Archive for the ‘Personal Injury’ Category

Tort Reform Laws Don’t Lower Healthcare Costs

Friday, May 28th, 2010

     Medical providers, their professional associations, and lobbyists often claim that limiting recoveries in malpractice lawsuits will lower healthcare costs.  This is called tort reform, or as some of us like to refer to it, tort deform.  

      In 2004, Ohio passed a law limiting verdicts for pain and suffering to $250,000 except in catastrophic cases, restricting punitive damages and making it harder to take a case to trial.  Healthcare costs have continued to increase there despite this legislation.  According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, by 2008 the average family healthcare premiums were $11,425, an increase of 19%.  

     Neighboring Kentucky, on the other hand, did not enact similar legislation.  Nevertheless, Ohio’s increase in healthcare costs were greater than the increase in healthcare costs in Kentucky. 

     Pennsylvania, so far, has not enacted this type of legislation.  Let’s hope that the Pennsylvania legislature continues to protect victim’s rights in bringing lawsuits for fair compensation.

Court Orders Pennsylvania to Fund Malpractice Assessment Account

Wednesday, April 21st, 2010

            In Pennsylvania, a medical professional fund, known as the MCARE Fund, has been established.  This Fund is used to pay malpractice claims against medical providers in excess of their basic insurance coverage.  The MCARE Fund is funded by an assessment on each participating healthcare provider.  

             In 2003, Pennsylvania enacted an abatement law to reduce or eliminate MCARE providers’ required contributions to the MCARE Fund.  To fund the abatement program, Pennsylvania established a special account known as the HCPR Account.  The HCPR Account was, in turn, funded by increased cigarette taxes and a traffic violation surcharge.  

            From 2004 to 2007, Pennsylvania appropriated $737,000,000 to the HCPR Account.  Pennsylvania, however, failed to transfer from these appropriations a sum that ranged from $446,000,000 to $616,000,000 to fund the MCARE Fund. 

            The Pennsylvania Medical Society sued the Pennsylvania agency responsible for the HCPR Account. The Commonwealth Court recently ruled in favor of The Medical Society.  The Court decided that Pennsylvania is required to transfer all of the allocated money from the HCPR Account to the MCARE Fund.  

            In terms of the so-called malpractice crisis, the Court’s decision makes an interesting statement.  Pennsylvania’s position in this lawsuit was that the MCARE Fund can meet its current obligations without the transfer of the disputed funds. This is consistent with the statistics that show that malpractice cases in Pennsylvania have been decreasing, not increasing.

New England Journal of Medicine Article: Malpractice Reform Should Focus On Disclosure and Early Resolution

Thursday, April 15th, 2010

             In a recent article published in the New England Journal of Medicine (March 31, 2010), the authors recognize that traditional methods of malpractice reform, such as state caps on non-economic damages, may not be working.  As noted in the article, this past February the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that the state’s cap was unconstitutional. 

            There are three distinct types of “disclosure and offer” programs.  To discourage lawsuits, each of these programs encourage candid disclosure about medical injuries, apologies when appropriate and providing for the patient’s financial needs, in at least a limited way.  

            Early resolution of malpractice claims is a laudable goal. Some of these programs, however, require the patient to give up his right to sue. This compromises the rights of an injured victim at his most vulnerable moment. 

            Malpractice reform should focus on improving healthcare. It should also focus on disciplining the “repeat offenders” who are responsible for much of the problem.

Pennsylvania Medical Malpractice Lawsuit Filings Decrease Dramatically

Thursday, April 8th, 2010

           From 2003 to 2008, lawsuits for medical malpractice cases in Pennsylvania decreased 37% to 41% from the average number of cases filed in 2000 to 2002. This information is from statistics compiled by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. 

            Also according to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, for 2008, the most recent year available, the doctor, hospital or other medical provider won in over 81% of the medical malpractice lawsuits filed.  Here in western Pennsylvania, the medical providers also won the malpractice lawsuits most of the time.  For instance, in Allegheny County the jury found in favor of the medical provider in 14 out of 17 cases, which is 82.4% of the time.  Of the three verdicts for the patient, one verdict was for $500,000 or less and two verdicts were between $1,000,000 and $5,000,000.           

            Doctors and medical malpractice liability insurance companies often claim that medical malpractice lawsuits are driving up insurance costs and driving doctors out of the state.  With the dramatic decrease in malpractice lawsuits, however, this statement simply cannot be true.

