. at 14.) Dr. Murphy found "left L4-5 radiculopathy, right L4-5 nerve root irritation, moderate subacute to chronic." (Id.) Dr. Murphy further found, after both visits, that Plaintiff remained disabled from his previous employment. (Id. at 14, 20.) Plaintiff underwent intradiscal electrothermal annulplasty ("IDET") procedures on October 23 and November 14, 2003. (Id. at 9, 22.) Neither procedure provided much relief of his pain. (Id. at 6, 8.) Dr. Murphy consistently found that Plaintiff was totally disabled from all employment after examining Plaintiff on November 13, 2003, December 18, 2003, and January 22, 2004. (Id. at 6, 8, 1078.)
Plaintiff was evaluated by Dr. Philip Tasca of the Spine Center on December 12, 2003. Dr. Tasca reported that Plaintiff's pain had decreased after his second IDET procedure, as long as he wore a brace, but that he still had pain in his midline low back, his entire left thigh, and his bilateral posterior calves. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff's pain was exacerbated if he stood for more than 5 minutes or sat for more than 20 minutes. (Id.) On January 22, 2004, Plaintiff was reevaluated by Dr. Tasca, who reported that Plaintiff had stopped wearing his brace and that his pain had increased. (Id. at 1.) Dr. Tasca stated that Plaintiff had pain in his "bilateral low back, bilateral buttocks, right anterolateral and posterior foreleg, as well as his left lateral thigh and left foot." (Id.) Plaintiff also had numbness in his toes. (Id.)
As discussed above, we find that there is evidence on the record of this Motion that Dr. Frey considered Plaintiff to be capable of light duty work in the spring and summer of 2003. There is also evidence that Plaintiff's other treating physicians believed that he was totally disabled from his job as a high school teacher at Bartram High School for the 365 day period following his January 30, 2003 injury. The documentation of Plaintiff's treatments, test results, and reported symptoms support those findings. We conclude that there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Plaintiff satisfied the Policy's Benefit Waiting Period of 365 days. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is, accordingly, denied as to their argument that Plaintiff failed to establish that he was continuously disabled for 365 days following his January 30, 2003 injury.
3. Plaintiff's Ability to Perform the Material Duties of His Occupation
Defendants also argue that they are entitled to the entry of summary judgment in their favor because Plaintiff has not established that he is unable to perform the material duties of his job. The Policy requires a Plan participant to provide "satisfactory proof" that he or she is unable to "perform all the material duties of his or her regular occupation" due to Injury or Sickness in order to receive LTD benefits. (Policy at 4, 8.) Defendants argue that the evidence on the record of this Motion establishes that Plaintiff was able to perform the physical tasks required by his position as a high school teacher, which include: "Lifting, Carrying, Pushing, Pulling 20 Lbs. occasionally, frequently up to 10 Lbs., or negligible amount constantly . . . walking and or standing frequently . . . pushing and or pulling of arm and or leg controls." (Defs. Ex. C.)
Defendants rely on Dr. Murphy's testimony in connection with Plaintiff's Workers' Compensation proceeding as supporting its contention that Plaintiff could perform these duties. In that proceeding, Dr. Murphy was asked to compare discograms performed in September 2002 and September 2003. (Murphy Dep. at 15-16.) Dr. Murphy reported that both studies found "abnormalities at the lumbar disc L3-4 and L4-5 identifying a tear in the disc material known as radial tears and those are considered disc disruptions." (Id. at 16.) Dr. Murphy reported that there was no "significant interval change" between the two discograms. (Id.) We find that this testimony does not support Defendants' argument that Plaintiff could perform the physical requirements of his job after January 30, 2003.
Defendants also rely on an independent medical review of Plaintiff's medical records performed by Dr. Sukhov at LINA's request on August 8, 2007. Dr. Sukhov summarized Plaintiff's medical records as reflecting: medical advice from the group of academic interventional physiatrists on the potential functional abilities of this claimant to sustain light duty level work with restrictions to not to [sic] lift more than 20 lbs of weight. Hence, reasonable restrictions and limitations for the claimant's diagnosis of chronic low back pain would include provisions for avoiding excessive lifting for [sic] more than 20 lbs frequently and pushing and pulling heavy loads above 30-35 lbs frequently. Static work posture, particular [sic] sitting behind a wheel or at a desk, may also be considered to be a risk factor.
(Defs. Ex. N at 5.) Dr. Sukhov concluded that "there is a multitude of medical evidence that supports the claimant's ability to perform at the light functional capacity level for the time period of 01/31/03 - 01/31/04 and through the present time. This would be consistent with provisions for avoiding excessive lifting for [sic] more than 20 lbs frequently and pushing and pulling heavy loads above 30-35 lbs frequently." (Id. at 5-6.) We find that Dr. Sukhov's review of Plaintiffs' medical records does provide support for Defendants' argument.
However, there is also evidence on the record before us that was submitted to LINA that supports Plaintiff's position that he could not satisfy the physical requirements of the job of high school teacher. The Social Security ALJ concluded from her review of Plaintiff's medical files that he could not perform his past relevant work as a result of the following functional limitations:
He could walk less than one block without rest. He could sit for 10-15 minutes and stand for 5-10 minutes. In an 8-hour work day, he could sit about 4 hours and stand less than 2 hours. He needs periods of walking around. He must get up to walk 4-5 times during the day and walk for 1-5 minutes. He must be able to shift positions at will from sitting, standing or walking. The claimant would need to take unscheduled breaks during an 8-hour workday. This would occur 1-2 times a day, and he would need to rest for 5-10 minutes. The claimant requires the use of a cane for occasional standing/walking. He can occasionally lift/carry 10 pounds. The claimant has significant limitations in doing repetitive reaching. He can use his hands 75% of the day for grasping, turning, and twisting objects. He can use his fingers for fine manipulation 100% of the day. The claimant cannot do any overhead reaching with his arms. He can bend and/or twist at the waist 10% of the day. . . . (3/15/06 Soc. Sec. Admin. Decision at 3.) The evaluations performed by Plaintiff's treating physicians also support his claim that he cannot perform the physical requirements of the job of high school teacher. Dr. Slipman found in November 2003 that Plaintiff could stand and walk for two to less than six hours, could never stoop, kneel, crouch, or crawl, could never move machinery, and could never lift 20 pounds or more. (Id. at 1234-35.) Dr. Murphy determined in September 2003 that Plaintiff should not stand for longer than 15 minutes (id. at 24), and Dr. Tasca concluded in December 2003 that Plaintiff could not stand for longer than five minutes without exacerbating his pain. (Id. at 3.) In December 2005, Dr. Murphy found that Plaintiff could lift and carry less than ten pounds occasionally, and could never lift and carry more than ten pounds. (Id. at 1052.) Dr. Slipman and Dr. Murphy both prepared physical capacity questionnaires for Plaintiff in April 2006. (Id. at 1380-84.) Dr. Slipman found that Plaintiff was able to stand and walk occasionally (less than 2.5 hours a day), lift an object of up to 10 pounds frequently, and carry an object of up to 10 pounds occasionally. (Id. at 1380.) Dr. Murphy found that Plaintiff could sit, stand, walk, or reach occasionally and lift and carry objects of up to 10 pounds occasionally. (Id. at 1383.) Dr. Murphy stated on his questionnaire that "Patient is permanently disabled from all employment." (Id. at 1384.)
