Third Circuit· 2/15/1994

Melo v. Hafer

Citations

13 F.3d 736
1994 WL 4635

How courts have described this case

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

holding that “if there is a genuine issue of fact material to the scope of employment question, the district court should permit discovery and conduct a hearing, if necessary” (emphasis added)
holding plaintiff must establish through medical evidence that delay in treatment resulted in physical injury
stating that “evidence of ‘conservative treatment’ is sufficient 14 to discount a claimant’s testimony regarding severity of an impairment”
upholding ALJ’s credibility determination when he pointed out 14 numerous lab results that contradicted his subjective complaints
“the Attorney General may file a certification under § 2679(d)(1) whenever he or she concludes that an employee defendant was acting within the scope of his or her employment”
district court will find defendant did or did not act within scope of employment

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Greenberg, Roth, Stapleton

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

42 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

22 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.