• Home
  • About Me
  • Disclaimer

The Researching Paralegal

~ Articles and Research for Legal Professionals

The Researching Paralegal

Tag Archives: Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania’s New Standards for Strict Liability Claims.

10 Tuesday Feb 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Damages, Litigation, Negligence, Product Liability, Torts

≈ Comments Off on Pennsylvania’s New Standards for Strict Liability Claims.

Tags

Duane Morris LLP & Affiliates®, Negligence, Pennsylvania, Product Liability, Second Restatement of Torts, Strict Liability, Torts

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Adopts New Standards for Strict Liability Claims, by Duane Morris LLP & Affiliates®

http://tinyurl.com/q49j9jx

While the Tincher decision clarifies some issues regarding strict liability cases, there are many issues left to be determined by future case law.

On November 19, 2014, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision in Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc. (No. 17 MAP 2013), in which it addresses the proper standard under Pennsylvania law for strict liability claims relating to allegedly defective products. Although the court declined to adopt the Restatement (Third) of Torts, it overruled its prior holding in Azzarello v. Black Brothers Company, 391 A.2d 1020 (Pa. 1978), which created roadblocks to the introduction by defendants of the reasonableness of their actions in designing products.

Strict liability for defective products developed from the social policy determination that the cost of injuries resulting from defective products should be borne by the manufacturers of the products rather than by the injured persons.[1] For almost 50 years, strict liability under Pennsylvania law has been governed by Section 402A of the Second Restatement of Torts, which provides that ‘one who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or to his property is subject to liability [for the harm caused] . . . .’

The term ‘unreasonably dangerous’ naturally involves a balancing between what is reasonable and what is not, which is similar to the fault-based notions encompassed by negligence claims. However, in Azzarello, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court drew a bright line between strict liability and negligence causes of action. . . .

Continue reading →

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

May Defense Counsel Ask Plaintiff Whether He Was Referred to Doctor?

21 Sunday Dec 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Attorney-Client Privilege, Cross-Examination, Defense Counsel, Depositions, Direct Examination, Discovery, Interrogatories, Litigation, Making Objections, Negligence, Personal Injury, Plaintiff's Counsel, Privilege and Confidentiality, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on May Defense Counsel Ask Plaintiff Whether He Was Referred to Doctor?

Tags

Attorney-Client Privilege, Daniel E. Cummins, Pennsylvania, Personal Injury, TORT TALK Blog

“Did Your Attorney Refer You to that Doctor?” by Daniel E. Cummins, TORT TALK Blog

http://tinyurl.com/phfds4w

In a recent Delaware County Court of Common Pleas decision in the case of English v. Stepchin, No. CP-23-CV-786-2014, 101 Del. 424 (C.P. Del. Co. Nov. 12, 2014 Kenney, P.J.), President Judge Chad F. Kenney upheld a defense attorney’s right to inquire of a personal injury plaintiff whether or not plaintiff’s counsel had referred the plaintiff to her treating physician.

This issue came before the court on a Motion for a Re-Deposition of the plaintiff by defense counsel.

At the original deposition, plaintiff’s counsel objected to the defense counsel’s question to the plaintiff as to whether or not plaintiff’s counsel had referred the plaintiff to her treating physicans. Plaintiff’s counsel asserted that such discovery was barred by the attorney-client privilege.
In his Opinion issued on the matter, President Judge Kenney held that, ‘whether counsel referred Plaintiff to her treating physicians does not constitute legal assistance so as to justify properly invoking the attorney-client privilege.’ More specifically, the court found that whether an attorney referred his client to a medical provider for treatment cannot be considered to have been a communication from an attorney to his or her client associated with the rendering of a legal opinion or the provision of legal services so as to invoke the applicability of the attorney-client privilege.

President Judge Kenney also stated that any asserted privilege ‘failed to outweigh the interest of the accessibility of material evidence to further the truth-determining process’ at a trial of a personal injury matter.

The Court granted Defendant’s Motion and ordered a 2nd deposition limited to the issue of who referred Plaintiff to her treating physicians.

Anyone wishing to review this decision, may click this LINK.

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Attorney Who Introduces Drug Evidence May Face Criminal Charges.

02 Sunday Mar 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Criminal Law, Drug Possession

≈ Comments Off on Attorney Who Introduces Drug Evidence May Face Criminal Charges.

Tags

Criminal Law, Drug Evidence, Drug Paraphernalia, Drug Possession, Judge Donald E. Machen, Law Enforcement, Lt. Leo O'Neill, Paula Reed Ward, Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Wendy L. Williams

Attorney May Face Charges After Introducing Drug Evidence, by Paula Reed Ward, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

http://tinyurl.com/pdcyn6c

A Pittsburgh defense attorney could be facing criminal charges after she introduced potential drug evidence — a box containing a straw with suspected heroin residue — at a court hearing on Thursday.

Wendy L. Williams was instructed by Common Pleas Judge Donald E. Machen to get an attorney as Allegheny County sheriff’s deputies are now investigating the incident.

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Federal Government Is On Board The Eight Pending Lawsuits Against Health Management Associates Inc.

03 Monday Feb 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in False Claims Act, Fraud, Health Law

≈ Comments Off on Federal Government Is On Board The Eight Pending Lawsuits Against Health Management Associates Inc.

Tags

Alabama, Arkansas, Emergency Room, ER, False Claims Act, Federal Health Care, Florida, Fraud, Gary Newsome, Georgia, Health Management Associates Inc., HMA, Hospitals, Inpatient Admissions, Kentucky, Kickbacks, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina Supreme Court, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas Supreme Court, Washington, West Virginia

Government Intervenes in Lawsuits Against Health Management Associates Inc. Hospital Chain Alleging Unnecessary Inpatient Admissions and Payment of Kickbacks, by Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2014/January/14-civ-037.html

The government has intervened in eight False Claims Act lawsuits against Health Management Associates Inc. (HMA) alleging that HMA billed federal health care programs for medically unnecessary inpatient admissions from the emergency departments at HMA hospitals and paid remuneration to physicians in exchange for patient referrals, the Justice Department announced today.  The government also has joined in the allegations in one of these lawsuits that Gary Newsome, HMA’s former CEO, directed HMA’s corporate practice of pressuring emergency department physicians and hospital administrators to raise inpatient admission rates, regardless of medical necessity.  HMA operates 71 hospitals in 15 states: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Washington and West Virginia.

*     *     *

The lawsuits allege that HMA’s corporate officers, at the direction of Newsome, exerted significant pressure on doctors in the emergency department to admit patients who could have been placed in observation, treated as outpatients or discharged, and that this resulted in the submission of inflated or false claims to federal health care programs.  One lawsuit also alleges that patients were improperly admitted for scheduled surgical procedures that should have been done on an outpatient basis.  The complaints further allege that HMA paid kickbacks, either in the form of bonuses or awarded contracts, to physician groups staffing HMA emergency rooms to induce the physicians to admit patients unnecessarily. . . .  [Emphasis added.]

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...
Follow The Researching Paralegal on WordPress.com

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Search

Sign In/Register

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.com

Categories

Archives

  • March 2022
  • January 2022
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • October 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • May 2019
  • March 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013

Recent Comments

Eric Voigt on Top 20 Paralegal Blogs, Websit…
profvoigt on Research Guides in Focus – Mun…
Make Your PDF Docume… on Make Your PDF Document Edit-Pr…
madlaw291282999 on Using Hyperbole -Are You Riski…
How to Treat Bad Cli… on Why Do Bad Clients Deserve The…

Recent Comments

Eric Voigt on Top 20 Paralegal Blogs, Websit…
profvoigt on Research Guides in Focus – Mun…
Make Your PDF Docume… on Make Your PDF Document Edit-Pr…
madlaw291282999 on Using Hyperbole -Are You Riski…
How to Treat Bad Cli… on Why Do Bad Clients Deserve The…
  • RSS - Posts
  • RSS - Comments

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Follow Following
    • The Researching Paralegal
    • Join 454 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • The Researching Paralegal
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...
 

You must be logged in to post a comment.

    %d bloggers like this: