In The News

Why You Should Test Your Residence For Radon

You may not know it, but your home could be dangerous to your health. Radon, a colorless, odorless, tasteless, radioactive gas produced during the natural decay of uranium in rock and soil, may be present in your home in an amount that can potentially lead to lung cancer.

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), approximately 21,000 deaths each year are attributable to radon-induced lung cancer. It is the second leading cause of lung cancer in Pennsylvania, second only to smoking.

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), estimates that 40% of Pennsylvania homes contain unsafe levels of radon gas, which can move up into homes via cracks, drains, or any openings in the foundation. For this reason, it pays to test your residence for the presence of radon. If you or a loved one has suffered injury because you bought a home which was found to have high levels of radon and this was not disclosed to you by the seller or the seller’s realtor, you may be entitled to compensation.

The skilled and experienced Pennsylvania personal injury attorney Clifford A. Rieders of Rieders, Travis, Dohrmann, Mowrey, Humphrey & Waters has spent decades honing his skills and successfully representing Pennsylvania families who have suffered loss due to someone else’s negligence or deception, such as covering up high levels of radon. We offer personal attention and loyalty to every client, aggressively fighting for their right to compensation.

If you have suffered any harm due to radon, your next step should be to consult Cliff Rieders at Rieders, Travis, Dohrmann, Mowrey, Humphrey & Waters by calling (570) 323-8711, or by using our online contact form. Based in Williamsport, we serve clients throughout the state of Pennsylvania, offering a free consultation on all personal injury matters.

Radon in Pennsylvania

The Environmental Protection Agency has established 4 picocuries per liter as the maximum amount of radon that should be present in a home. But Pennsylvania homes may have much higher levels.  In fact, Pennsylvania’s  DEP reports that a home in Lehigh County recently tested at a radon level of 3,715 picocuries per liter (pCi/L), over 900 times the maximum level. Other test results in the area have been well over 1000 pCi/L.

Radon Testing

Since you cannot see, taste or smell radon, testing is the only way of determining the radon levels in your home. Do-it-yourself radon test kits can be bought at home stores or from a certified radon mitigation service professional for $20-30. You should place your test kit in the basement, where levels are usually highest, or on the ground floor.

Radon Mitigation

Radon mitigation is the process to remove or reduce the radon gas concentration in occupied buildings and water supplies. Systems are comprised of suction pipes that enter the soil, a radon fan, and an exhaust pipe to vent the radon gas out into the atmosphere.

Radon tests should be repeated after mitigation, and the device should be monitored, and tests repeated, preferably during the heating season, every two years.

Legal Issues

• Landlord responsibility — Landlords are required to keep their buildings fit and safe for tenants. If you are a tenant with a high test result, you should notify your landlord of it in writing and request remediation. Ask for the copies of any follow-up test results.

• If the landlord does not fix the issue at hand, report this to the Pennsylvania DEP Protection radon division.  Provide notice with proof of delivery (such as Certified Mail), so that you have proof should you have to move out for health reasons or have to take legal action against the landlord.

• Seller and Realtor Responsibility — Home sellers who are having their homes tested for radon should make sure this is done correctly, such as by closing doors and windows and not using attic fans. Sellers must disclose knowledge of prior tests and results, including tests by other potential buyers. Sellers and realtors who do not disclose high test results can be sued. Seller disclosure forms are supposed to provide information concerning radon testing. Make sure you check the form to assure that the testing has been done, and do not hesitate to ask for the actual results.

Achieving Results When it Counts

IF YOU OR A LOVED ONE WAS HARMED by radon, YOU SHOULD CONSULT AN EXPERIENCED PERSONAL INJURY LAWYER REGARDING YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS. You may be entitled to receive financial compensation to cover your medical and hospital expenses, lost wages, future lost wages, loss of life’s pleasures, pain and suffering, disfigurement and other compensation may be applicable as well, especially if a death is involved.  However, your case must be handled correctly and competently, or you may never collect the compensation you are entitled to.

Clifford A. Rieders of Rieders, Travis, Dohrmann, Mowrey, Humphrey & Waters knows the courts and the system and what you need to do to increase your chances of winning a good settlement. Our seasoned Pennsylvania personal injury attorneys have helped many people file successful lawsuits. With decades of experience with injuries and an excellent reputation in the legal community, we are well positioned to handle even the most difficult cases.

The skilled and experienced Pennsylvania RV accident attorney Clifford A. Rieders of Rieders, Travis, Dohrmann, Mowrey, Humphrey & Waters has spent decades honing his skills and successfully representing Pennsylvania families who have suffered an injury or loss due to someone else’s negligence. We offer personal attention and loyalty to every client, aggressively fighting for their right to compensation. Whether in settlement negotiations or pursuing a favorable trial verdict, we are thoroughly prepared and committed to achieving a just outcome. With our sizeable staff, we offer strength in numbers while providing top-notch personal service.

Cliff Rieders is a Past President of the Pennsylvania Association for Justice, formerly Pennsylvania Trial Lawyers Association. Rieders has won numerous awards and recognition from the Pennsylvania Association for Justice, and he received the Pennsylvania Patient Safety Authority recognition award.  In fact, Cliff Rieders was a founder of the Pennsylvania Patient Safety Authority.  Cliff has received the George F. Douglas Amicus Curiae Award, as well as the Milton D. Rosenberg Award from the Pennsylvania Trial Lawyers.  Rieders is on committees and organizations that write the law in many fields of practice, including the Mcare Act, which governs medical liability actions in Pennsylvania, and he wrote the book on Medical Malpractice that lawyers use in the state. Rieders is a Nationally Board Certified Trial Advocate, a cum laude graduate of New York University as well as Georgetown University Law Center.  Rieders is admitted in Pennsylvania, New York State, District of Columbia and numerous federal courts including the Supreme Court of the United States. Rieders is a life member of the American Law Institute which publishes recommended legal principles utilized throughout the United States.

If you or your loved one has suffered harm from radon, your next step should be to consult Cliff Rieders at Rieders, Travis, Dohrmann, Mowrey, Humphrey & Waters by calling (570) 323-8711, or by using our online contact form. Based in Williamsport, we serve clients throughout the state of Pennsylvania, offering a free consultation on all personal injury matters. More than that, we offer you experience, knowledge, compassion, and a long history of results.

Is Pa. Still the Keystone State for Products Liability Litigation

Source: Is Pa. Still the Keystone State for Products Liability Litigation | The Legal Intelligencer

Deadly Crash Closes Section of Interstate 80 in Clinton County

MARION TOWNSHIP, CENTRE CO. — A deadly crash in Centre County closed a section of Interstate 80 for nearly 21 hours in Clinton County. Interstate 80 eastbound was closed near the Clinton County/Centre County line after the crash around 12:45 a.m. Wednesday.Two tractor-trailer drivers were killed in a chain-reaction crash involving six rigs.

Source: Deadly Crash Closes Section of Interstate 80 in Clinton County | WNEP.com

CLIFF RIEDERS PRESENTS ON MEDICAL MALPRACTICE LAW AT SEMINAR 11/3/16 IN PHILADELPHIA PRESENTED BY THE PENNSYLVANIA ASSOCIATION OF JUSTICE

The 2016 Philadelphia medical malpractice seminar is one of the highlights of the 2016 Pennsylvania Association of Justice seminar series.  The seminar featured the best known trial lawyers in Pennsylvania from both the patient and defense side, as well as an important official from the state’s Mcare Insurance Fund.

Cliff Rieders, the first speaker, covered the crucial topic of legal developments in the field.  Rieders’ popular series has been given throughout the Commonwealth.  Rieders is recognized as one of the leading authorities on medical and hospital malpractice law in Pennsylvania.  He is the author of Pennsylvania Medical Malpractice, a noted publication in the field.  Rieders also covers the area of pharmaceutical as well as vitamin and dietary supplement litigation.

Cliff Rieders is a Board Certified Trial Advocate and a member of many courts including the Supreme Court of the United States.  The attorney is an honors graduate from New York University and received his Juris Doctor from Georgetown University.

Some of the noteworthy topics covered by Rieders are the growing trend of arbitration and nursing home cases, informed consent, pharmaceutical litigation and the imposition of the statute of limitations in connection with when cases may be brought.

Cliff Rieders practices law in Pennsylvania and is also admitted in the State of New York and District of Columbia.

Rieders is the former law clerk of the Honorable Malcolm Muir and is a life member of the American Law Institute which publishes recommendations for courts and legislature throughout the nation.

Cliff Rieders Profiled in Fall 2016 ZOA Report

A lengthy and detailed profile of the life and work of Cliff Rieders was recently published by the Zionist Organization of America in its Fall 2016 edition. The article notes the work of Cliff Rieders as a trial lawyer, as well as a teacher and legal writer in connection with a number of practice areas. In particular, the article highlights Rieders’ background and work standing up for important causes. Most recently, Cliff Rieders has been active in writing and working on resolutions in legislation to blunt efforts aimed at boycotting, divesting and sanctioning the State of Israel.

Rieders is a Board Certified Trial Advocate, and a life member of the prestigious American Law Institute. Aside from community work, Cliff is also a National Board member of the Zionist Organization of America.

CLIFF RIEDERS ATTENDS BILL SIGNING IN HARRISBURG FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2016

Governor Tom Wolf, in a public ceremony, held on Friday, November 04, 2016, signed legislation introduced by Representative Matt Baker which will prohibit companies doing business with Pennsylvania from participating in the so-called BDS movement. BDS is an effort to boycott, divest and sanction Israel, among all nations in the world. The BDS movement has been linked to anti-Semitism and attacks on the State of Israel. The legislation followed Resolutions passed previously in Pennsylvania condemning the BDS movement. Governor Tom Wolf spoke at the ceremony followed by Matthew Baker. Representative Baker specifically thanked Cliff Rieders for the efforts made by Rieders to have this legislation passed and to structure the legislation so that it would pass constitutional scrutiny.

Rieders stated, “The BDS movement is nothing more than ancient hatred directed towards the Jewish people and Jewish economic interests.” As long ago as pre-William Penn times, there were efforts made to boycott Jewish merchants in the so-called Delaware territory. The Dutch East India Company prohibited those early attempts to boycott Jewish interests in the New World. Both Governor Wolf and Representative Baker know the important role played by Israel in the world economy, standing up for democracy in the Middle East as well as the friendship shared by our respective nations.

Rieders expressed great pride in the work of the Governor, Baker and others to pass this bipartisan legislation in a quick and efficient manner. Present with Cliff Rieders was his wife, Kimberly.

Photos & Videos are on http://www.flickr.com/photos/governortomwolf

Cliff Rieders speaks at Lycoming Law Association Seminar

By of Rieders, Travis, Dohrmann, Mowrey, Humphrey & Waters posted in In The News on Wednesday, March 30, 2016.

Cliff Rieders, noted local attorney, Rieders, Travis, Dohrmann, Mowrey, Humphrey & Waters Law Firm, delivered his popular Annual Update of the Law to the Lycoming Law Association membership in Williamsport, Pennsylvania, on March 16, 2016. The program has been given statewide for more than 20 years. Rieders covers a potpourri of decisions from the various courts across the Commonwealth, in particular the Pennsylvania Supreme and Superior Courts. The topics cover not only torts, but also contracts and important developments in a number of other fields as well. Rieders is a noted speaker for the Pennsylvania Association for Justice and the Pennsylvania Bar Institute. He is the author of many texts including Medical Malpractice in Pennsylvania, the Financial Responsibility Law, Workers’ Rights in Pennsylvania, and others. The attorney is a Board Certified trial lawyer, whose most recent efforts include vitamin and dietary supplement litigation. Rieders is a graduate of New York University cum laude, and Georgetown University. He clerked for the Hon. Malcolm Muir and practices law in Pennsylvania, New York and the District of Columbia, as well as federal courts. In teaching the Annual Update Seminar, Rieders is able to draw upon many experiences such as helping to found the Pennsylvania Patient Safety Authority and having served as President of the Pennsylvania Association for Justice, formerly the Pennsylvania Trial Lawyers Association, as well as President of the Federal Bar Association, Central Pennsylvania Chapter. Rieders’ main office is in Williamsport, Pennsylvania, but also maintains an office presence in Haverford/Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania

Latest edition of Pennsylvania Medical Malpractice Law and Forms, by Cliff Rieders

By Cliff Rieders of Rieders, Travis, Dohrmann, Mowrey, Humphrey & Waters posted in In The News on Tuesday, January 26, 2016.

Attorney Cliff Rieders – Reappointed to PSA

In 2002, the Patient Safety Authority was created due to the Institute of Medicine after recognizing the large amount of preventable medical errors in U.S Hospitals resulting in death.

Cliff Rieders was an original member of the PSA and has continued to serve the organization he helped create.

UGI Penn Natural Gas Litigation

In the fall of 2014, the Rieders Travis law firm served as local counsel for UGI Penn Natural Gas, Inc. (“UGI”) in litigation involving the construction of a gas pipeline intended to supply natural gas to the Panda Patriot Electric-Generation Station (“Panda”) which is being constructed in Clinton Township, Lycoming County.  Rieders Travis, through Pamela L. Shipman, Esquire, and the paralegal staff, assisted UGI’s Attorney Kevin T. Fogerty in the review and filing of briefs and documents, attended court conferences, and advised regarding local rules and customs.

The case revolved around UGI’s use of the power of eminent domain granted by statute to condemn underground pipeline right of way easements and temporary construction easements along the route of the pipeline, including across the land of the property owners in this case, Mr. and Mrs. Curtis Lauchle.  The Lauchles objected to the condemnation primarily on the basis that the condemnation violated Pennsylvania’s Property Rights Protection Act (“PRPA”), 26 Pa. C. S. §204(a), because the pipeline will supply natural gas to a private business entity, Panda.  In general, the PRPA prohibits the exercise of eminent domain powers to “take private property in order to use it for private enterprise.”

