Legal Updates – Page 2

Superior Court of Pennsylvania Affirms Limited Tort Verdict

iabovitz on September 2, 2015

Category: Legal Updates, Personal Injury
Tag: Limited Tort

In the case of Brown v. Trinidad, 2015 Pa. Super. 46 (2015), the Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed an $85,000 jury verdict in favor of a Plaintiff who had elected the limited tort option. In a March 9, 2015 opinion authored by Judge Lazarus, the court stated that the Philadelphia County jury’s determination that Plaintiff, Andrew Brown, sustained a serious impairment of bodily function as the result of a November 3, 2011 accident was proper.

At trial, Plaintiff presented testimony from medical expert Dr. Geoffrey Temple, who opined that Brown sustained a disc herniation at L5-S1 due to the subject accident. This injury was confirmed by MRI. Dr. Temple further testified that Brown’s injuries will have permanent effects on his life and he may require future medical treatment, including injections and/or surgery.

The jury was also presented with evidence that Brown began treatment with a chiropractor approximately three weeks after the accident when his pain became more severe. This treatment lasted for approximately five months, at which time Brown was informed that he had reached maximum medical improvement. Brown testified that he is no longer able to play with his daughter and that he has difficulty running and jumping due to his injuries.

Defendants Not Entitled to “Limitless” Access to Plaintiff’s Facebook Account

iabovitz on August 19, 2015

Category: Legal Updates, Personal Injury
Tag: Facebook

In previous posts, I have written about the ever-evolving status of Facebook discovery in Pennsylvania. To briefly summarize, Pennsylvania Courts have generally held that the party seeking discovery of Facebook contents must make a threshold showing of relevance that an individual’s Facebook account is likely to contain relevant information before conducting further discovery. Such a showing is most commonly made through the discovery of relevant information within an individual’s public Facebook profile. A recent decision out of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania lends some clarity regarding the limits of Facebook discovery even after a threshold showing of relevance has been made.

In the case of In re Milo’s Kitchen Dog Treats, Civil Action No. 12-1011 (WD PA 2015), a class of Plaintiffs alleged that their dogs were harmed by treats manufactured by Milo’s. One such Plaintiff, Lisa Mazur, posted a Facebook entry on her public profile in which she allegedly blamed another manufacturer’s dog treat for the harm to her dog. Upon discovering this, Defendants sought further information from Mazur’s private Facebook profile.

Court Rules that Sentinel Event Report to JCHAO is not Privileged

Michael C. Ksiazek on August 12, 2015

Category: Legal Updates, Medical Malpractice, Personal Injury

UPDATE – Since I originally wrote this piece, the defendant in this case filed a motion for reconsideration and, in June, the Court granted that motion, ultimately reversing the previous decision regarding the sentinel event report. Continue to visit our blog for further updates on the developing law regarding the discoverability of JCHAO sentinel event reports, as well as other issues in Pennsylvania medical malpractice law.

In a case of first impression, the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas has ruled that a hospital’s Sentinel Event Report to the Joint Commission on Hospital Accreditation (JACHO) is not privileged and must be produced in litigation.

JACHO is a private, independent, non-profit organization that evaluates and accredits hospitals and healthcare organizations throughout the country. One of the things JACHO does is investigate and analyze “sentinel events.” Sentinel events are incidents involving patients, unrelated to the patient’s normal hospital course and treatment, which result in death or serious harm to the patient. Some of the more common “sentinel events” are surgical materials or devices retained or left behind inside patients, falls that occur at hospitals and hospital-acquired infections. When sentinel events occur, JACHO-accredited hospitals report them to JACHO by way of a Sentinel Event Report. JACHO analyzes the events and then works with the hospital to help them learn from the events and improve patient safety moving forward.

Monroe County Court Grants Summary Judgment in Supermarket Slip and Fall

iabovitz on July 20, 2015

Category: Legal Updates, Personal Injury

In a recent decision in the case of Zangenberg v. Weis Markets, Inc., et al., 10500 Civil 2012 (CCP Monroe Counrty, April 1, 2015), Judge Stephen M. Higgins granted Defendant, Weis Markets’ Motion for Summary Judgment on the grounds that Plaintiff had failed to set forth sufficient evidence that Weis was on notice of the slippery condition that allegedly caused Plaintiff’s fall.

Plaintiff alleged that her fall occurred due to a slippery condition caused by an excessive buildup of wax on the floor of the supermarket. In support of this theory, Plaintiff relied upon an invoice indicating that the supermarket floor was waxed sometime during the week of her fall. Plaintiff further relied upon the testimony of her daughter who stated that she saw a black skid mark on the floor after her mother’s fall. However, Plaintiff’s daughter was not present at the time of the fall, nor did she closely examine the area of the skid mark to determine whether there was wax on the floor. Plaintiff testified that the floor was very slippery but she did not notice any foreign substance on the floor either before or after her fall. She further stated that she did not notice anything on her body or clothing after the fall. A Weis employee testified that she examined the area of the fall after it occurred and found nothing.

Bottled Water Sold at Pennsylvania Stores Recalled Due to Possible E. Coli Contamination

Michael C. Ksiazek on June 23, 2015

Category: Community, Legal Updates, Personal Injury
Tag: 7-11, Acme, Bottled Water, Contaminated Water, E. Coli, Recall, ShopRite, Wegman's

As reported by various local and national news outlets, bottled water sold at several local stores under several different brand names has been recalled due to possible E. Coli contamination. The company, Niagara Bottling, has disclosed that it had a positive indication of E. Coli at one of its spring sources. The water was produced at the company’s Hamburg, PA and Allentown, PA facilities between June 10, 2015 and June 18, 2015. In addition to other stores, the possibly contaminated bottled water was sold at the following local stores:

Acme
ShopRite
Wegman’s
7-11

If you recently purchased bottle water from any of these stores, check the product code stamped on the bottles. The potentially contaminated water will have codes that begin with letter “A” or “F” and will have dates between June 10, 2015 and June 18, 2015. We recommend you discard and do not drink the affected water.

E. Coli is a type of bacteria that comes from human or animal waste. It can cause food poisoning symptoms, such as nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea and, in some at-risk populations like young children and the elderly, can cause life-threatening kidney failure. To date, there have not been any reported illnesses from this bottled water.

If you have any questions concerning this recall, are not sure whether water you purchased may be subject to the recall, or if you believe you may have suffered an illness as a result of drinking the affected water, you may contact Stark & Stark for free information.

PA Superior Court Affirms- Jack Frost Ski Area Can’t Be Sued in Philadelphia

iabovitz on May 19, 2015

Category: Legal Updates

In a recent non-precedential opinion in the case of Gordon v. JFBB Ski Areas, Inc., No. 1454 EDA 2014 (Pa. Super. April 28, 2014), the Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed a Philadelphia County ruling ordering that the case be transferred to Carbon County based upon preliminary objections alleging improper venue.

In this case, Plaintiffs had filed a complaint in Philadelphia County against multiple defendants, including Jack Frost Ski Area, seeking recovery for injuries sustained while at the Carbon County skiing destination. Plaintiffs alleged that venue was proper pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 2179 as defendants regularly conduct business in Philadelphia County. Defendants filed preliminary objections seeking to have the case transferred to Carbon County alleging that their business activity in Philadelphia was not sufficient to sustain venue there. After reviewing evidence on this issue, the Philadelphia Court agreed and transferred the case to Carbon County.

The evidence submitted indicated that Jack Frost’s lift tickets can be purchased either over the internet or at the facility in Carbon County. While all transactions could not be tracked, roughly 4.7% of all lift tickets were purchased by residents of Philadelphia. The evidence further indicated that Jack Frost conducts significant advertising activities and promotional events in Philadelphia. Nonetheless, the Superior Court affirmed the ruling of the trial court.

This ruling is a bit of surprise in light of some other recent Superior Court decisions holding that a corporate defendant deriving as little as 2% of their revenue from Philadelphia County was sufficient to establish venue under Pa.R.C.P. 2179. See Lugo v. Farmers Pride, Inc., 967 A.2d 963, 971 (Pa. Super. 2009); Zampana-Barry v. Donaghue, 921 A.2d 500 (Pa. Super. 2007). It would appear that the Gordon Court focused on the fact that no actual lift ticket sales occurred in Philadelphia County. The Court emphasized the fact that tickets purchased through the Jack Frost website, which is administered by a California company, involves transferring money through a third-party bank. All other tickets were sold at the mountain itself in Carbon County. The Court further determined that all Philadelphia-based promotional events and advertising were incidental to Jack Frost’s business and insufficient to establish venue.

Recall on Husky Securelock

starkblogsdev on April 20, 2015

Category: Legal Updates, Personal Injury

If you are anything like me, this warm weather has brought about spring cleaning. For my family, this means cleaning out and organizing the garage. We put soccer, baseball and footballs in a bin, donated or threw things away and this year we decided to hang our bikes. We went to our local Home Depot and bought hooks. Well, The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission has recently recalled the exact hooks we bought. It is the Husky Securelock® vertical bike hooks. These hooks are used with a Husky Trackwall® garage storage system. This system is sold exclusively at Home Depot and was sold between April 2011 to March 2015. It has a 3” by 3.5” black metal plate that is gets mounted to the grooves in the Trackwall. The bike’s tires is attached to a hook that protrudes from the plate.