In addition, as discussed previously, Dr. Frey wrote Plaintiff notes stating that he was unable to return to work on April 18, 2003 and May 20, 2003. (Defs. Ex. F, G.) Moreover, Dr. Murphy examined Plaintiff on September 11, 2003, and reported that he was disabled from all employment with a poor prognosis for full recovery. (Pl. Ex. B at 23-25.) Dr. Murphy maintained that finding in follow-up reports after examinations of Plaintiff on October 2 and 15, 2003, November 13, 2003, December 18, 2003, and January 22, 2004. (Id. at 6, 8, 14, 20, 1078.) His opinion as to Plaintiff's disability was unchanged after an examination on February 19, 2004. (Id. at 1077.) Dr. Murphy examined Plaintiff again on March 25, 2004 and found that he remained "disabled from all employment until further notice." (Id. at 1076.) Dr. Murphy found that Plaintiff's disability status continued, unchanged, after examinations on June 3, 2004, July 1, 2004, July 29, 2004, and August 26, 2004. (Id. at 1070-72, 1074.) Dr. Murphy examined Plaintiff again on September 24, 2004 and reported that his disability status was unchanged and that "[h]is prognosis for full recovery and return to gainful employment is poor." (Id. at 1069.) After examining Plaintiff on October 21, 2004, Dr. Murphy reported his opinion that Plaintiff "is totally and permanently disabled from all employment." (Id. at 1068.) Dr. Murphy examined Plaintiff on November 18, 2004 and December 27, 2004 and found that he remained disabled from all employment. (Id. at 1066-67.) Dr. Murphy's examination reports dated January 21, 2005, February 22, 2005, March 22, 2005, and April 25, 2005, all repeat that finding. (Id. at 1062-65.) Dr. Murphy again reported that Plaintiff remained disabled from all employment after examining him on May 24, 2005, and opined that "[t]his disability is permanent." (Id. at 1061.) Dr. Murphy repeated that finding after examining Plaintiff on June 23, 2005 and July 20, 2005 (Id. at 1059-60.) Dr. Murphy again reported that Plaintiff remained disabled from all employment after examining Plaintiff on August 16, 2005 and September 12, 2005, and maintained that finding following examinations of Plaintiff on October 13, 2005, and November 8, 2005. (Id. at 1055-58.)
We find that there is some evidence on the record of this Motion that supports Defendants' claim that Plaintiff was capable of performing the principal physical requirements of his job following his January 30, 2003 injury. We further find that Plaintiff submitted medical records to LINA that support his claim that he was not physically capable of performing the principal physical requirements of his job following his January 30, 2003 injury. We conclude, accordingly, that there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Plaintiff was disabled as defined by the Policy following the January 30, 2003 incident. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is, therefore, denied as to their argument that Plaintiff failed to establish that he was unable to "perform all the material duties of his or her regular occupation" as required by the Policy.
4. Pre-Existing Condition
Defendants further contend that they are entitled to the entry of summary judgment in their favor because Plaintiff's disability resulted from a pre-existing condition that is not covered by the Policy. The Policy contains the following Pre-Existing Condition Limitation:
The Insurance Company will not pay Disability Benefits for any period of Disability caused by or contributed to by, or resulting from, a Pre-Existing Condition. A "pre-existing condition" means any Injury or Sickness for which the Employee received medical advice or treatment within 3 months before his or her most recent effective date of insurance.
The Pre-Existing Condition Limitation will apply to any added benefits or increases in benefits. It will not apply to a period of Disability that begins after an Employee has been insured for 12 months under the Policy and the period of Disability begins at least 12 months after his or her most recent effective date of insurance or the effective date of any added or increased benefits. (Policy at 9.) Plaintiff's effective date of insurance was September 24, 2001, the date he began his employment with PFT. (Policy at 4, 7; Defs. Ex. A at 1.) Defendants maintain that Plaintiff is not entitled to LTD benefits because he was treated for his pre-existing back condition during the three months prior to the commencement of his employment.
There is evidence on the record of this Motion that Plaintiff had a pre-existing back injury that caused pain in his back and legs prior to his employment with PFT. Plaintiff suffered a back injury on September 9, 1999 when he was moving a wooden pallet while working as a store manager for Eckerd Drugs. (Pl. Ex. B at 982, 1266.) A January 7, 2000 MRI revealed a small left lateral disc herniation at the L3-4 level that effaced the left L3 nerve root lateral to the foramen and within the foramen. (Id. at 138, 1363.) He received medical treatment for his injury and was doing well until he was involved in a car accident on April 2, 2000. (Id. at 1250.) His back pain increased after this accident and his pain spread to his legs. (Id. at 1250, 1266-67.) A CT scan performed on August 8, 2000 showed a left far lateral disc herniation displacing the exiting nerve root at L3-4 and a broad based disc protrusion at L4-5. (Id. at 1268.) There is also evidence on the record that Plaintiff was treated for this back injury by Dr. Albert of the Rothman Institute between February 2000 and October 2001 and by Dr. Mitchell Freedman of the Rothman Institute between March 2000 and July 11, 2001 (Dr. Freedman prescribed neurontin for Plaintiff's back condition on June 20, 2001 and July 16, 2001). (Defs. Exs. J, K.) There is also evidence that Plaintiff received pain management treatment at the Jefferson Hospital Pain Center, including biofeedback, between March 11, 2001 and August 29, 2001. (Defs. Ex. K.) We find, accordingly, that there is evidence on the record of this Motion that Plaintiff received treatment for his pre-existing back condition within the three months immediately prior to the effective date of his insurance under the Policy.
Plaintiff's application for LTD benefits arises, however, from a period of disability that began on January 30, 2003, sixteen months after his effective date of insurance. (Defs. Ex. D.) The Policy's Pre-Existing Condition Limitation does not apply to "a period of Disability that begins after an Employee has been insured for 12 months under the Policy." (Policy at 9.) We conclude, accordingly, that the Policy's Pre-Existing Condition Limitation does not apply to Plaintiff's injuries resulting from the January 30, 2003 incident. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is, consequently, denied as to their argument that Plaintiff's disability resulted from a pre-existing condition that falls within the Pre-Existing Condition Limitation of the Policy.
For the reasons stated above, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is denied. An appropriate Order follows.
John R. Padova, J.
Our website includes the main text of the court's opinion but does not include the
docket number, case citation or footnotes. Upon purchase, docket numbers and/or
citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a legal proceeding.
Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
LRC, Inc. About Us


