Muraski v. Penn Highlands Healthcare, Inc.

Published by Crandall Consulting · Informational litigation intelligence · Last substantive update: August 23, 2026

Docket / citation: 3:2023cv00135

Summary

On February 9, 2026 the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania issued an opinion in Muraski v. Penn Highlands Healthcare granting the defendant's motion to dismiss without prejudice and stating an appropriate order will be entered. The source summary does not describe merits resolution or list specific claims in the opinion summary available on the page.

Litigation Status

Status, direction, and weight describe how tracked public sources characterize this matter as of our last review — they are informational classifications, not legal assessments.

Procedural Posture

The matter was before the court on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 25); the court issued an opinion granting that motion without prejudice.

Reported Holding

The court granted Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 25) without prejudice. An appropriate order will be entered, as stated in the opinion.

What the Court Decided

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint without prejudice and indicated that an appropriate order would be entered.

What the Court Did Not Decide

The opinion, as summarized on the source page, does not record a final adjudication on the merits because the dismissal was entered without prejudice.

Significance

Generally viewed as defense-favorable. Characterizations of significance describe how the matter has generally been discussed in tracked public sources; individual holdings are often narrow, procedural, or fact-specific, and this page does not state or imply broader holdings than the sources support.

What This Page Does and Does Not Say

This page reports what our tracked public sources say about this matter — including, where identified, the procedural posture (for example, a ruling on a motion to dismiss is not a final merits decision). It does not report legal conclusions beyond those sources, does not predict outcomes, and does not constitute legal advice.

Technologies at Issue

• website analytics
• website search
• web forms
• third-party website analytics
• website search bar
• Find a Doctor web page

Statutes Invoked

• Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act (WESCA) — all-party consent · private right of action
• Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act (WESCA); decision also discusses HIPAA and CAFA in the opinion — all-party consent · private right of action

Claims Asserted

Claims identified in tracked public sources; pleadings may include additional or amended claims.

• Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act (WESCA)

What This Matter May Mean for Website Operators

Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act (WESCA) is an all-party consent statute with a private right of action. Consent standard and private enforceability are the structural features that most shape where website tracking claims are filed and how they are valued.

For operators using similar technologies, the recurring factual questions in matters like this one are what page URLs and query strings analytics tools share with third parties. Our scanner tests these behaviors empirically.

The reported outcome direction at the pleading stage reflects how tracked sources characterize the ruling; such rulings are often narrow, posture-specific, and fact-bound rather than broad statements of law.

Detection of a similar technology on a website is an informational risk indicator, not a legal conclusion, and nothing in this section is legal advice.

Related Intelligence

Sources

• MURASKI et al. v. Penn Highlands Healthcare, Inc. — Opinion (W.D. Pa.) — U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (posted on Justia) · Tier A (Primary authority) · 2026-02-09
• Pennsylvania Court Dismisses WESCA Suit Alleging Use of Analytics Tools Against Health System, Requiring “Specifics” for an “Actionable Dispute” — Inside Class Actions · Tier C (Professional analysis) · 2026-03-23
• MURASKI et al v. PENN HIGHLANDS HEALTHCARE, INC. — Doc. 52 (W.D. Pa. Opinion) — Justia / U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania · Tier C (Professional analysis) · 2026-02-09

About This Page

Publisher: Inspection-Ready Institute, Inc. (DBA Crandall Consulting), an independent website compliance and risk consultancy. We are not a law firm and nothing on this page is legal advice.

How this content is produced: Facts are extracted from publicly available sources — court and government materials, recognized legal press, professional analysis, and industry reports — by our litigation intelligence engine, stored with full source provenance, and rendered from the database. Risk guidelines are computed by a deterministic formula, never by an AI model directly. See the full methodology.

Limitations: Counts labeled "Tracked" reflect matters identified in our source set and are not official court statistics. We report what courts decided and did not decide; we do not predict outcomes.

Corrections: If you believe anything on this page is inaccurate, contact us via the contact page and we will review the underlying sources promptly.