After a hearing on the matter, Judge Gray held that because UGI is a public utility regulated by the Public Utility Commission, it falls within “the limited, defined class of condemnors”  exempted from the PRPA, relying upon the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s construction of 26 Pa. C. S. §204(b)(2)(i) in Reading Area Water Authority v. Schuylkill River Greenway Ass’n  , 100 A. 3d 572 (Pa. 2014).  Judge Gray also noted that unlike the Reading case, where the property was turned over to a private developer to own and operate, UGI is the sole owner of the easements and operator of the pipeline,  and Panda will not control the property in any way. Furthermore, Panda will use the natural gas it receives through the pipeline to “generate enough energy to power approximately 1 million homes.”

The Lauchles have filed an appeal of Judge Gray’s ruling.

Polett v. Public Communications, Inc., 83 A.3d 205 (Pa. Super. 2013).

Plaintiff sued Zimmer manufacturer because she claimed that exercise bike injured the knee.  The company was false in its advertising that people could do exercise and so forth.  The court found that the plaintiff showed enough substantial factor and causation between the injury to the knee and the exercise bike.  Sufficient evidence was presented that riding the exercise bike was a substantial factor in causing the injuries.  The reasonable foreseeability test is satisfied that harm might result from a patient using an exercise bike one month after bilateral knee surgery.  The jury charge was wrong because it put the burden on Zimmer and PCI to present medical evidence that something other than the exercise bike caused the injury.  This was wrong.  This causes reversible error.  The plaintiff violated the Rules of Civil Procedure by not identifying their experts and PCI was prejudiced as a result.  Also, there should have been a motion in limine on the causation testimony.  The tolling agreement whereby plaintiff could put off suing the doctor is admissible in evidence.  Polett v. Public Communications, Inc., 83 A.3d 205 (Pa. Super. 2013).

Apologies for Terrorists

Cliff Rieders’ frequent op-eds deal with a variety of subjects, from political to legal.  In Rieders’ 1/25/15 op-ed published in the Williamsport Sun-Gazette, the lawyer and author noted that terrorism worldwide is not a question of a few crazy people but rather is a serious assault on Western civilization.  In prior conflicts, ethnic groups supported the United States in its wars on behalf of freedom.  German-Americans and all other American ethnic groups fought heroically on behalf of the United States.  Even African-Americans who are subject to discrimination, lynchings and the Jim Crow South, fought for America and helped to liberate German concentration camps.

 

Rieders calls for Muslims in the West and in their home countries to support decency and moderation against the terrorists who are soiling all of Islamic history.  The soldiers of Islam and its war against the West must be opposed by all people in the West, including Muslim citizens.  All people of decency must join the West in its effort to survive including Christians, Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Hindus, and anyone else.  “We should welcome to our side people who will fight and work for a better, safer world.  Likewise, we must be completely intolerant of political correctness, or mumbling fantasies about what is at stake and who is responsible for these attacks.”

 

The tyrants are at our doorstep, and we must get organized together with all people of goodwill.

Cliff Rieders’ Updated Resume

Cliff Rieders’ latest resume shows a life of commitment to the law.  Cliff graduated cum laude New York University and Georgetown University with a juris doctorate degree.  Rieders graduated Phi Beta Kappa.

Rieders is a certified civil trial advocate by the National Board of Trial Advocacy, and is a member of many federal courts.  Rieders is admitted to the highest court of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, State of New York and District of Columbia.

For years, Rieders has been named as a Super Lawyer.

Rieders has been very active in the American Law Institute, where he has served on many Consultative Groups.  The American Law Institute is instrumental in creating the legal framework adopted in many states as their organic law.

Rieders is a Past President of Citizens for Consumer Justice, the Pennsylvania Trial Lawyers Association (now called the Pennsylvania Association for Justice), and is a member of the American Trial Lawyers (now American Association for Justice).  Rieders is a Past President of the Central PA chapter of the Federal Bar Association.

Rieders’ new resume lists not only his commitment to the Bar, but also his work on Pennsylvania’s Patient Safety Authority, which he helped to create.  Cliff Rieders is an active teacher, educator, and writer.  Rieders has a number of textbooks and pamphlets in publication, as well as the fact that he is a frequent op-ed writer.

Many legal decisions have been authored based upon Rieders’ work, and he has taught dozens of continuing legal education courses.  Rieders has a popular one-hour radio show twice per month on WXPI, Williamsport public access radio, called “The Law Show.”  The Law Show has had some of the most intriguing and interesting guests heard on public radio.

Rieders’ complete resume lists many, but probably not all, of the written work and legal career of this well-known Pennsylvania trial lawyer.

The Law Show – Featuring Mark Hager

Cliff Rieders, the host and creator of “The Law Show,” aired twice monthly on WXPI public access radio, Williamsport, Pennsylvania, interviewed Professor Mark Hager.  Professor Hager is currently residing in Sri Lanka.

 

Hager, a graduate of Harvard Law School, has taught law for over 20 years prior to relocating.

 

One of Professor Hager’s interests has been the evolving law of products liability.  Products liability is the law which concerns the safety of products.  In products liability law, the emphasis is on the safety of the product rather than the negligence of the manufacturer or retailer.

 

Products liability has evolved ever since the dam burse cases from England.  In the famous case of McPherson v. Buick, the courts first addressed how to deal with an unsafe automobile.

 

Professor Hager talked about the difficult problem of preemption, whereby Congress will come along and usurp state laws.  When federal law applies and when state law applies can be a very confusing matter.

 

The American Law Institute, explained Professor Hager, developed an approach to product safety called 402A.  This law emphasized the safety of the product and the spreading of risks throughout society when a product is badly designed or malfunctions.  The insurance movement of the mid-1980s attempted to change the law and create a situation whereby consumers would have to prove the unprovable, that the state of mind of the manufacturer was bad or unreasonable.  Many products are made overseas and it is difficult enough to bring a case against a manufacturer, no less understand and be able to prove their “negligence.”

 

The Restatement (Third) attempted to change the rights of consumers and shift the paradigm so that it would favor manufacturers and retailers.  The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in the recent case of Tincher v. Omega Flex, rejected the approach of those who would whittle away consumer rights.  The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in its leading opinion, said that the Restatement (Second) would continue to control and that consumer expectations would be very important.  A manufacturer is the guarantor of the safety of their product and will remain so.

 

Attorney Rieders has been involved in the American Law Institute having first been elected, and later a life member.  Rieders has argued one of the most important products liability cases to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and has served as amicus curiae, friend of the court, in a host of other cases.  In fact, Rieders was amicus curiae in the Tincher case.

 

Rieders is one of the leading authorities on the law of products liability, unsafe products, whether they be vehicles, airplanes, home appliances, pharmaceutical or medical devices.

Cliff Rieders Presented at the Pennsylvania Association for Justice Webinar

Cliff Rieders presented at the Pennsylvania Association for Justice webinar, New Face of Strict Liability Law in Pennsylvania, a news release said.