text:
- Description
- Specification
- Reviews
- Delivery
- Returns
Features & Benefits
Manufactured from tough, medium density UV stabilised polyethylene.
Hinged lid - protects grit / salt from the elements.
Supplied with moulded-in permanent "grit" graphic.
Will not discolour or deteriorate through long term exposure to the elements.
Colour Yellow - held in stock
Fitted with 1 x hasp & staple
External Dimensions: 720 (W) mm x 750 (d) mm x 710 (h) mm
Capacity 7 cu.ft or 200 litres
Weight 14kg
Feature Value Brand Excelsior Ltd Grit Bin Size 200L Dimensions (L) x (W) x (H) 720 mm x 750 mm x 710mm Colour/Finish Yellow Material Medium Density Polyethylene
Ask an Expert
Customer Questions & answers about the Yellow Premium Grit Bin 200L answered by our expert team.
Ask A Question
Have a question?
You can submit a question to get further information on the Yellow Premium Grit Bin 200L.
Your question may be made public or private. If you select public it may appear on this page along with the answer to help support others. Please make sure you enter a vaild email address so that we can get back to you.


text:
Your Pregnancy Quick Guide: Women of Color
What You Need to Know About Pregnancy and Childbirth If You're of African, Latin, Asian, Native American, Middle Eastern or Mediterranean Descent
By (author) Glade B. Dr. Curtis Judith Schuler
Format: Paperback
Normal Price: $12.99
Your Price: $11.69 AUD, inc. GST
Shipping: $7.95 per order
You Save: $1.30! (10% off normal price)
Plus...earn $0.58 in Boomerang Bucks
Availability: Available to Backorder, No Due Date for Supply
Your Pregnancy Quick Guide: Women of Color by Glade B. Dr. Curtis
Book DescriptionBy the best-selling authors of the Your Pregnancy series, medically sound and succinct information for the woman who needs detailed information on a specific concern --The facts about the frequency of sickle-cell disease, multiples, Tay-Sachs, thalassemia, preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, and hypertension during pregnancy in women of color -- Explanations of how these conditions are tested for, diagnosed, and monitored throughout pregnancy -- Information on premature birth and how you can protect yourself --Suggestions for staying healthy throughout pregnancy, including detailed information on diet and exercise.
Buy Your Pregnancy Quick Guide: Women of Color book by Glade B. Dr. Curtis from Australia's Online Bookstore, Boomerang Books.
Book DetailsISBN: 9780738210605
(178mm x 127mm x 11mm)
Pages: 208
Imprint: Perseus Books
Publisher: The Perseus Books Group
Publish Date: 1-Jun-2006
Country of Publication: United States
Books By Author Glade B. Dr. Curtis
Su Embarazo Semana a Semana, Paperback (July 2013)
A Spanish-language translation of the bestselling, doctor-authored pregnancy guide
Your Pregnancy After 35, Paperback (March 2013)
The fully revised and updated edition of "Your Pregnancy after 35"
Your Baby's First Year Week by Week, Paperback (February 2010)» View all books by Glade B. Dr. Curtis
The new edition of a classic that parents love and trust, by the authors of Your Pregnancy(TM) Week by Week, with millions of copies sold
» Have you read this book? We'd like to know what you think about it - write a review about Your Pregnancy Quick Guide: Women of Color book by Glade B. Dr. Curtis and you'll earn 50c in Boomerang Bucks loyalty dollars (you must be a member - it's free to sign up!)
Author Biography - Glade B. Dr. Curtis
Glade B. Curtis, M.D., M.P.H., is board-certified by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the father of five. He lives in Utah. Judith Schuler, M.S., has worked and cowritten books with Dr. Curtis for more than twenty years. Ms. Schuler divides her time between homes in Wyoming and Arizona.
Facebook Page | Twitter | Google+ | Bulletin e-Newsletter | Blog | RSS
Become a Member | Book Lists | Recently Released | Coming Soon | Fast Delivery Books
Bestselling Books: Our Current Bestsellers | Australia's Hottest 1000 Books | Bestselling Fiction | Bestselling Crime Mysteries and Thrillers | Bestselling Non Fiction Books | Bestselling Sport Books | Bestselling Gardening and Handicrafts Books | Bestselling Biographies | Bestselling Food and Drink | Bestselling History | Bestselling Travel Books | Bestselling School Textbooks & Study Guides | Bestselling Children's General Non-Fiction | Bestselling Young Adult Fiction | Bestselling Children's Fiction | Bestselling Picture Books | Top 100 US Bestsellers
For: Schools | Organisations | Libraries | Publishers | Authors | Book Clubs | Bloggers | Affiliates
About Us | Contact Us | Help Desk | Security | Privacy | Terms of Use | Copyright
Phone: 1300 36 33 32 (9am-2pm Mon-Fri AEST) - International: +61 2 9960 7998 - Online Form
Address: Boomerang Books, 878 Military Road, Mosman Junction, NSW, 2088
© 2003-2016. All Rights Reserved. Eclipse Commerce Pty Ltd - ACN: 122 110 687 - ABN: 49 122 110 687
For every $20 you spend on books, you will receive $1 in Boomerang Bucks loyalty dollars. You can use your Boomerang Bucks as a credit towards a future purchase from Boomerang Books. Note that you must be a Member (free to sign up) and that conditions do apply.


