Martin W. Berda, and Linda Berda, His Wife v. Cbs Inc., a Corporation

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that medical opinions based on objective findings 23 which conflicted with a treating physician’s opinion constituted substantial evidence
• noting that reckless statements are sufficient to maintain a claim for misrepresentation under Pennsylvania law
• noting that, absent “exceptional circumstances,” we generally decline to consider issues not passed upon below
• explaining that reviewing courts may draw “specific and 23 legitimate inferences” about medical sources contained within an ALJ’s explanation of a 24 claimant’s RFC
• “when a suit stating a claim under [S]ection 301 is brought, state contract law is displaced”
• “Generally, in the absence of ‘exceptional circumstances,’ we decline to ‘consider an issue not passed upon below.’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).