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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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., […]
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 […]
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:
Anyone who has ever done a Google search on this topic soon discovers that every lawyer who has ever represented an employer seems to have written their own “Top (insert number here) List” of ways to avoid employee lawsuits. So, at the risk of seeming redundant (because it is), here are our Top Five
EDI release 3 is the computer-to-computer exchange of standard workers’ compensation data between companies and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. EDI standards were developed by the International Association of Industrial Accident Boards and Commissions (IAIABC), in conjunction with its members from most U.S. jurisdictions, insurers, self-insureds, TPAs and others. The standards continue to be refined and are used by many jurisdictions as an electronic means to obtain information about work injuries and statuses.
Generally used within the workers’ compensation insurance community to exchange accident, payment, insurance and medical information, EDI permits the transfer of large volumes of information more efficiently and accurately than in paper form.
If you own a business that caters to the public, you may be vulnerable to a class action lawsuit. Businesses with multiple locations such as banks, restaurants, supermarkets, and big box stores are particularly vulnerable, but single “mom and pop” operations are far from immune. The Americans with Disabilities Act requires all places of public […]