text:
Tuna Cheese Melts
Total Time
Prep 10 mins
Cook 15 mins
From Weeknight Cooking Made Easy 2007.
Ingredients Nutrition
- 1⁄2 cup sour cream
- 1⁄2 teaspoon garlic salt
- 8 slices light rye bread
- 1 (6 ounce) can tuna, drained and flaked
- 2 tablespoons mayonnaise
- 4 slices American cheese
- 4 tablespoons butter, divided
- Combine sour cream and garlic salt and spread on one side of each slice of bread.
- In another bowl, combine the tuna and mayo and spread on four slices of bread.
- Top with cheese and the remaining slice of bread.
- Melt 2 tablespoons of butter in a large skillet over medium heat and add two sandwiches at a time.
- Lightly brown both sides of bread until cheese is melted.


text:
Bachelor degrees from accredited colleges and universities can be important stepping-stones toward a successful career.The most common type of undergraduate program is a bachelor's degree, usually awarded after four years of successful study
A business economics program teaches students the basics of supply and demand, scarcity, trade, and other economic concepts. After completing the program, students will be able to apply these concepts in a corporate setting.
Australia has the third largest number of foreign students in the world despite having a community of only 23 million. These are strong academic credentials, but Australian institutions are just as highly ranked as the cities that house them around the native land.
Victoria has eight universities and various government-run institutions that facilitate technical and further education. In addition, there is a state Library which is good for researchers undertaking higher education in the area.
Request Information Part time Bachelor Degrees in Business Economics in Victoria in Australia 2017
Learn how to build a brand customers love with an online marketing degree from Swinburne. Taught by experienced industry professionals, the Bachelor of Business (Marketing) gives you an understanding of contemporary marketing principles, and equips you with the skills needed to market products and services in today's economy. [+]
Great business leaders aren't born – they are made. With a Bachelor of Business (Management) degree from Swinburne you will develop the skills you need to successfully lead teams in a broad range of organisations. [+]


text:
Search Results for:
LPGA's 2016 in review
Lydia Ko remained No. 1, Inbee Park won gold and Americans only won twice. That's hardly a snippet of the drama that unfolded.
Feng (66) not thinking about three wins in a row
Hear from Shanshan Feng after her opening round at the CME Group Tour Championship.
Feng (66) leads loaded leaderboard at CME
Shanshan Feng leads the season-ending CME Group Championship by one. Here's where things stand through 18 holes in Naples, Fla.
Ko fires 10-under 62, leads CME by three
World No. 1 Lydia Ko fired a course-record 10-under 62 Friday and leads the CME Group Tour Championship by three shots.
Feng (66): 'My putting was really good'
Shanshan Feng comments on her 6-under 66 Thursday at the CME Group Tour Championship.
Prudential Up to the Challenge: S. Feng at Tiburon
See why Shanshan Feng was up to the challenge at Tiburon Golf Club during Thursday play at the CME Group Tour Championship.
Hot streak continues: Feng keeps rolling at CME
Catch the action from the opening round of the CME Group Tour Championship.
On a roll: Feng continues hot play at LPGA finale
Judy Rankin and Terry Gannon recap opening-round play at the CME Group Tour Championship.
Feng's 'Money' secret: Believe in herself
Shanshan Feng's nickname is 'Jenny Money,' but the LPGA star from China had lost her confidence. She's got it back now, and she's leading the CME Group Tour Championship.
Take your pick: Ko or Jutanugarn at CME Group?
Paige Mackenzie, Damon Hack, and Lauren Thompson review the players to watch to win the 2016 Race to the CME Globe.


text:
Minutes into the vice president's speech at the Boston marathon bombing memorial on Tuesday, Joe Biden Joe Bidened a line in a manner that was quickly picked up by some who might not particularly care for the man. Speaking to a crowd of Boston bombing survivors, Biden said "it was worth it" to come to Boston and see how the attack's victims have "survived" and "soared." Although this moment of his speech was met with applause from the audience (who probably assumed the vice president was not insinuating he was happy about their suffering) the awkward phrasing of the sentiment caught the attention of some:
Traitor #BIDEN just said "IT WAS WORTH IT" Ignoring a terrorism report and murdering Americans WAS WORTH IT #BostonStrong #OBAMA #MCFAUL — Stick (@WalkingstickMtn) April 15, 2014
VP Biden just told Boston bombing survivors: "It was worth it" — RickLeventhalFoxNews (@RickLeventhal) April 15, 2014
Uncle Joe chewing leather again RT @RickLeventhal VP Biden just told Boston bombing survivors: "It was worth it" — Sandy (@RightGlockMom) April 15, 2014
@FL_Chelle @DebWilliams57 @RickLeventhal AS ALWAYS UNCLE JOE SPEWING STUPIDITY SENILITY TAKING OVER SAME AS MC CAIN/HARRY REID/NANCY PELOSI+ — O=Magnificent Idiot (@FearlessNBOLD) April 15, 2014
"It(Boston Bombings) was worth it to hear you(survivor speakers) speak."-Joe Biden 10 minutes ago in Boston. SMH Joe! 😮😮😐 — Cummerow (@BobbyCummerow) April 15, 2014
If Biden said the bombings were worth it to hear the survivors speak..... #nowords — Marissa (@builtmybusiness) April 15, 2014
We, like most viewers of the speech, assumed Biden was (poorly) talking about coming to the event, rather than the bombings themselves. Despite getting flagged by a Fox News reporter, the quote didn't even make it into the news channel's write-up of the tribute.
Update: in case you were wondering, here's the full quote:
RELATED: The Moral Subjectivity of the World, Mapped
"Let me say to those quote 'survivors' [who spoke previously]. My God you have survived and you have soared. It was worth it, I mean it sincerely, just to hear you speak. You are truly, truly inspiring. I have never heard anything so beautiful."
This article was originally published at http://www.thewire.com/politics/2014/04/joe-biden-totally-joe-bidened-a-line-in-his-boston-memorial-speech/360697/
Read more from The Wire
• World Net Daily Has Some Great Theories About What the Blood Moon 'Tetrad' Means for Politics
• #FreeJahar Fades Away: The Tsarnaevs Go the Way of the Jonas Brothers


text: Sanded Mercury Cylinder Votive Holder $12.00 Style No. 39638374 Qty: Color: * Select Color Silver Size: * Select Size One Size Add to Basket Pick up In-Store » Add to Favorites » Share on Facebook Pin on Pinterest Email a Friend » Details Reviews A rustic, sanded mercury finish catches the light from within this glass votive holder. - Glass - Indoor use only - Imported 3.8"H, 3.6"D, 3" diameter


text:
Skip to Content
The World's Greatest Music
Email the show or Text 61812
Turnip the volume for the vegetable orchestra! Take a look at these musicians who've bid farewell to their flutes and violins in favour of carrots and courgettes.
Picture 1 of 20
The Vienna Vegetable Orchestra (or, Das erste Wiener Gemüseorchester) is the first orchestra of its kind, founded in 1998. Since then, a number of vegetable orchestras have sprouted throughout the world for impromptu concerts and events.
Powered by Facebook


text:
Before the Shoot :
Last day of shooting tooday ... it's not fair ! lol. Got a solo shoot on a boat house so hoping to do it right near the glass windows ! Now that would be extra naughty !!!
After the Shoot :
Today's shoot was very fun indeed ! I got to do a cheeky educational video which was different. I also did my first shoot with the guys Adam and Frankie which was refreshing. I think they are brilliant shooters and are great as a part of the Abby Winters team ! All in all, another very fun day.
Satine for Abby Winters


text: With a stay at Aktiv & Familienhotel Adlernest in Senales (Vinschgau Valley), you'll be minutes from Church of Our Lady of Senales and close to Vernago Lake. This family-friendly hotel is within the vicinity of Similaun and Otzi Memorial. Stay in one of 22 guestrooms featuring flat-screen televisions. Rooms have private furnished balconies. Complimentary wireless Internet access keeps you connected, and satellite programming is available for your entertainment. Private bathrooms with showers feature complimentary toiletries and bidets. After a day on the slopes, enjoy recreational amenities including a spa tub and a sauna. Additional features include complimentary wireless Internet access, babysitting/childcare (surcharge), and ski storage. Satisfy your appetite at the hotel's restaurant, which serves lunch and dinner, or stay in and take advantage of room service (during limited hours). Quench your thirst with your favorite drink at a bar/lounge. Featured amenities include dry cleaning/laundry services, a 24-hour front desk, and luggage storage. Free self parking is available onsite. Recreational amenities at the hotel include a spa tub and a sauna. The recreational activities listed below are available either on site or nearby, fees may apply.


text:
Get an overview of this hotel3-star hotel with free breakfast and free airport shuttle
Located in Ontario, Residence Inn Ontario Airport is in the business district, minutes from Ontario Convention Center, and close to Cucamonga-Guasti Regional Park.
This hotel is within close proximity of Citizens Business Bank Arena and Museum of History and Art.
Make yourself at home in one of the 200 air-conditioned rooms featuring kitchens with refrigerators and stovetops. LCD televisions with cable programming provide entertainment, while complimentary wireless Internet access keeps you connected. Conveniences include safes and complimentary newspapers, and housekeeping is provided daily.
Take advantage of recreational opportunities offered, including an outdoor pool, a spa tub, and a fitness center. Additional amenities at this hotel include complimentary wireless Internet access, concierge services, and a fireplace in the lobby.
Grab a bite from a snack bar/deli serving guests of Residence Inn Ontario Airport. Mingle with other guests at a complimentary reception, held daily.
Featured amenities include a 24-hour business center, express check-in, and express check-out. A roundtrip airport shuttle is complimentary (available on request).Information missing or incorrect? Tell us!Opens in a new window
Residence Inn Ontario Airport
Hotel Amenities
Hotel Amenities
In addition to an outdoor pool, Residence Inn Ontario Airport provides a spa tub and a fitness center. The hotel offers a snack bar/deli. A complimentary breakfast and manager's reception are offered (may not be available daily). High-speed wireless Internet access is complimentary.
This 3-star property offers access to a 24-hour business center. This business-friendly hotel also offers barbecue grills, a picnic area, and coffee/tea in a common area. A roundtrip airport shuttle is complimentary to guests (available on request). Onsite self parking is complimentary.
Residence Inn Ontario Airport is a smoke-free property.
- 24-hour business center
- Free reception
- Free WiFi
- Number of buildings/towers - 25
- Free airport transportation
- Free newspapers in lobby
- Fitness facilities
- Express check-in
- 24-hour front desk
- Express check-out
- Dry cleaning/laundry service
- Fireplace in lobby
- Barbecue grill(s)
- Coffee/tea in common areas
- Number of floors - 2
- Tennis on site
- Elevator/lift
- ATM/banking
- Concierge services
- Laundry facilities
- Total number of rooms - 200
- Picnic area
- Safe-deposit box at front desk
- Snack bar/deli
- Free self parking
- Free long-term parking
- Smoke-free property
- Spa tub
- Outdoor pool
- Free breakfast
Family Friendly Amenities
- Outdoor pool
- Free Wi-Fi
- Kitchen
- Snack bar/deli
- Laundry facilities
- Sofa bed
- Refrigerator
- Microwave
Available in all rooms: Free WiFi
Available in some public areas: Free WiFi
Free long-term parking, Free self parking
Room Amenities
- Premium TV channels
- Video-game console
- Pay movies
- Separate sitting area
- In-room climate control (air conditioning)
- Air conditioning
- Access via exterior corridors
- Kitchen
- Microwave
- Refrigerator
- Coffee/tea maker
- Free toiletries
- Hair dryer
- Shower/tub combination
- Iron/ironing board
- Daily housekeeping
- Sofa bed
- Dishwasher
- Stovetop
- Cable TV service
- Free newspaper
- In-room safe
- Free WiFi
Where to Eat
Guests are offered a complimentary full breakfast. A complimentary manager's reception is offered each day.
Nearby Things to Do
An outdoor pool and a spa tub are on site. Other recreational amenities include a fitness center.
The recreational activities listed below are available either on site or nearby; fees may apply.
- Basketball on site
- Volleyball on site
If you have requests for specific accessibility needs, please note them at check-out when you book your room.
- Accessible bathroom
- In-room accessibility
Hotel Policies
Check-in time starts at 3 PM
Special check-in instructions:
Check-out time is noon
Payment types
Children and extra beds
- Children are welcome.
- Pets allowed for an extra charge of USD 100 per accommodation, per stay
- 3 per room
You need to know
Extra-person charges may apply and vary depending on property policy.
Government-issued photo identification and a credit card or cash deposit are required at check-in for incidental charges.
Special requests are subject to availability upon check-in and may incur additional charges. Special requests cannot be guaranteed.
Optional extras
- Pet fee: USD 100 per accommodation, per stay
Hotel Name
- Ontario Airport Residence Inn
- Residence Inn Hotel Ontario Airport
- Residence Inn Ontario Airport
- Ontario Residence Inn
- Residence Inn Ontario Airport Hotel Ontario
- Residence Inn Ontario Airport Hotel
We should mention
This property offers transfers from the airport. Guests must contact the property with arrival details before travel, using the contact information on the booking confirmation.


text: i'v been having an issue with my smoker running hot. I'm on my third smoke, i filled the bowl with water, i closed all the vents. I have a pit master iq attached with a maverick thermometer. I put one chimney full of unlit charcoal, and put one chimney of lit charcoal on top, i'm wondering if maybe i'v put to much charcoal? i'm trying to get the smoker down in the 220 range and it wants to be in the 300's. Any help would be wonderful.


text:
Madonna's Rebel Heart Tour concert airing Friday, December 9 at 9pm in #Showtime. Check the Trailer:
Books – Maps of The Disney Parks
Get your copy right here!
Books – Disneyland Paris, From Sketch To Reality
Glad to have this book some time ago.
News Wrap-Up 10/16/16
Hi everybody! Quickly let's do some review to what happened recently. Firstly, that our enthusiasm for #PlanetCoaster continues and continues to grow as we approach the day of access to the Beta phase and consecutively to the final realization of the game by #FrontierDevelopments on the 17th of November. We have seen a lot of activity in the forums, Facebook official page, on YouTube and also in our popular group Theme Park Simulation Games. And most important and brilliant thing happening right now is that our list of friends and subscriptions keeps growing in aritario's Planet Coaster Workshop on Steam . What else can I ask for? Happiness, this is pure happiness!
The first image you see above is from our Centrepiece entry on "Party in the Park". You can find the download here. The next video is the round-up visualization on it:
Also, take a look to the park we submitted for this event which is available on our Steam Workshop. This Foundation Park has plenty of space for your favorites roller coaster and rides.
As a plus, I included my Botanical Garden. Party In The Park, Live Your Dream On!!!
This workshop asset was recently featured in a LiveStream at #PlanetCoaster Facebook Official Page.
… and Now! Ta ta ta taaaa… Our Fantasy Flowers Scenery has been featured not one but "three times" during the past days and here are the glorious moments:
-First we had Frontier's Community Manager Bo Marit and Head of Animation, Nick Rodgers, who were Live with another episode of Planet Coaster – Workshop Wonderland on Oct. 12, 2016. The conversation was about some of the favorite submissions on the Steam Workshop and our "Fantasy Flowers Scenery" took some time of this episode to flourish on front of the screen. For an specific look of the set on this episode watch the following video-wrap I did for the occasion:
-Second to the LiveStream we realized the "Fantasy Flowers Scenery" made it to the main screen of Planet Coaster Workshop on Steam among others users creations. See the screenshot for a complete visual experience.
-The third, the best! We received the Planet Coaster Newsletter on Oct. 12 and our reaction was speechless. Subscribers from all over the world can receive these magnificent packs of news with links, pictures, videos, interviews, behind-the-scenes… and this time our precious item was included on the 2nd Newsletter. Take a look and follow the "Spotlight On" section.
-Specially for you! If you are reading this, then you'll be among the first people to see every flower included on the set separately each one from other. Available right now for download.
See the collection on our Steam Workshop
Finally I'm going to show you our most recent item on the workshop and let me say Big Thx to all of you who subscribed and made this new item one of the favorite for the "Most Popular Items in One Week".
"aritario's Halloween Large Pumpkin Scenery"
Available on Planet Coaster Steam Workshop
What's next?
Check this sneak peek and drop a line in the comments if you guess what's next on our workshop. Stay tuned for something awesome!
See you soon!


text:
Sing & Snore Ernie
this wiki
Ad blocker interference detected!
Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers
Wikia is not accessible if you've made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.
Sing & Snore Ernie is a Sesame Street plush toy released by Tyco in 1997. The Ernie doll wears pajamas and makes snoring sound effects. [1] Over 1.2 million Sing & Snore Ernie dolls were sold in 1997. [2]
While the 1996 Christmas season was dominated by Tyco's Tickle Me Elmo doll, Sing & Snore Ernie became the most sought-after present for 1997. A December 1997 New York Times article described the scene at a New York City toy store:
"I gave up on Ernie two months ago," said Katherine Kanakis, who was eyeing the Elmos for her 8-month-old nephew, Kyle. "Maybe I'll get an Elmo, but he already seems passe."
Just in front of the Elmo pyramid sat Syrrea Kane of the customer information department. She said that she still got around 100 requests a day for Ernie and that there had been some untoward incidents with disgruntled parents."We had one lady who said she wouldn't leave until she had her Ernie," Ms. Kane said. "It was crazy." [3] "
David Letterman referenced the toy in a Top Ten List on the Late Show with David Letterman. During the "Top Ten Surprises in the New James Bond Movie," number 9 was, "Bond's mission: To find the last "Sing 'n Snore Ernie." (sic)
- ↑ Elmoandfriends.com
- ↑ Borgenicht, David. Sesame Street Unpaved. 1998.
- ↑ Lewine, Edward. "Confessions of a Sing and Snore Ernie Scalper", The New York Times. December 21, 1997.