The firm, Waterloo Industries Inc from Iowa, has had at least 22 complaints about the Husky Securelock®. These complaints have been that the bike hooks are falling from the Husky Trackwall® system. No injuries have been reported, but property damage to the bikes and vehicles nearby been reported. If you would like further information you can contact Waterloo Industries at 800 833 8851 or contact Home Depot.

The Pennsylvania Patient Safety Authority

eshensky on April 8, 2015

Category: Legal Updates, Medical Malpractice, Personal Injury
Tag: Patient Safety Authority, Pennsylvania Law, PSA

In 2002, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania created the Patient Safety Authority, the “PSA”, to monitor all medical mistakes at health care facilities, including hospitals, free-standing surgical centers, birthing centers and abortion clinics in the Commonwealth (nursing home incidents are also documented, under a another agency). Pursuant to the law which created the PSA, all these facilities must report every medical mistake to the Pennsylvania Patient Reporting System, which is operated by the PSA. All mistakes must be reported, from “near-miss incidents” to serious injuries.

The PSA helps Pennsylvania healthcare facilities take their knowledge and expertise to the next level by working with each other to prevent medical errors and improve patient safety. Through these collaborative efforts, the PSA has been able to engage in review of numerous issues, including wrong-site surgery, mislabeling blood specimen events, harmful falls, surgical-site infections, central-line associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI) and adverse drug events.

The PSA is funded through a fee collected from all facilities that report to it. By centralizing the accrual of such information, the PSA can examine incidents statewide over a period of time and this enables the Authority to recognize trends and then recommend practices that make medical facilities safer. The PSA is supported by a Board of Directors that includes three physicians, three attorneys, three nurses, a pharmacist and a non-healthcare worker.

The PSA has given the state a great way to track and stay on top of these incidents. If you are interested to find out more information you can visit their website here. On their website they offer not only information about the incidents but also educational tools that can help keep patients safe.

Pennsylvania’s Motorcycle Learner’s Permit Law Designed to Encourage Riders to Obtain their “Real” Motorcycle Driver’s License

sstark on April 1, 2015

Category: Legal Updates, Motorcycle Accidents
Tag: Motorcycle License, PA Motorcycle

On December 23, 2013 (then) Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett signed Act 126, which affects Pennsylvania motorcycle riders. The law, known as Act 126 of 2013 (effective February 21, 2014) limits the number of times a motorcycle rider can reapply for a learner’s permit to three times, in a five-year period. The original Bill was sponsored by Rep. Seth Grove (R-Dover) who had the overwhelming support of the Alliance of Bikers Toward Education (A.B.A.T.E) and statewide law enforcement. The initial legislation was designed in part to prevent the practice of continually extending the permit without having to retake the motorcycle knowledge test or skills tests. Law enforcement was particularly concerned with the growing number of motorcycle offenses committed by permitted (but unlicensed) riders. Nearly 3,500 crashes involving motorcycles occurred on Pennsylvania roadways in 2013, 500 fewer than in 2012. Those crashes resulted in 181 motorcyclist fatalities, as opposed to 210 deaths in 2012. The number of registered motorcycles in Pennsylvania decreased in 2013 by just over 3,800, while the number of licensed motorcyclists increased by nearly 6,000.

ACT 126 is designed to enable riders to continue to learn to ride a motorcycle properly while encouraging them to get obtain a full motorcycle driver’s license. In addition to limiting the number of times a rider can apply for a permit, ACT 126 requires a rider to successfully pass the motorcycle knowledge test upon each reapplication. It also prohibits PennDOT from renewing a person’s motorcycle learner’s permit. To read the law, click here.

For questions and information on permits, licensing and motorcycle training for Pennsylvania residents, visit the PA Division of Motor Vehicles or Pennsylvania Motorcycle Safety Program (PAMSP).

Attorney Client Privilege and Pennsylvania Government Agencies

eshensky on March 23, 2015

Category: Legal Updates
Tag: Attorney Client Privilege, PA Laws, PA Supreme Court, pennsylvania

In a recent unanimous decision, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that a government agency cannot assert lawyer-client privilege to protect records when the state attorney general considers those records necessary to fulfill his duties. The Court went on to say that when the attorney general’s office looks into suspected wrongdoing at a state agency, the actual client of the agency’s lawyers is the public, not the agency’s employees. The Court agreed with the state prosecutors who argued that government lawyers have special duties to act in the public interest and address wrongful official acts.

Blog Categories