 

The seminar was created as a result of the blockbuster decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Tincher v. Omega Flex.  Rieders had written an amicus curiae brief for the Pennsylvania Association for Justice.

 

Rieders was introduced as one of the leading authorities on the development of strict liability law in Pennsylvania.  Rieders became a member of the American Law Institute in the 1980s and almost immediately was appointed to the Consultative Group for Products Liability created by the American Law Institute.  Rieders was instrumental in getting shelved the Enterprise Theory of Liability, which would have returned Pennsylvania from a strict liability state to utilizing principles of negligence in determining the safety of a product.  This would have made products liability cases almost impossible to bring.

The Law Show

Cliff Rieders is the host and creator of “The Law Show.”  “The Law Show” is aired twice monthly on WXPI public access radio, Williamsport, Pennsylvania.

The Law Show has some of the most intriguing and interesting guests in our nation.  Recently, Cliff Rieders interviewed Joan Claybrook, former head of Public Citizen, and the right-hand person to Ralph Nader.  While Nader received the publicity, Joan Claybrook did most of the work in creating, from the ground up, the consumer movement in America.  She is a former head of the National Highway Transportation Board, and is known as Ms. Auto Safety.

This week, Cliff Rieders interviewed, in two (2) 28-minute segments, Rivka Ulmer, Department of Religious Studies, Bucknell University.  Professor Ulmer is one of the leading biblical scholars in the world.  She has lectured and written on a broad variety of subjects of interest to students, academics, and the average citizen.

Professor Ulmer spoke about her work, including Rabbinic Literature with an emphasis on Midrash, Medieval Hebrew manuscripts, and the intriguing mention of Cleopatra in the Talmud itself.  Professor Ulmer has been educated in Germany, Israel, and the United States, where she has been recognized for her incredible depth of knowledge.  She is a prolific writer, reviewer, editor and teacher, utilizing the resources of multiple language skills.  Professor Ulmer’s scope of interest is so broad that it almost defies easy appreciation.  She has written about women in the Bible, homosexuality as text related to the origin and development of Christianity.  An example of the current courses taught by Professor Ulmer show something about the broad spectrum.  She teaches about the Holocaust, Israel, Judaism in film, post-Biblical literature, the male body in Judaism, and numerous other topics.

Having Professor Rivka Ulmer as a guest on The Law Show is the continuing contribution of the importance of public radio in the community.

2014 LLA Fair Share Award

Estate of Lagano v. Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office

Claim is that the state agents are reported informant to state organized criminals and they killed the man.  The claim was brought based upon state-created danger in violation of due process rights.  Local government bodies and their officials are “persons” under Section 1983 and 1985 of 42 U.S. Code.  This is true where state agencies and their officials act in their official capacity.  If the agency is an arm of the state, the person must be sued in their official capacity.  Sovereign immunity may be extended by virtue of the 11^th Amendment.  The proper framework for analyzing 11^th Amendment sovereign immunity as it applies to county prosecutors is to determine whether the agency involved is entitled to 11^th Amendment sovereign immunity in this particular case.  Qualified immunity may also apply.  The Doctrine of Qualified Immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.  The state-created danger theory falls under a due process claim.  The decision lists the requirements for state-created danger theory.  Those requirements were as follows:

 

1.    The harm was foreseeable and fairly direct;
2.    State actor acted with a degree of culpability that shocks the conscience;
3.    A relationship between state and the plaintiff existed such that plaintiff  was a foreseeable victim or a member of a discreet class of persons subject to potential harm; and
4.   A state actor affirmatively used his or her authority in the way that created a danger to the citizen or created a vulnerability of that citizen’s to danger.

 

The state-created danger violates due process.  The court also discussed statute of limitations and noted that 1983 cases are based upon a similar state statute of limitation.

The case is remanded to the district court for further dealings.  Estate of Lagano v. Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office, 769 F.3d 850 (3d Cir. 2014).

Attorney Corey Mowrey Representing the YLD Angel Tree Toy Drive

YLD Angel Tree Toy Drive

Attorney Corey Mowrey of the Rieders, Travis Law Firm who is also the Lycoming Law Association-Young Lawyers Division Co-Chair and Executive Counsel Member, is seen here representing the Angel Tree Toy Drive sponsored by the YLD.  The Young Lawyers Division collects toys from various law firms in the area and donate to the Williamsport Salvation Army for distribution to families in need.

Cliff Rieders Presents on the New Face of Strict Liability Law in Pennsylvania for the Pennsylvania Association for Justice

Cliff Rieders presented at the Pennsylvania Association for Justice webinar, New Face of Strict Liability Law in Pennsylvania.

 

The seminar was created as a result of the blockbuster decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Ticher v. Omega Flex.  Cliff Rieders had written an amicus curiae brief for the Pennsylvania Association for Justice.

 

Cliff was introduced as one of the leading authorities on the development of strict liability law in Pennsylvania.  Rieders became a member of the American Law Institute in the 1980s and almost immediately was appointed to the Consultative Group for Products Liability created by the American Law Institute.  Rieders was instrumental in getting shelved the Enterprise Theory of Liability, which would have returned Pennsylvania from a strict liability state to utilizing principles of negligence in determining the safety of a product.  This would have made products liability cases almost impossible to bring.

 

When the American Law Institute appointed Professors Twersky and Henderson to write the Restatement Third, Rieders again was appointed to the Consultative Group.  Through long and arduous debate with the Reporters, as well as by virtue of written submissions, the American Law Institute eventually developed a commentary recognizing the importance of Pennsylvania law.

 

From the time the American Law Institute passed the Restatement (Third) Products Liability until Tincher v. Omega Flex, Pennsylvania and other states were embroiled in lengthy disputes as to whether products liability law should focus on the safety of the product or the negligence of the manufacturer and/or consumer.  Rieders was involved in arguing cases on the subject, including before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and authoring amicus briefs on the subject.  Rieders was introduced to the webinar as being the state’s leading authority both historically and currently on the subject of products liability law in Pennsylvania.

 

The seminar focused on how Tincher v. Omega Flex will change products liability law in Pennsylvania and elsewhere.  Federal courts applying Pennsylvania law will have to follow Pennsylvania standards.

 

The focus will remain on the safety of the product.  Cases brought may focus on the expectation of the consumer or the balancing of risk versus utilities of a product.  So fundamental is the progress of Pennsylvania law in the area of strict liability that seminars on the subject are being given by virtually every legal organization and entity.

 

The next step will be to write a jury charge on the subject of strict liability, and Rieders has already taken up that subject.  Cliff Rieders is a longstanding member of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court Standard Jury Instruction Committee.  Rieders therefore will make effort to write a charge for the jury acceptable to the Standard Jury Instruction Committee so that Judges will know how to apply the new law.

 

Cliff Rieders worked in the field of products liability and is typical of the work he has done in a number of other areas, including medical malpractice, hospital liability, commercial litigation, constitutional law, and even litigation involving the Employment Retirement Income Security Act.  Rieders has become one of the outstanding legal authorities in Pennsylvania, is a frequently published author, and is a Civil Trial Advocate, Board Certified by the National Board of Trial Advocacy.

Attorney Cliff Rieders wins $3 3 million settlement for victim of Rockview State Prison rape

This past Monday, the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections said that it has now agreed to pay a Rockview State Prison clerk $3.3 million to settle a federal lawsuit over her rape by an inmate who was already serving time for rape.

The settlement, which was signed last week by someone from the attorney general’s office, has other stipulations; one of which is that the victim can meet with the Pennsylvania state correction’s secretary to discuss her concerns for the protection of prison employees who work as clerks, typists, and serve in other administrative positions.

The lawsuit, filed against the Pennsylvania DoC and three Rockview prison officials, states that the inmate, one Omar Best, snuck up behind the woman while she emptied trash for him in July of 2013 and choked her until she was unconscious. He then raped her in her office, which was located near to several inmate cells.

According to the lawsuit, the woman blew and emergency whistle, but she wasn’t responded to until nearly thirty minutes after the attack. Once found, she was quickly taken for medical treatment. She had only worked at the prison for about one month at the time of the attack. Her primary duties included typing non-specific prison document, sorting office and inmate mail, and preparing parole packets for outgoing inmates.

The attacker, a 37-year-old man who was convicted of rape in 2012, was moved after the incident and is currently an inmate at Huntingdon State Prison in Huntingdon, PA. In proceedings earlier this past fall, Kathy Kane from the attorney general’s office alleged that the victim may have “contributed” to the attack. She later unofficially recanted those remarks. The victim’s lawyer, Attorney Cliff Rieders of Rieders, Travis, Humphrey, Harris, Waters & Dohrmann in Williamsport, PA, dismissed Kane’s assertions, telling The Associated Press: “They have no evidence of that…[it’s] insulting to women [in general] who face rape cases only to be told that it’s their fault.”

The woman said that she told prison administrators that she did not feel safe, but that her concerns went disregarded. She voiced particular concern about Omar Best because of the nature of his past crimes and his proximity to her office. According to the victim’s lawsuit, she suffered numbness in both her left arm and right hand, as well as visual issues that lasted at least a month and a half, and feelings of “fear, stress, anxiety, distress, trauma, confusion, and embarrassment.”

After she was raped, the lawsuit said that the PA DoC moved other clerical staff away from areas where cell blocks are located at Rockview. Employees were given emergency alert systems to be kept on their person at all times. And the Rockview superintendent was replaced.

Attorney Rieders did not make any initial remarks about the settlement on Monday. The victim is expected to be compensated by the end of next month.

Source: TribLive.com, “Raped prison clerk to receive $3.3M” 1 December 2014

Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc.; Does it Contain Every Element Necessary to Make it Safe?

Cliff Rieders Cited in Doylestown Intelligencer Editorial

Attorney Rieders Quoted in Timesonline.com State News Regarding Appointment as Opposed to Election of State Judges

Stryker Hip Recall Settlement Results in Payment of More than $1 Billion

INSURANCE-FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY LAW-UM/UIM COVERAGE-WAIVERS-AFTER ACQUIRED VEHICLE CLAUSE/ENDORSEMENT

Insured purchased a vehicle which she added to her policy.  This vehicle, unlike a prior one which the insured purchased, was not added by way of endorsement but rather was reflected by an amended declarations page.  After carefully examining the Sackett trilogy, the court determined that it was required to obtain a new waiver in order for stacking not to apply.  The court relied heavily upon the language of the policy.  Like Sackett, the vehicles were added to an existing policy; they were not added to replace a vehicle already covered under the policy.  In view of the fact that the additional cars were added pursuant to the policy’s endorsement provision immediately after being purchased and were placed on the policy’s declarations page, the after-acquired vehicle clause became irrelevant.  Significantly, the language of the policy defines “newly acquired auto” and includes those autos “for which no other insurance policy provides coverage.”  Even if the newly-acquired automobile clause did not apply, there would not be a different result.  The Peerless Policy’s newly-acquired automobile clause makes the distinction between coverage for vehicles that an insured adds to an existing policy and those that it acquires as a replacement for vehicles already insured under the policy.  In the latter case, an insured need not notify the insurer about the replacement vehicle; coverage is automatically applied to that automobile upon the insured gaining its ownership. In the former case, an insured must affirmatively notify the insurer with a set period in order for coverage to be extended to that additional vehicle.  Peerless therefore made a careful distinction between “add-on” and “replace.”  While the first one requires notice to the insurer, the replacement vehicle extends automatic coverage.  The Bumbargers added their third vehicle to the Peerless policy by way of endorsement, and that was the vehicle involved with the uninsured motorist.  The new vehicle was covered under the general terms of the Peerless policy and not its after-acquired vehicle clause.  Therefore a new waiver was required. Bumbarger v. Peerless Indemnity Insurance Company, 93 A.3d 872 (Pa. Super. 2014).

LEGAL MALPRACTICE-MEDICAL MALPRACTICE-VICARIOUS LIABILITY-CORPORATE CLAIM

INSURANCE-HOMEOWNERS-INTENTIONAL ACT-OCCURRENCE-DANCING

In this case there was a party, somebody got hit in the groin during a dance contest, and the question is whether homeowners covers that or whether it was an intentional act.  Summary judgment grant was not in error.  The fact that the one guest intentionally struck somebody else in the testicles is not an accident and is an intentional act not covered by the policy.  There does seem to be some question about how the act happened.  The guest snuck up behind the other guest while his back was turned and hit him in the groin with his forearm.  He only meant to cause momentary discomfort; however the policy excludes coverage of bodily injuries resulting from intentional acts even if the actual injury or damage is different than expected or intended.  American National Property & Casualty v. Hearn, 93 A.3d 880 (Pa. Super. 2014).

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS-PENNSYLVANIA STORAGE TANK AND SPILL PREVENTION ACT-DISCOVERY RULE-OBJECTIVE STANDARD-REASONABLE DILIGENCE

The standard of reasonable diligence is objective, not subjective.  It is not a standard of reasonable diligence unique to a particular plaintiff but instead a standard of reasonable diligence as applied to a reasonable person.  A person must exercise reasonable diligence to ascertain that he has been injured and by what cause.  This usually involves a factual determination.  In this case, the courts have addressed the limitations period for private STSPA claims and usually there is a two-year statute of limitations saying it is inapplicable.  There apparently are other statutes of limitations that apply, and this court does not say what they might be, either a six or perhaps a 20-year statute of limitations period.  Morgan v. Petroleum Products Equipment Company, 92 A.3d 823 (Pa. Super. 2014).

Important United States Supreme Court Whistleblowing Decision

WRONGFUL DISCHARGE-SARBANES-OXLEY ACT-WHISTLEBLOWING- The whistleblowing protection shelters employees of private contractors and subcontractors, just as it shelters employees of the public company served by the contractors and subcontractors. The plaintiffs are former employees of private companies that contract to advise or manage mutual funds. The mutual funds themselves are public companies that have no employees. Hence, if the whistle is to be blown on fraud detrimental to mutual fund investors, the whistleblowing employee must be on another company’s payroll, most likely, the payroll of the mutual fund’s investment advisor or manager. Lawson v. FMR, LLC, 134 S.Ct. 1158 (2014).

Prison Inmate Wins Federal Court Verdict

We are pleased to announce the verdict obtained by Attorney Corey Mowrey in the case of Balter v. United States and MDI. Mr. Balter was an inmate at the Allenwood Penitentiary. His visual problems were ignored and, as a result, he went blind in one eye, already being blind in the other as the result of a disease process. The Honorable Robert Mariani, United States. District Court of the Middle District of Pennsylvania issued a verdict in the amount of $125,000 against MDI, a government contractor responsible for making medical appointments for inmates, $125,000 against the federal government, and a separate $400,000 award against the government for failing to arrange for Mr. Balter to be seen by one of two optometrists who visited Allenwood in November 2007, and by removing him from the automatic call-out list. The total verdict was therefore $650,000.

This enormous victory, for a man with no other champion, will go down as one of the most important verdicts we have seen in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Congratulations to Corey Mowrey!

Dottie Sandusky Blaming Victims

2014 LLA Annual Meeting

The 2014 Annual Meeting of the Lycoming Law Association took place as scheduled on January 13. Julie Steinbacher concluded her term as president and turned the gavel over to Tom Waffenschmidt, for 2014.

LLA Officers Attend Bar Leaders Conference

The Pennsylvania Bar Association’s annual Conference of County Bar Leaders took place Feb. 27 – March 1, at The Nittany Lion Inn, State College. The event is a “must” for current and incoming leadership of any county bar association.

This year, LLA President Tom Waffenschmidt, President Elect Bob Cronin and Executive Director Jessica Engel attended the session. Despite the fact that they appear (in the photo on the left) to be only having fun, the conference is actually an intense combination of practical seminars, networking opportunities and presentations that fill almost 2 days.

Jessica started with a Pennsylvania Association of Bar Executives meeting on Thursday evening. That was followed by the Pennsylvania Legal Aid Network Reception, which Bob, Tom and Jessica all attended at the Law School. The final event of the evening was the Welcome Social at the Nittany Lion Inn, where all had the opportunity to socialize with other county and PBA leaders.

The Friday morning sessions attended were as follows: Tom – Leadership Kick-off, Avoidance of Legal Malpractice, and Recruiting Cheerleaders for Civic Education; Bob – Leadership Kick-off, Most Likely to Succeed (Your Bar Foundation), and History of Your Bar Association; Jessica – Most Likely to Succeed (Your Bar Foundation) and Recruiting Cheerleaders for Civic Education. Corey Mowrey drove down to attend the YLD Business Meeting held that morning.

All three attended the Friday Luncheon, which featured speaker was Ken Gormley, Dean of Duquesne Law School, who spoke on his book, Archibald Cox: Conscience of a Nation, about the Nixon/Watergate era. According to Jessica, “It was mesmerizing.”

The afternoon sessions attended were as follows: Tom – LCL: Hope and Help for the Distressed Attorney; Will You Be My Friend? The Do’s and Don’ts of Social Media, and Hot Topics, Cold Drinks; Bob – LCL: Hope and Help for the Distressed Attorney; Your Year(s) in Bar Leadership/on the Homecoming Court, and Hot Topics, Cold Drinks; Jessica – LCL: Hope and Help for the Distressed Attorney; Will You Be My Friend? The Do’s and Don’ts of Social Media.

Friday concluded with a formal dinner and social later in the evening.

On Saturday, everyone attended both sessions: Protect Your Board and Yourself: Fraud and Embezzlement Avoidance, and Are You Covered: Nonprofit Insurance Options.

As always, the CCBL was a stimulating and enlightening event, guaranteed to improve the operation of the Lycoming Law Association and its support for its members.

Supreme Court Affirms Superior Court in Favorable Decision in Passarello Case

In a recent decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Passarello v. Grumbine, 2014 WL 502490 (Pa. Feb. 7, 2014), the Court affirmed the Superior Court’s holding that an “error in judgment” jury charge should not be given in a medical malpractice case because “error in judgment instructions pose palpable and substantial risks of confusing juries with respect to the standard of care.”

In Passarello, the parents of a deceased two-month old child brought a medical malpractice action against the child’s treating physician and her employer.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the Superior Court’s decision in Pringle v. Rapaport, 980 A.2d 159 (Pa. Super 2009), holding that the “error in judgment” jury instructions should not be given in medical malpractice cases applied retroactively. Therefore, the court required a new trial.

The Court also rejected the two waiver arguments advanced by defendants. First, the defendants argued that plaintiffs failed to preserve this argument by only objecting during the charging conference to the physician’s proposed point for charge and not the hospital’s, the latter being the version given by the trial court. The Court noted that the hospital was sued only in an agency capacity, so only one objection was necessary to put the trial court on notice of possible defects in such a charge. Secondly, the Court also rejected defendant’s argument that plaintiffs had waived any right to argue such a charge should never be given, because they had only made the narrower objection at trial that the instruction was not proper in this case. The Court held that the plaintiffs had preserved the objection by arguing that the trial court should only give the medical malpractice charge in the Pa. Suggested Standard Jury Instructions, which specifically rejects the error in judgment charge.

In the case, following the charging conference, the trial judge instructed the jury on the standard of negligence for a physician and told the jury that it was not to rely on “hindsight” and to consider a “disastrous result” to be “proof of negligence” The Judge then read Defendants’ proposed error in judgment jury charge stating that ”

[u]nder the law, physicians are permitted a broad range of judgment in their professional duties and physicians are not liable for errors of judgment unless it is proven that an error in judgment was the result of negligence.”

The opinion which grants Plaintiff a new trial, was authored by Justice McCaffery. This opinion was joined by Justices Baer, Todd and Stevens. Justice Saylor filed a concurring and dissenting opinion, while Justices Castille and Eakin filed dissenting opinions. Justice Saylor, concurring and dissenting, agreed with “the majority in establishing a bright-line rule proscribing the errors-in-judgment instruction in medical malpractice cases,” but would have done so “only prospectively, prohibiting the trial courts from using the phraseology in jury instructions in medical malpractice cases.”

Cliff Rieders and Pam Shipman of Rieders, Travis, as well as Donald Feinberg represented the plaintiffs. Rosalind Kaplan filed an amicus brief on behalf of the Pa. Association for Justice.

Plaintiffs Attys Group Wants Rehearing In Pa. Tort Law Case

Law360, New York (December 02, 2013, 7:44 PM ET) — In an unprecedented twist Wednesday, a plaintiffs attorney group urged the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to hold a second hearing on whether the state should adopt revised tort law, arguing that the position taken by the Cozen O’Connor PC attorney counseling the plaintiffs does not represent the interests of most injured consumers.

Cozen’s Mark Utke represents a couple, the Tinchers, who claim defective steel tubing made by Omega Flex Inc. contributed to a house fire. Using the case, the court is examining whether it should continue to allow manufacturers to be found strictly liable solely because a product was defective when used as intended, as outlined in the American Law Institute’s Restatement of Torts, Second, or to give weight to factors such as the foreseeability of the product’s risks, as outlined in the Restatement Third.

According to a filing from the Pennsylvania Association for Justice’s Clifford Rieders, Utke told Rieders that he would argue in favor of the Restatement Second and a related ruling, Azzarello v. Black Brothers Co. Inc. Under that decision, judges, not juries, address social policy questions in product liability cases, such as whether a product’s utility outweighs its risks.

At oral argument in the case in October, however, Utke said that Azzarello should be overruled, which is “certainly not the position of consumer-oriented lawyers,” Rieders told Law360. Allowing judges to tackle social policy issues in products cases results in a more consistent application of the law, he said.

“The position urged at argument by counsel for the Tinchers represents a dramatic shift in the position of any plaintiff suing for damages in a products liability case,” the PAJ said in its filing.

Though no Pennsylvania court has allowed an amicus curiae such as the PAJ to reargue a case after oral argument was held, “the situation itself is unprecedented,” according to the group. If Utke had told Rieders before the hearing that he would not back Azzarello, he would have asked to participate in the first oral argument, it said.

The case is unusual because the firm representing the plaintiffs, Cozen, is known mostly for its corporate defense work. Cozen is actually representing the Tinchers’ insurance company, USAA, on behalf of the couple, according to the PAJ’s filing.

“The impact of a court decision reversing Azzarello … should not be determined based upon a subrogation case essentially ‘owned’ by an insurance company and argued by one who is not committed to consumer protection policies,” the group said.

Utke and an attorney for Omega Flex, Christopher Landau of Kirkland & Ellis LLP, could not be immediately reached for comment on the request for another hearing.

Omega Flex has told the Supreme Court that under Azzarello, a plaintiff need only allege facts that would allow a court to conclude that a jury could find a product unreasonably dangerous. However, the case law never holds a plaintiff responsible for later proving its allegation, it said.

Under the Restatement Third, plaintiffs would not simply be able to assert that a different design would have eliminated the alleged defect but would have to show such a design was viable when the product was manufactured, the company said. Most jurisdictions in the country have adopted the Restatement Third.

According to the PAJ’s filing, Utke ultimately argued for the overturning of Azzarello because he believed it was necessary to preserve the lower court’s verdict against Omega Flex. Before the hearing, he had admitted to Rieders that Cozen’s support of the Restatement Second and Azzarello in the case was a “delicate issue,” the filing said.

The Tinchers are represented by Mark Utke of Cozen O’Connor.

Omega Flex is represented by Christopher Landau of Kirkland & Ellis LLP and William Conroy and Katherine Wang of Campbell Campbell Edwards & Conroy PC.

The PAJ is represented by Clifford Rieders of Rieders Travis Humphrey Harris Water & Dohrmann.

The case is Tincher et al. v. Omega Flex Inc., case number 17 MAP 2013, in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

–Additional reporting by Matt Fair. Editing by Stephen Berg.

Tom Waffenschmidt Quoted In The Law360 Article Regarding Malpractice

Penn State pays close to $60 million to Sandusky victims

Earlier this week, Penn State released information that it was paying $59.7 million to 26 different young men who were sexually abused by former Penn State defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky. Just less than two years since Sandusky was initially charged with these heinous crimes, the school claims that, to date, twenty-three settlements have been made and that there are three still in principle. As expected, none of the names of the young men have been released.

Penn State still faces six other possible charges, but the university says those cases have little if any merit and will likely produce little to no settlement. Penn State’s new president, Rodney Erickson, said at a press conference, after the figures were announced, that finally getting these compensatory payment out of the way is a huge step forward for the school and, more importantly, the victims. Although the settlements have been coming to fruition since August, and some lawyers of the victims decided to disclose those numbers to the press as they happened, the university decided to wait until every deal was done before making one, final announcement.

In addition to the near $60 million Penn State paid to the victims of the sex scandal, the university has also spent an estimated $50 million on other lawsuit-related costs such as lawyers’ fees and public relations expenditures, as well as seminars and training for the adoption of new policies and procedures in relation to any sexual abuse complaints.

While Penn State’s insurance company is expected to pay most, if not all, of the its legal defense fees, it is being reported that they will not and are not required to pay a dime to any of the victims–those expenses will be paid entirely by the university. There is likely more debate to arise with the school’s administration as to from where that money will come.

Attorney Clifford Rieders, a Williamsport lawyer for one of the victims, has said the average payout is similar to other cases involving child abuse in educational or religious settings, but would not divulge the exact amount his client received.

Mr. Rieders was involved not only in drafting the template settlement documents, but also in rounding up the Second Mile assets, assuring that there would be changes in the supervision of young children at the campus, that there would be an in-person explanation to the victims of what occurred, and other nonmonetary matters to be addressed. The settlement with Mr. Rieders’s client was one of the largest.

Attorney Rieders said the cases raised the threat of embarrassing admissions had the school attempted to take any of the victims to trial instead of settling. In addition, had the claims gone to trial, Rieders said that the university would have to consider the effects on the victims, the school’s reputation for being so callous, and the possibility of eventually having to pay much more than the $60 million they set aside for settlements. “There are many considerations whenever you resolve a high-profile case involving serious misconduct, and I’m sure all of those and more came into play here,” said Rieders.

Source: Times Leader, “Penn State: 26 people get $59.7M over Sandusky” October 28, 2013

Penn State continues to settle with Sandusky victims

Penn State University is continuing to come to settlements with young men who were sexually molested by former football defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky. Thus far, nearly 20 men have come to settlement with the university, according the Associated Press.

However, the number of settlements is in dispute. One of the university’s attorneys claims that the amount of settlement is really closer to thirty and that there are only five left that need to be handled. He also says that of those five, at least three will be dropped due to a lack of credible evidence.

To date, Penn State has spent an estimated $50 million over the Sandusky case. This does not, however, include payments made to people who were sexually abused. The school has reportedly set aside over $60 million for victim payouts.

Attorney Cliff Rieders, from Williamsport, PA, has told reporters that his respective client has settled with Penn State, but he refused to name his client. “It’s time for my client to continue to get counseling and to put back together his life,” said Rieders in a statement made shortly after the settlement.

Attorney Rieders was heavily involved in drafting the template settlement documents and rounding up Second Mile assets. Attorney Rieders also assured there would be changes in the supervision of young children at Second Mile and that victims would receive a personal explanation as to what happened to them, as well as other nonmonetary matters. The settlement with Mr. Rieders’s client was one of the largest.

Sandusky is currently serving a 30 to 60 year federal prison sentence for 45 counts of sexual molestation to minors.

