Pennsylvania Contract Cases
Cases 41 - 50 of 68
TAYLOR v. STEFANKO
as 2:2010cv01660
Plaintiff:
ELIZABETH TAYLOR
Defendant:
VIOLA STEFANKO
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
NAZARETH HOSPITAL et al v. SEBELIUS
as 2:2010cv03513
Plaintiff:
NAZARETH HOSPITAL and ST. AGNES MEDICAL CENTER
Defendant:
KATHLEEN SEBELIUS
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 702 Administrative Procedure Act
Pyznar et al v. Ohio Casualty Insurance Company
as 3:2010cv01419
Plaintiff:
Robert Pyznar and Jacqueline Pyznar
Defendant:
Ohio Casualty Insurance Company
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
BRIGGS et al v. HEALTHAMERICA PENNSYLVANIA, INC.
as 2:2010cv00862
Plaintiff:
ROBERT BRIGGS and KATHY ANN BALL
Defendant:
HEALTHAMERICA PENNSYLVANIA, INC.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1395
Dombroski v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
as 4:2010cv01066
Plaintiff:
Thomas Dombroski
Defendant:
Secretary of Health and Human Services
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981
KOVACH v. COVENTRY HEALTH CARE, INC. et al
as 2:2010cv00536
Plaintiff:
MARYANN KOVACH
Defendant:
COVENTRY HEALTH CARE, INC. and HEALTHAMERICA PENNSYLVANIA, INC.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1395
MOSKAL v. PROVIDENCE CARE CENTER, INC. et al
as 2:2010cv00398
Plaintiff:
RONALD M., MOSKAL
Defendant:
PROVIDENCE CARE CENTER, INC. and CAMPMED CASUALTY & INDEMNITY COMPANY, INC.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1395 HHS: Adverse Reimbursement Review
JONES v. AHF/MONTGOMERY INC.
as 2:2010cv00773
Plaintiff:
LEON JONES
Defendant:
AHF/MONTGOMERY INC.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1395 HHS: Adverse Reimbursement Review
DUBOSE v. QUINLAN et al
as 2:2009cv05123
Plaintiff:
ROBERT DUBOSE
Defendant:
MARK QUINLAN, DONNA BROWN, ALBERT EINSTEIN MEDICAL CENTER and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1442 Notice of Removal
PAPCIAK v. SEBELIUS
as 2:2009cv01354
Plaintiff:
MARY BETH PAPCIAK
Defendant:
KATHLEEN SEBELIUS
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1395 HHS: Adverse Reimbursement Review
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
