Damages

July 23rd, 2019 by Rieders Travis in Damages

DAMAGES-COLLATERAL SOURCE RULE-WORKERS' COMPENSATION PAYMENTS DAMAGES-COLLATERAL SOURCE RULE-WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PAYMENTS- Nazarak v. Waite, 216 A.3d 1093 (Pa. Super. August 2, 2019) Stevens, P.J.E.  Plaintiff put in evidence of workers’ compensation payments, lien, and need to pay back.  Defendant objected to this as violation of the collateral source rule.  The court noted that the collateral source rule is intended to protect the plaintiff, but it was plaintiff who put in this evidence.  The evidence also did not suggest liability.  To the extent that the trial court erred in permitting the plaintiff to enter into evidence the fact that he settled his workers’ compensation claim, we agree with the trial court that the error does not constitute reversible error.  Evidence of a settlement should not go into evidence. DAMAGES-PUNITIVE-NURSING HOME Ponzini v. Monroe County, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 34731 (3d Cir. November 21, 2019) McKee, C.J., pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.  When health care institutions act or fail to act with intentional or reckless disregard for a patient’s health and welfare, they may be held liable for punitive damages.   The record is filled with evidence of policies…

DAMAGES-NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

March 20th, 2019 by Rieders Travis in Damages

Damages in a Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Claim Murga v. Lehigh Valley Physicians Grp. 2018 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 3053 (November 26, 2018) Johnson, J.-Court would not grant partial summary judgment on negligent affliction of emotional distress claim. Plaintiff argued that NIED claims have evolved and broadened in Pennsylvania and that her NIED claims were appropriate under multiple theories of recovery including the duty of care arising from a special relationship, a physical impact theory and a bystander theory. The court distinguished between transitory, nonrecurring physical phenomena like fright as opposed to depression, nightmares, stress and anxiety. Plaintiff’s severe emotional and psychological injuries which were accompanied by physical injuries, pain and suffering are sufficient to satisfy the physical harm requirement.