December 3rd, 2019 by Rieders Travis in Medical Malpractice
The statute of limitation for medical malpractice in Pennsylvania is generally two years from the date the cause of action accrues. In some cases, the cause of action accrues when the medical care is rendered, such as a surgical date. However, there are many other circumstances in which the statute of limitations could begin to run later. Pennsylvania’s 7-year statute of repose was recently held unconstitutional by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. In certain circumstances, a “tolling” will apply. This may occur, for example, in cases of fraud or where a reasonably diligent patient could not have discovered the relationship between the medical care and the harm suffered within the two (2) years. In those circumstances, the statute of limitations would begin to run when such discovery can or should have taken place. Again, this is a very complex field and is factually intensive. Minors do not have to begin an action for medical malpractice until two (2) years after reaching the age of majority. According to Pennsylvania law, medical malpractice occurs when a healthcare professional commits medical negligence by violating the generally accepted standard of care. The resulting injury must have been directly caused by the professional’s actions…
November 15th, 2019 by Rieders Travis in Medical Malpractice
There is a time limit to sue for medical malpractice in Pennsylvania. It is two years after you knew or reasonably should have known about the medical error that caused injury or death. This time limit is called a statute of limitations. The statute of limitations is set by the Mcare Act in Pennsylvania. There are occasions when the statute of limitations can be “tolled” based upon circumstances such as fraud or the inability of a reasonably diligent patient to know the relationship between the medical care received and the harm. This is a very difficult test, which has been written about by Cliff Rieders in his text, Medical Malpractice. This book is used by most judges and lawyers in the state. Cliff Rieders was also involved in the writing of the Mcare Act, and was President of the Pennsylvania Trial Lawyers Association, now the Pennsylvania Association for Justice, when the law was negotiated and passed. In addition to the statute of limitations, there are other laws that you need to consider if you are wondering whether you can sue. Since medical malpractice law is so complicated and the time to file…
November 1st, 2019 by Rieders Travis in Car Accidents
Knowing how to calculate pain and suffering in a car accident settlement can help you understand what compensation to expect in your case. If you are injured in a car accident in Pennsylvania, the chances are that you will suffer not only financial damages, but also physical and emotional damages along with pain and suffering, disfigurement and loss of life’s pleasures that can impact your life even more severely than your financial loss. One court has said that the so-called noneconomic damages represent the iceberg, with the economic damages only the tip of the iceberg. Determining how to calculate pain and suffering and other non-economic damages in a car accident settlement is much more challenging than calculating economic costs, such as lost wages, lost wage horizon, medical, hospital, and rehabilitative bills, and property damage. If another party’s negligence or responsibility was involved in the accident, you should be entitled to receive financial compensation that covers pain and suffering, disfigurement, emotional distress and loss of life’s pleasures as Pennsylvania law allows you to recover both economic and non-economic losses from the at-fault party who caused the crash. However, insurance companies have…
July 24th, 2019 by Rieders Travis in Car Accidents
Three Things You Should Not Have to Worry About When You Hire a Capable Car Accident Attorney If you have been in a car crash in Pennsylvania, you probably have lots of worries. Your first priority should be taking care of your injuries, but there are also worries about your financial situation and how the crash will affect your future and your family. You worry about paying your bills and your living costs, especially if the injury affects your ability to work and you no longer have a vehicle. Then there is the stress of dealing with insurance companies. What if you say something wrong and it damages your case? How do you know how much your settlement is worth and whether to agree to what the insurance company offers? You will want to know what underinsurance is. You will need to know if you have signed any waivers or sign-downs reducing your underinsurance coverage. You will need to know about the insurance coverage of the other driver or drivers. You will want to know whether the other driver who was at fault for the accident was at work and, if so,…
July 24th, 2019 by Rieders Travis in Bicycle Accidents
Motorists Have To Share The Road In a crash, a cyclist is much more vulnerable to suffering severe injuries than someone driving a car. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in 2009, 630 bicyclists were killed and another 51,000 were injured in traffic collisions in the United States. In Pennsylvania alone, 19 people died as a result of bicycle crashes in 2014. Although cycling is more popular among adults, especially in major cities like Philadelphia, 25% of all injuries involving bicycles and cars in Pennsylvania were suffered by children between the ages of five and 14. (visit this website) And serious injuries can happen close to home -- recently a Williamsport High School student, Elijah Allen, died after the bicycle he was riding was struck by a car on Pa. 416 in Montgomery Township. Pennsylvania has a bike safety law, and both motorists and bicyclists should abide by it. Bicyclists should always wear a helmet; stay to the right of the highway; ride with traffic, not against it; ride defensively; and use hand signals to indicate turning or stopping. However, even so, an automobile is bigger, heavier, and…
July 24th, 2019 by Rieders Travis in Brain Injury
Observing Brain Injury Awareness Month The human brain is wonderful, complex, and controls our ability to function in every area of life; but it is also extremely sensitive and subject to damage. When the brain is injured, any of our abilities can be affected, and severe symptoms from paralysis to death may result. According to the Brain Injury Association of America (BIA), over 1.5 million people face traumatic brain injuries (TBI) every year, and at least 50,000 individuals will die from their injury. Approximately 80,000 will face life-long injuries and rehabilitative care from their injuries, and there are currently about 5 million Americans suffering from some form of TBI disability. To make the public aware of the importance of the brain, recognize the growing prevalence of traumatic brain injuries, and to help make lives better for brain-injured individuals, the BIA leads a nationwide Brain Injury Awareness Month Campaign each March. To participate, the BIA suggests public activities that include: Learn about traumatic brain injury Invite a speaker for an educational workshop Post support on social media Donate and fundraise Attend an awareness event planned by your state chapter of the…
July 24th, 2019 by Rieders Travis in Attorney Malpractice
The Catastrophe of Infections in American Hospitals People go to hospitals and medical facilities to get well, but all too often they wind up getting sicker or even dying from infections acquired at these very facilities. In fact, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that 1.7 million cases of infection will contribute to more than 90,000 deaths annually at United States hospitals. Preventable medical infections are one of the greatest causes of sickness and death in the United States. If infections drop to manageable levels, the cost of healthcare insurance would be dramatically lower. It has been shown that many infections can be prevented if healthcare professionals are careful and follow guidelines. For example, one big source of infection is blood stream infections (CLABSIs), which are caused when central lines that deliver medications directly into the blood vessels near the heart become contaminated. Experiments have shown that CLABSIs can be prevented if healthcare workers follow guidelines for careful and sterile central-line insertions and maintenance. At Johns Hopkins Hospital in Maryland, a program has been instituted with the goal of eliminating all CLABSIs. The hospital has come up with a specific central-line insertion checklist…
July 23rd, 2019 by Rieders Travis in Wrongful Death
WRONGFUL DEATH AND SURVIVAL-FOREFEITURE-ABANDONMENT Johnson v. Neshaminy Shore Picnic Park, 2019 Pa. Super. LEXIS 822. OPINION BY KUNSELMAN, J.: In this tragic wrongful death and survival action, decedent’s father, Carl Griggs, appeals from the trial court’s decision that he forfeited his share of the proceeds from the action filed by the decedent’s mother, Janelle Johnson, under Pennsylvania probate law. See 20Pa.C.S.A.§2106(b). We affirm. In sum, we cannot ignore the ramifications of the amendments to the failure-to-support clause. We must conclude that the willfulness element of a prima facie forfeiture claim has been eliminated. We conclude further that the duty to support encompasses physical, emotional, and financial support. Therefore, the elements of a prima facie forfeiture claim under the current failure-to-support clause are as follows: 1. the decedent must be a minor or dependent child; 2. the parent must owe a duty of support to the decedent; and 3. the parent must have failed to perform the duty of support for the decedent for at least a year prior to the decedent’s death. See 20 Pa.C.S.A.§2106(b) Regarding the third element, the reason why a parent may have failed to support…
July 23rd, 2019 by Rieders Travis in Workers' Compensation
WORKERS' COMPENSATION-IMMUNITY-EXCLUSIVITY PROVISION OF 303(a) Burrell v. Streamlight, Inc., 2019 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1110 (November 7, 2019) Colins, J. In this case, summary judgment was granted for defendant-employer and an appeal taken. Under the borrowed employee doctrine, where a worker employed by one company is furnished by that company to perform work for another company, the latter company is his employer under the WCA if it has the right to control his work and the manner in which the work is done. A company that is an injured worker’s employer under the borrowed employee doctrine is liable for payment of workers’ compensation benefits for his work injuries. If there is conflicting evidence with respect to the supervision or control of the work, summary judgment cannot be granted. In this case, it was a contract showing that the temporary placement company hired and paid the plaintiff, but that defendant worksite had the right to control plaintiff’s work and the manner in which it was performed. There was no issue of dispute, and the case was properly thrown out. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION-SUBROGATION-COOPERATION OF EMPLOYEE Hartford Ins. Group v. Kamara, 2018 Pa. LEXIS 6033…
July 23rd, 2019 by Rieders Travis in Uncategorized
CIVIL RIGHTS-JOB DISCRIMINATION-RACE Castleberry v. Sti Group, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 12611 (3rd Cir. July 14, 2017) Ambro, C.J. Castleberry and Brown brought suit asserting that their termination was racially motivated, citing to various examples of discrimination such as remarks made at the workplace and unfair work treatment. The District Court dismissed their complaint. Because Plaintiffs state plausible claims of employment discrimination, we reverse and remand. Castleberry and Brown were hired by STI Group in March 2010 as general laborers and supervised by managers from both STI Group and Chesapeake. Shortly after being assigned to a particular worksite, the only other African-American male on the crew was fired. Plaintiffs allege that, when they arrived at work on several occasions, someone had anonymously written “don't be black on the right of way” on the sign-in sheets. They also assert that although they have significant experience working on pipelines (and more so than their non-African-American coworkers), they were only permitted to clean around the pipelines rather than work on them. They claim that, when working on a fence-removal project, a supervisor told Castleberry and his coworkers that if they had “nigger-rigged” the…
REQUEST CASE EVALUATION
CLICK FOR CASE EVALUATION