Background/Case Review On September 18, 2015, the Commonwealth Court filed its decision in Protz v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Derry Area Sch. Dist.), 2015 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 404 (Pa. Commw. Ct. Sept. 18, 2015). In that opinion, the court declared Section 306(a.2) of the Workers’ Compensation Act (hereafter the “Act”), 77 Pa. Stat. Ann. § […]
Travel Expense Reimbursement Revisited
We last visited the issue of travel expenses to obtain medical treatment in our Summer 2012 issue of the TR&C Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Bulletin. In that issue, we advised that travel expenses are reimbursable when the travel is considered “long distance,” i.e., is not available locally. Nothing has changed since that issue. We set forth […]
Legal Implications of Electronic Medical Records (EMR) Documentation for Nurses: “Charting” a Better Course
As a medical malpractice defense attorney, I can attest to the important role that medical records play in defending medical negligence lawsuits, especially charting that is done by nurses. Considering that a patient has two years in which to file a medical malpractice lawsuit after the alleged wrongdoing, charting becomes extremely important to defending those […]
Knowing when to say you’re sorry – The Benevolent Gesture Medical Professional Liability Act
In Pennsylvania, the Benevolent Gesture Medical Professional Liability Act provides a level of protection to health care providers seeking to reach out to patients and family members after a less than optimal medical course. In essence, this law excludes from evidence any apology, explanation or similar statement made by a health care provider, prior to […]
Erosion of the “Abnormal Working Condition” Standard for “Mental-Mental” Work-Related Injuries
For nearly three decades Martin v. Ketchum, 568 A.2d 159 (Pa. 1990) has set the standard upon which a claimant may establish a compensable psychological injury as a result of a work-related mental stimulus or “mental-mental” injuries. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court drew the following line in the sand: A claimant must produce objective evidence which […]
Trending Topics in Nursing Depositions
As a medical malpractice defense attorney, I have attended many nursing depositions over the years. A deposition is a question and answer session where the opposing attorney gets to ask the nurse-witness a wide variety of questions about the care that he or she gave to a patient. As I sit through these depositions, I […]
Jones v. MetroHealth – Ohio Court Reduces Damages under Affordable Care Act
Recently, an Ohio court, in Jones v. MetroHealth, Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No.757131, recognized an argument by a defendant healthcare entity, reducing an award on the basis of the Affordable Care Act. The relevant arguments as to the Affordable Care Act’s limitations took place in this case in the context of a […]
Expressing Breast Milk in the Workplace
Best employment practices should motivate employers to accommodate mothers who make reasonable requests to express breast milk in the workplace. If a family friendly workplace and best practices don’t provide sufficient motivation, avoiding legal liability should. Depending upon the industry you are in, your geographic location, and the type of employee making the request (e.g., […]
Evidence that Patient Consented to Treatment After Being Informed of the Risks of that Treatment is Irrelevant in a Medical Negligence Case
In March 2015, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued an opinion and order in the case of Brady v. Urbas, No. 74 MAP 2014. In that case, the plaintiff in that case had undergone four unsuccessful podiatric surgeries over a two year period to correct a “hammer toe” condition. Her complaint did not assert a count […]
Supreme Court Upholds Bright-line Rule Prohibiting Discovery of Communications Between attorneys and expert witnesses
In Barrick v. Holy Spirit Hospital, 91 A.3d 680 (Pa. 2014), an evenly divided Supreme Court effectively upheld a Superior Court en banc decision recognizing a bright-line rule prohibiting discovery of communications between attorneys and expert witnesses. This decision was followed by the December 15, 2014 formal adoption of a previously proposed amendment to Pa.R.C.P. 4003.5, governing the discovery of expert testimony and trial preparation material. The amendment added the following new subsection (a)(4) to the Rule: