Philadelphia Top Injury Lawyer Blog

My goal as a Pennsylvania medical malpractice lawyer is to help my clients get the compensation they need to treat their injuries and adapt to life after a serious medical error. So I was interested to see a recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision in a case about who was responsible for paying a victim of medical malpractice. In Heim v. Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Fund, the underlying medical malpractice case was filed by Stephen Heim, whose wife died as a result of an alleged medical error by two doctors in a family practice. Heim won a judgment against them in 2000, but their malpractice insurance had gone bankrupt, and the insurer that inherited the policy did not pay enough to cover the entire amount. A state fund, called the CAT fund, existed to make up the shortfall, but it denied any responsibility to pay. Heim sued the doctors to recover from their personal assets.

One of the doctors, and his medical group, filed their own lawsuit against the CAT fund, seeking a declaratory judgment that it had to pay the shortfall. The doctor then settled with Heim by assigning his claim against the CAT fund to Heim. Thus, Heim became the plaintiff in that matter. The trial court found that the CAT fund was liable. The fund then filed this appeal, arguing that it was not liable for shortfalls that come from the bankruptcy of a primary insurer. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court disagreed. Using the plain language of the statute, as it applied at the time, the court found that the CAT fund is responsible for covering judgments in excess of the insured's own primary coverage. Because joint and several liability applied in the case, that responsibility to cover extends to any liability the insured assumes on behalf of another party -- in this case, the second doctor. Thus, the CAT fund is obligated to pay the shortfall.

As a Pennsylvania medical negligence lawyer, I'm always pleased to see injured people get the financial recovery they're entitled to. In this case, Heim originally filed his case in 1998, which means he has waited more than a decade for a resolution to his case. While long delays are not unusual in medical malpractice cases, it's a shame that squabbling over who was obligated to pay what held up his compensation. In a case with a seriously injured plaintiff who needs the money for medical care, adaptation to a disability or to make ends meet, this kind of delay is a serious hardship. As a Philadelphia birth injury lawyer, I work hard to ensure that my clients have their needs taken care of -- though never at the expense of a fair settlement.

Continue reading "Pennsylvania High Court Finds State Fund Must Pay Medical Malpractice Judgment - Heim v. Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Fund" »

As a Philadelphia personal injury lawyer, I was interested to see a recent ruling on a wrongful death claim stemming from a slip and fall accident in south Jersey. In Risko v. Thompson Mueller Automotive Group, Inc., the court ordered a new trial in the case because of what were described as "outlandish statements" to the jury by the plaintiff's attorney. The trial judge originally interrupted the disputed statements to chastise the attorney and warn that he was considering declaring a mistrial, but ended up allowing the case to continue. After the jury awarded $1.75 million to Peter Risko, the dealership successfully moved for a new trial. The appeals court reversed that order, but the state Supreme Court reversed it again, saying the comments warranted a new trial.

The underlying case involved the alleged wrongful death of Camille Risko, who fell down in an car showroom in Hammonton, N.J., breaking her hip and leading to colitis and eventually septic shock that took her life. At the summation of the wrongful death trial, Risko's wrongful death attorney compared Camille Risko's experience to torture, noted that the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution outlaws torture, and told the jurors to report to the judge any juror who found for less than $1 million because they would be "ignoring the law." They found for $1.75 million. The judge granted a new trial on the dealership's request, saying he should have declared a mistrial or cautioned the jury about the excessive statements. A divided Appellate Division reversed, and the dealership appealed. The New Jersey Supreme Court found that the inflammatory remarks warranted a new trial on damages only, because the trial judge failed to act immediately. Justice Rivera-Soto concurred and dissented in part, arguing that deference required a new trial on liability as well as damages.

As a Philadelphia accident lawyer, I sympathize with the plaintiff in this case. Because of this series of appeals, Peter Risko now has to wait even longer to put this episode behind him and find out whether he will ultimately be fairly compensated for the unnecessary, avoidable death of his wife. Slips and falls sound like no big deal, but for older people and people who land in an unlucky place, they can be crippling or even deadly. A broken hip would have been a hardship in itself for Camille Risko; the complications she later suffered could have destroyed her quality of life even further. That's why it's vital for business owners to avoid maintenance problems or sloppy construction site practices that create tripping hazards, take away handrails and create other problems for visitors to the site.

Continue reading "High Court Orders New Trial in South Jersey Wrongful Death Case - Risko v. Thompson Mueller Automotive Group" »

As a Pennsylvania medical malpractice lawyer, I was interested to see an article about a new model for settling medical malpractice cases that could someday be used in our state. According to a June 12 article in the New York Times, the state of New York is trying out a system of early settlement talks in medical malpractice cases, with the goal of ending cases earlier and limiting the cost of malpractice liability insurance. In this system, judges with an above-average amount of medical knowledge are assigned to malpractice cases, then hold multiple early settlement conferences. A nurse is assigned to help the judge understand the medical issues involved, and all of the attorneys are required to have the authority to settle. Early statistics show that the judge handling the case settles 20 percent more cases than his peers.

The program is thus far being implemented in the Bronx, Brooklyn and Manhattan, with Buffalo courts likely to take it up this fall. It reverses the usual practice in malpractice cases, in which settlement conferences often come very late in the litigation process, close to trial. Instead, the program gathers attorneys for all of the parties in a room with a knowledgeable judge, who mediates the settlement conference with information about what juries are likely to do and the size of past settlements. New York officials say the approach limits the cost of litigation, to the parties as well as the state. Injured people tend to get less money than they would in a jury trial, the article said, but they may get that money sooner than in a traditional case. The federal government hopes the program could spread to other states as a way to limit the cost of malpractice cases, and estimates savings as high as $1 billion a year.

Because I represent injured patients and their families as a Pennsylvania birth injury lawyer, I think it's best to be cautious about anything that limits patients' ability to be fairly compensated. Nearly all medical malpractice cases are about an injury that killed or permanently injured the patient, so it's very important that these injured people get the money they need to adapt to their permanently changed lives. This system wouldn't necessarily stop that from happening, but by taking the decision out of a jury's hands and into a back room, it invites pressure and decisions with no accountability. Certainly, injured parties should retain their ability to choose a jury trial if they prefer one. As a Pennsylvania medical negligence lawyer, I hope lawmakers give this system a lot of time to create data with which to make a well informed decision before we try it here in Philadelphia.

Continue reading "New York State Experiments With Early Settlements in Medical Malpractice Lawsuits" »

As a Philadelphia accident lawyer, I was disappointed to read about the death of a 25-year-old man in an unusual accident. According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, the man died on the night of June 3 after he mistakenly stepped into an empty elevator shaft and fell five stories. The man was not named pending notification of his family, but he was reportedly a resident of the building on Chestnut Street in the Washington Square West neighborhood. The elevator is the older kind with a gated lift. Representative from the state Department of Labor and Industry said it would send an elevator inspector to the building June 6 to determine whether the elevator is safe for other users.

The article said the building itself is older, with external fire escapes as well as the old-fashioned elevator. Police said the light was out as well, and that the man didn't realize the elevator was not at the fifth floor, which is the building's top floor. The accident was reported just before midnight June 3 and the man was pronounced dead at Thomas Jefferson University Medical Center around 1:15 on June 4. The Department of Labor and Industry said it was working with law enforcement to keep the elevator out of service and "secure" until it could send an inspector. A city spokesperson added that the City Licenses and Inspections Commission has no authority over elevators.

One thing that struck me about this story, as a Philadelphia injury lawyer, is the apparent lack of safeguards against just this kind of accident. Elevators have safety rules, which is why the state has elevator inspectors, but it's not clear whether any safety rules were broken in his case. Nonetheless, if a 25-year-old man can walk into an elevator shaft without noticing that the elevator isn't there, as this story suggests, it's easy to imagine unattended children or an impaired person doing the same. If the management of this building failed to install required safety equipment, or failed to maintain the light in violation of regulations, it could be considered legally liable for the accident. And that would entitle the victim's family to file a wrongful death lawsuit, which could help them defray the costs of the death as well as compensate them for a loved one lost too soon.

Continue reading "Man Dies After Falling Down Elevator Shaft in Center City Apartment Building" »

A personal injury lawsuit was recently filed against one Philadelphia police officer after a man claimed that he fired his weapon during an off duty night of drinking. Philadelphia Daily News reported that the lawsuit charges Officer Thomas Schaffling with firing his weapon "wildly around 3 a.m. on March 26 after leaving an after-hours club in the Tacony neighborhood of Philadelphia."

It is alleged that Schaffling began firing the weapon after becoming upset that he could not locate his car in the parking lot. Two men who were in the parking lot claimed that Schaffling threatened to kill them before he started shooting and later injured them.
One of the men was grazed by a bullet under his arm and was later treated for injury at Aria Health's Frankfort campus before being released. The other, who also reportedly suffered personal injury at the hands of Schaffling, has not yet had his identity or injuries released.

Schaffling is reported to have been reprimanded for drunken and disorderly conduct prior to the incident this Spring as well. If you have been the victim of personal injury or if you or a loved one has been the victim of wrongful death or personal injury, contact a Philadelphia personal injury lawyer or a Philadelphia accident lawyer immediately.

As a Pennsylvania medical malpractice lawyer, I was interested to see an article suggesting that the number of medical malpractice lawsuits in our state has gone down for most of the last decade. As the Scranton Times-Tribune reported May 26, Pennsylvania court records show that new filings of malpractice cases continued to drop in 2010, continuing a trend that started in 2002. According to the Administrative Office of the Pennsylvania Courts, new cases declined by 45.4 percent over the numbers for 2000-2002, the most recent peak in filings. The article attributed the drop to two rule changes made by the state Supreme Court in 2002, which made medical malpractice cases harder to file. Chief Justice Ronald Castille was quoted in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review suggesting that the state's medical malpractice "crisis is over."

The "crisis" Castille referred to was a peak in number of malpractice lawsuits in 2002, with 2,904 new filings. That number was 1,491 in 2010. Medical observers said the number of lawsuits made malpractice insurance high and encouraged new doctors to start their careers in other states. The state Supreme Court made two new rules to address this. One requires another doctor in the same field of medicine to sign off on a new lawsuit, to ensure the case has merit. The other prevents "venue shopping" by requiring claims to be filed in the same county where the injury occurred. Dr. Ralph Schmeltz, the leader of the Pennsylvania Medical Society, said the number of filings had gone down, but medical malpractice premiums haven't dropped. Attorneys told both newspapers that the decline in new lawsuits can be attributed in part to the growth of mediation, a form of private judging that settles disputes out of court. A Pennsylvania medical negligence lawyer told the Tribune-Review that medical malpractice cases are far less frivolous than the public may believe, since plaintiffs' lawyers usually get paid only if they win.

I couldn't agree more. As a Philadelphia birth injury lawyer myself, I know that medical malpractice is one of the most expensive types of injury cases to bring to trial. As a rule, medical negligence cases are very complicated because they have to take into account the victim's medical, personal and financial history and needs, then prove them in court, using experts. This can take months and months to do property -- and doing it properly is vital, because most plaintiffs only get one chance to make their claims. This means months of work for which my office will get paid only if we win. When you add in the cost of expert witnesses and other necessities, it's easy to see why one attorney told the Tribune-Review that he probably rejects 90 percent of his potential clients. With so many obstacles already between injured patients and a fair financial settlement, I don't believe there's an honest case to be made that malpractice premiums are driven by a glut of frivolous cases.

Continue reading "Court Records Show Rate of Pennsylvania Medical Malpractice Cases Continues to Drop" »