text:
Home /
Our Sources / About Us
/ FAQs /
Advanced Search
Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
March 18, 2015
TROY COULSTON, Plaintiff,v.STEVEN GLUNT, KENNETH HOLLIBAUGH, JEFFREY BEARD, SEAN DOMANICK, ROBERT ROSENBAUM, DAVID CLOSE, DAVID KESSLING, SERGEANT JOHN SAWTELLE, ROBERT REED, ROBERT MACINTYRE, TRACY WILLIAMS, DORINA VARNER, JOHN DOE, Defendants.
KIM R. GIBSON, District Judge.
Plaintiff commenced the above-captioned case at Civil Action No. 3:12-cv-154 by filing a Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis on August 7, 2012. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiffs Motion was granted on August 13, 2012 and the Clerk was directed to file the Complaint. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Lenihan for pretrial proceedings in accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Rules 72.C and 72.D of the Local Rules of Court.
The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 108) filed on February 13, 2015, recommended that the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Sean Domanick, Kenneth Hollibaugh, and Robert Rosenbaum (ECF No.85) be granted. Service was made on the pro se Plaintiff at his address of record, and on counsel of record by via electronic mail. The parties were informed that in accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C), and Local Rule of Court 72.D.2, the parties had fourteen (14) days from the date of service to file objections to the Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff was granted an extension until March 24, 2015 to file his objections. On March 17, 2015, Plaintiff filed Objections (ECF No. 112).
After review of the pleadings, documents in the case, and the Objections, together with the Report and Recommendation, the following Order is entered:
AND NOW, this 18th day of March 2015, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 85) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 108) of Magistrate Judge Lenihan, dated February 13, 2015, is adopted as the Opinion of the Court.
Our website includes the main text of the court's opinion but does not include the
docket number, case citation or footnotes. Upon purchase, docket numbers and/or
citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a legal proceeding.
Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
LRC, Inc. About Us


text:
crazymazy1 Review
Love the table, and for the price how could you go wrong. Looks great in my living room.
- How did the color on site compare with the actual product? Perfect
- Please tell us about the quality of the product. Yes
- How accurate was the on site description of the product? 100% match
Was This Review Helpful?


text:
Share < br />this article:
Celeb Snaps! Hottest Star Sightings-12.6.12
Loraine Pavich
| December 6, 2012 - 11:28 am
Share < br />this article:
View Full Size
Return to Story
Nicky Hilton
Recommended for you
Nicky Hilton's $1,699 Stroller Comes Complete with Gold Angel Wings
Nicky Hilton Gives Birth to a Baby Girl
Nicky Hilton Prepares for the Arrival of Her Baby Girl and More Celeb Social Media Pics
Nicky Hilton's Baby Bump Leads Today's Star Sightings
Paris Hilton Just Revealed the Sex of Nicky Hilton's Baby
Newlyweds Nicky Hilton and James Rothschild Expecting Their First Child
Nick Cannon Jokingly Mocks Pictures of Mariah Carey Making Out with Her…
Is Brad Pitt Hooking Up with Kate Hudson?
Kanye West and Kim Kardashian Are Not Living Together Right Now
Here's the Name Mila Kunis and Ashton Kutcher Chose for Their Son
Please Enjoy Justin Bieber's Cover of Tracy Chapman's 'Fast Car' at…
Sign Up For The Latest Celebuzz News
Thank you for signing up for our newsletter. You will receive a confirmation shortly.
Sign Up
Top Photos
All »
Anne Hathaway and Helena Bonham Carter on 'Ocean's Eight' Set Leads This Weekend's Star Sightings
Justin Bieber Makes Faces at the Camera and 25 More of the Funniest Celebrity Paparazzi Pics of the Week
Please Enjoy Justin Bieber's Cover of Tracy Chapman's 'Fast Car' at Jingle Ball 2016
Mariah Carey Holds Hands with Bryan Tanaka Days After PDA-Filled Beach Pics
This Week in Kardashian Fashion: Kendall Slays the Victoria's Secret Fashion Show
Miley Cyrus and Liam Hemsworth's Seaside Dinner Date Leads Today's Star Sightings
You'll Love
Justin Bieber Covers 'Fast Car'
Khloé Kardashian on Being Called Plus-Size
Amy Schumer to Star in New Barbie Movie


text:
Because Knetbooks knows college students. Our rental program is designed to save you time and money. Whether you need a textbook for a semester, quarter or even a summer session, we have an option for you. Simply select a rental period, enter your information and your book will be on its way!
Kogami Kii's life has been a living nightmare, as Tokyo is devastated by the savage attack of the magical girls. Yet all this fades away as Kii and friends suddenly awaken in a peaceful world-ten years in the past! Out of place and time, Kii and his companions struggle to adjust to a seemingly ordinary, everyday life, while wondering why they were sent to the past in the first place, and if they're stuck there permanently.


text:
Pizza Sticks
Total Time
Prep 10 mins
Cook 25 mins
I was looking for something quick that my kids would enjoy for lunch. I came across this recipe at the allrecipes website. You could use hamburger, Canadian bacon, any pizza topping you want. I let me kids come in and they helped create their pizza sticks and I did the cooking part. The recipe says to deep fry, but I try to keep the fat content down a bit in the house so we baked them in oven after spraying with a little olive oil cooking spray to add a bit of crispness. Cooking time includes baking time. Only 5 min. cooking time if you are frying.
Ingredients Nutrition
- 1 (14 ounce) package egg roll wraps
- 24 pieces mozzarella string cheese
- 25 pepperoni slices
- 1 (6 ounce) can mushrooms (drained)
- 2 tablespoons garlic (minced)
- 2 cups vegetable oil (for frying if you choose not to bake)
- 1 (14 ounce) jar marinara sauce (I use Prego)
- Lay out the egg roll wrappers one at a time.
- Place one piece of string cheese in the center near the edge, then arrange some pepperoni, sliced mushrooms and garlic around the cheese (or the topping of your choice).
- Roll up the string cheese a little, fold in the sides, then continue to roll up, and seal the edge by moistening with water. Repeat with remaining wrappers, cheese and fillings.
- Heat oil in a large heavy skillet, or deep fryer to 365 degrees F (185 degrees C).
- Fry enough to fit loosely in the pan, turning once after about 5 minutes. Continue to fry for 3 to 5 more minutes or until golden brown. Drain on paper towels. If baking, place on cookie sheet and bake in preheated 400 degree oven for 20-25 minute or until wrappers are golden brown.
- Warm the marinara sauce in a serving bowl in the microwave.
- Serve Pizza Sticks on a platter with the bowl of sauce for dipping.
Most Helpful
This is one of those recipes that I love because you can vary it so many ways and it is quick and easy and tastes good. I only made 8 to make sure we would like this and I made those as written except for using fresh mushrooms I sauteed. I baked them instead of frying. Next batch I plan to use Canadian bacon and perhaps some seasonings. Thank you for a keeper!
There were really good. I used the pepperoni slices, jalapeno peppers, red peppers and the cheese and baked them in the oven. Got distracted here on zaar and they got a little more browned that I would have liked, but my fault not the recipes. Thanks for sharing.
This rated 3.5 stars so we upped it to four for uniqueness. We felt the mixture of Italian cuisine combined with Asian wonton wrappers just didn't meld together that well. It was very unique, and we enjoyed trying something new. Overall, we liked this dish. Thanks for posting.


