Tag Archives: Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania’s New Standards for Strict Liability Claims.

10 Tuesday Feb 2015

Posted by in Damages, Litigation, Negligence, Product Liability, Torts

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

Tags

, , , , , ,

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 →

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

21 Sunday Dec 2014

Posted by 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

, , , ,

“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.

Attorney Who Introduces Drug Evidence May Face Criminal Charges.

02 Sunday Mar 2014

Posted by in Criminal Law, Drug Possession

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

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

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.

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

03 Monday Feb 2014

Posted by 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

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

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.]