Source: The Daily Collegian, “Penn State continues to reach settlements with men abused by Sandusky” 9 October 2013

More Sandusky victims settle, some still coming forward

As of October 8, 2013, at least 19 of the young men who were sexually molested for Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky, have come to settlement with the university. Most of the men have received checks in undisclosed amounts as the school has reportedly already begun dipping into the $60 million it set aside to pay the claims.

Respected Williamsport attorney, Clifford Rieders, agreed with other lawyers that although the money cannot ever change what happened to them in the past, it will help them along in the future. Rieders had this to say of his client: “He is a very responsible, thoughtful, intelligent man. His reaction is that his was a terrible tragedy and he’d like to move on with his life and get the help he needs for a meaningful life.” Rieders and his client came to an agreement on their settlement at the end of September.

Mr. Rieders was involved in not only drafting the template for the settlement documents, but also in negotiating the Second Mile assets, assuring that there will be changes in the supervision of young children at its campus, that there would be an in-person explanation to the victims of what occurred, as well as other nonmonetary matters that must be addressed. The settlement with Mr. Rieders’s client was one of the largest.

Although Penn State spokespeople have declined to make any relevant comments, the university has said that it plans to publicly announce the number of victims and the amount that it will pay out to each victim, but will of course not divulge any clients’ name. Penn State attorneys say that there have been at least thirty one young me to come forward alleging they were molested by Sandusky, but it remains unclear who they are and if they have proper representation.

Source: The Guardian, “Penn State reaches settlement with 19 men over Jerry Sandusky abuse claims” 8 October 2013

Sandusky litigation slows as legal process takes its toll

Penn State is currently fighting with their general liability insurer over coverage for Sandusky settlements and payouts. Some say that the insurance company fears the amount they will have to pay on behalf of the school will skyrocket if and when Penn State publicly announces that they will begin seeking victims.

Says Attorney Cliff Rieders, one of the Sandusky victim’s lawyers: “I don’t have any problem with discussing a system of evaluation of claims, so long as there is a right to go to court, said the Williamsport attorney. Rieders recently filed a writ in Philadelphia initiating a lawsuit without filing a complaint that fully outlines the extent of all the allegations made. Rieders went on to say that he is “…not generally in favor of giving up those rights unless there’s some adequate quid pro quo.”

Attorney Rieders was involved in drafting the template settlement documents and in rounding up Second Mile assets. Rieders is assuring that there will be changes in the supervision of young children at the Second Mile campus and those who were abused will get personal explanations as to why it was allowed to happen. The settlement with Mr. Rieders’s client was one of the largest.

Attorney Rieder’s client, who was not one of the ten victims in Sandusky’s criminal case, was sexually abused by Sandusky over what he described as “several different summer seasons.”

Penn State and their insurer, the Blue Bell, PA-based Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association Insurance Company, have sued each other over what is and is not cover for the different Sandusky-related claims. A judge’s decision to relegate all Sandusky-related litigation to Philadelphia is currently being appealed by Penn State; and the insurance dispute, along with pending charges against Penn State administrative officers, has considerably slowed the litigation process.

One expert in the field, a University of Pennsylvania professor of law and expert in the relationship between liability and insurance, claims that Penn State obviously does not want any of these cases to go to trial, but may be compelled to do so if the plaintiffs and their attorneys are “unreasonable” in the settlements for which they are asking.

Source: ESPN, “Claimants: Penn St. slow to settle” 15 September 2013

Sandusky victims nearing settlement

As the legal battle between Jerry Sandusky’s sex abuse victims, Penn State, and all involved lawyers, victims’ attorneys are all essentially agreeing that enough is enough and settlements need be paid out immediately.

One victim’s attorney, Clifford Rieders of Williamsport, says that after meeting will all parties involved, a deal is ready to be made. “As far as I am concerned,” said Rieders, “it is resolved.” Rieders recently sent the terms of his client, which are already signed, sealed, delivered, and ready to be agreed upon and signed by one of Penn State’s lawyers. Penn State lawyers anticipate a great number of settlement agreements to be made available to trustee approval within the next few weeks. To date, at least half of the 30 victims involved have deals waiting to be set into motion.

Rieders’s client, an unidentified 23-year-old man from central PA, remains under psychological counseling, and although he is not one of the ten victims named in the alleged charges wherein Sandusky was convicted, he admits to being sexually abused on Penn State’s campus and in other places through outings related to Sandusky’s Second Mile charity.

The specifics of the case have not yet been determined, but a Penn State attorney did tell reporters that whatever agreement is made, a confidentiality clause is certainly to follow. The confidentiality clause will forego victims’ right to sue anyone else anyone else who could possibly be held in contempt, such as the university, The Second Mile, and any whistleblowers who should have come forward years before.

Attorney Rieders’s agreements, in part with other drafted agreement, will not prevent Penn State from suing The Second Mile, but would prevent Penn State from suing his client for possible defamation down the road.

As of now, all settlements included, Penn State will be paying more than $100 million, including $60 million to be paid to the NCAA over the next five years. Penn State administrators are banking on insurance coverage to pay the majority of the any and all settlement monies; however, Penn State’s insurance company, PA Manufacturers Association Insurance Company has publicly state that they are well within their legal rights to refuse to pay for any of the Sandusky-involved sex crimes.

Sandusky is currently serving a minimum 30-year state prison term after being convicted last year of sexually molesting 10 boys over a 15 year period between 1994 and 2008. He continues to appeal his conviction.

Source: Penn Live, “Penn State attorney says settlements near with a number of Sandusky victims” 16 July 2013

Attorney Cliff Rieders to release Sandusky victim documentary if conditions are not met

In the words of Cliff Rieders, in regards to the ongoing Penn State sex scandal, “We have a big stick and we’re willing to use it” against the university and the state. Rieders, a long time Williamsport lawyer, has said that some incentive must be generated in order for the Penn State and its lawyers to move along with these negotiations.

Says Rieders: “All the lawsuits against Penn State and Sandusky are currently stayed, pending a decision by the Attorney General, as to whether she is going to prosecute on behalf of other victims. The good thing…is that Jerry Sandusky has a very long prison term and he’ll never get out. On the other hand, there are other victims.”

In regards to the victim Rieders in representing, the attorney said that “I think we are the only ones who have created…a documentary that details what happened at Penn State. It also shows the specific way it has impacted our client along with a very sophisticated power point analysis. We have not released that to the public. We intend to meet with Penn State and see what position they are going to take.”

In regards to Rieders, his client, and Penn State, Rieders said, “Let’s just say we’re talking. We haven’t given up yet. We are meeting with them shortly. I think after this next meeting, we will have a very good idea. I’m tolerant to a point.” He then spoke even further on the matter: “If after the next meeting, it is not very clear to me that they want to discuss changing the system to make sure there are protections afforded to these kids, and if they are not willing to step up to the plate financially, then we will go full bore and seek relief from the state and release the film.”

Source: WKOK, “Sandusky victim attorney holds documentary” 24 January 2013