text:
Relax, Senators fans. Not everything is bad news.
A pair of Senators players are actually at the top of the NHL in one category.
According to the Bleacher Report, Jarkko Ruutu ranks second and Chris Neil third on the NHL's list of most hated players — trailing everyone's most hated villain, Sean Avery of the New York Rangers.
While Avery made the most headlines for his vulgar public comments about his former girlfriend, Ruutu is cited for his endless on-ice banter. Well, that, and biting the finger of former Buffalo Sabres tough guy Andrew Peters.
Neil, meanwhile, is criticized for his border line hits to the head of opponents, but there's a backhanded compliment attached to his name because "his hits may be frowned upon, but the intensity he plays with every shift gets under people's skin."
Neil, incidentally, reached a milestone of sorts in Monday's ugly 5-2 loss to the Pittsburgh Penguins. He picked up 21 penalty minutes, pushing him over the 1,500 mark for his career. He now has 1,501.
Bad boys make it to the top
Relax, Senators fans. Not everything is bad news.
We encourage all readers to share their views on our articles and blog posts. We are committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion, so we ask you to avoid personal attacks, and please keep your comments relevant and respectful. If you encounter a comment that is abusive, click the "X" in the upper right corner of the comment box to report spam or abuse. We are using Facebook commenting. Visit our FAQ page for more information.


text: Anyone know how to get this to work? i'm trying to install request tracker but when i enter PerlModule Apache::DBI PerlRequire /opt/rt3/bin/webmux.pl SetHandler perl-script PerlHandler RT::Mason Apache will not start and complains that it does not know what perlmodule or perlrequire is. Can you guys help please :D Thanks, Mat


text:
- Title
- The Story of Little Monica
- Genres
- Rating
Will, an orphan originally from Little Monica, a city of culture and arts, returns to a place he hasn�t been in since his childhood to contribute to it and have a reunion with his childhood friend, Celia. What he doesn�t know is that during his long absence, things have changed for the worse and Little Monica, once a city of high culture has become a capital of degeneration. The question is can Will resist the temptations offered by the city or will he succumb to it. With a little help from Celia and her sisters Tina and Mei, as well Miss Meow, they just might succeed in returning Little Monica to its former glory.


text:
A Good Deal: No Evil 022
Round up4.30 / 5.00 2,081 Views
Park Bench
A short film about a park bench4.16 / 5.00 1,598 Views
frog thing
frogggsgsgs3.79 / 5.00 1,838 Views
keep up the good work man don't listen to them other "ppl" that love to point out every mistake and say it sucks because it doesn't suck not even a lil bit can't wait to see future posts
ok man you spelled willy wrong so much times and you said he dreams that hes megaman then how come hes still X and at the end its megaman not X
(sigh)I was about to give you a good reveiw, but..
part of this was'nt yours at all. the ending for this flash was the ending for Megaman 2 the power fighters. the same ending images, same dialogue. I know this, becaus eI unlocked that game in Megaman annversary Collection, and when I beat it with Megaman, I saw that same ending. If you had made an ending of your own, I'd probably give this an 8 or 9, but because you did'nt, I give you a 5.
good job
very interesting take on this.
not too bad...
the idea was pretty unoriginal, especially ripping the ending directly from Megaman Power Battles. but other than that, i enjoyed it.


text:
Is Pollution Probe incorrect or missing key business information? Update your Hotfrog listing today.
Contact details
Are these details correct?
Hotfrog Canada provides information regarding Pollution Probe in Ottawa ON. Pollution Probe is located at 63 Sparks St # 101, Ottawa ON K1P 5A6 and provides food and beverage services. Contact them on (613) 237-8666 or by visiting them on their website http://www.pollutionprobe.org.
Is Pollution Probe in 63 Sparks St # 101, Ottawa ON K1P 5A6 your business? Claim your listing and attract more leads by adding more content, photos and other business details.
We have more food and beverage services in Ottawa ON available on Hotfrog Canada. You can update your search for Ottawa food and beverage by location, keyword or service options.
5001 Herbert Dr OTTAWA ONTARIO K4B 1J1
9 Antares Drive Suite 224 OTTAWA ONTARIO K2E 7V5
7-5509 Canotek Rd OTTAWA ONTARIO K1J 9J8
1740 Montreal Road OTTAWA ONTARIO K1J 6N3
Small Business Hub
Sharing tips, ideas and advice to help grow your small business
Your profile without ads
Have you considered upgrading to Hotfrog AdVantage? No competitor advertising means exclusive focus on your business. You take centre stage.
Create your free Hotfrog business profile
Follow Hotfrog on:
Share on:
Hotfrog Small Business Hub


text:
Arki Tourism & Travel Guide
: Shoghi | Arki | Arki Fort...
View more comments...
towards Arki, passing through thick fog... Arki. Thankfully, the road ahead...
View more comments...
Places To Stay 1 Places
About Arki
Situated in the Shivalik Hills, Arki is a very small town in the Solan District and was once the capital of Ajai Singh of the Baghal Empire. The main attraction here is the fort which was built in the 18th century. The fort was in a blend of the Mughal and Rajput styles and the lavish lives of the royal people are still known about in local tales. The other attractions are the Arki Bazar, Muturu Mahadev Temple, jakholi Temple, Shakti Mahadev Temple, Gangeshwar Mahadev and the Bhadrakali Temple.
Best Time To Visit
How To Reach
Book a Package Tour
1 Hotels found


text:
Definition of heliophyte
Definition of heliophyte from the Collins English Dictionary
Log in to comment on this word.
New on the Scrabble blog
Allan Simmons, a former Scrabble champion, shares his tips on how to learn words to improve your Scrabble game.
Read more
Join the Collins community
All the latest wordy news, linguistic insights, offers and competitions every month.
Read more
|Latest Word Submissions
Nearby words of 'heliophyte'
- heliopause
- heliophilous
- heliophobic
- heliophyte
- Heliopolis
- heliopsis
- Helios