Jury Finds for Plaintiff in Highly Contested Allegheny County, PA Motor Vehicle Accident

Friday, April 2nd, 2010

            I was recently successful in securing a favorable verdict for an Allegheny County, PA motor vehicle accident victim.  Alhaj v. C&K Industrial Services, Inc. and Keeder, No. GD08-001439 (Allegheny County, PA February 5, 2010).  

            This motor vehicle wreck occurred in Munhall Borough, Pennsylvania. As the plaintiff pulled his car into an intersection, he was struck on the passenger side by a truck coming up the intersecting street on his left.  The plaintiff had a stop sign, but the truck driver did not.  This presented a challenge in proving that the truck driver was responsible.  

            An accident reconstructionist, an engineer, testified for the plaintiff.  He explained to the jury that based on his observations and measurements at the scene and the damage to the vehicles, he was able to recreate the path of the two vehicles.  There was no dispute that the plaintiff had stopped before entering the intersection.  According to the engineer, because of the unusual configuration of the intersection, the plaintiff’s view to his left was limited.  The truck, on the other hand, was speeding as it approached the intersection. If the truck driver had been traveling the speed limit, he would have had an opportunity to stop before impact.  

            The plaintiff was taken by ambulance to the hospital.  They found that he had a broken acetabulum (hip socket).  He missed several months of work as a cook in two local restaurants.  He had extensive follow up treatment for his injuries. 

            The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for almost $65,000.  The jury also determined that the defendant was 70% at fault while the plaintiff was 30% at fault.  

            The trial judge denied the defendants’ appeal.

Lawrence County, PA Court Rules in Favor of Limited Tort Auto Accident Victim

Wednesday, March 31st, 2010

            Harlan’s car was struck in the rear by a Pennsylvania State Police car.  Harlan sued the Pennsylvania State Police for injuries.  The state police asked the court to dismiss Harlan’s lawsuit because Harlan’s claim was governed by Pennsylvania’s limited tort law.  

            Under Pennsylvania law, an auto accident victim with limited tort can only recover for out-of-pocket expenses unless he has a serious injury.  A serious injury is a serious loss of a bodily function.  

             Here, Harlan had three surgeries and forty physical therapy sessions.  He missed work and could not fully participate in certain recreational activities such as archery, hunting, fishing and working on automobiles.  The court decided that there was a legitimate question whether Harlan suffered a serious injury. Harlan’s case will go to trial.

PA Supreme Court Refuses Appeal on Important Underinsured Motorist Case

Friday, March 26th, 2010

            Amanda Pusl was injured in a car wreck through the negligent driving of Matthew Means.   After a two-day trial, a jury awarded Pusl $100,000 in damages for her injuries.  Before trial, Pusl had already received $75,000 for these injuries from her own underinsured motorist insurance company, State Farm.  $75,000 was the limit of Pusl’s underinsured motorist coverage with State Farm.

            As requested by Means’ attorney, the trial judge subtracted the $75,000 from the $100,000 jury verdict, reducing it to $25,000.   Pusl filed an appeal.

             On appeal, the Pennsylvania Superior Court, clearly misreading the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, sustained the trial judge’s decision.  Section 1722 of the Financial Responsibility Law prevents an injured plaintiff from recovering from a negligent defendant money paid as first-party benefits (typically payment for medical expenses or lost wages), workers’ compensation or benefits similar to first-party benefits.  The Superior Court incorrectly concluded that underinsured motorist benefits fall within this section. Underinsured motorist benefits, in fact, are treated separately in a different subchapter of the law.   The end result was that Means and his automobile insurance company got the benefit of the $75,000 paid by State Farm, not Pusl. 

            The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has recently denied Pusl’s request to take a further appeal.  Therefore, this poorly reasoned decision by the Superior Court remains the law in Pennsylvania.  It will have a wide ranging affect on future plaintiffs who have claims against both a negligent driver and an underinsured motorist insurance company.

             For more information on underinsured and uninsured motorist claims, check out my Car, Truck and Motorcycle Accident Practice Area on this website.

New York Times Recognizes Validity of McDonald’s Lawsuit

Thursday, March 11th, 2010

       Yesterday, the New York Times recognized what personal injury lawyers like me have known for a long time:  companies that sell food to the public “have an undeniable responsibility to ensure their products are safe.”  

       The editorial, titled “A Nonfrivolous Suit”, discusses a lawsuit against McDonalds filed in Virginia.  This is not the famous McDonald’s hot coffee case. 

       In this latest lawsuit, Frank Sutton’s lips were severely burned when he bit into an extremely hot fried chicken sandwich.  The next morning he noticed that his lips had bled on his pillow. 

       The federal District Court dismissed the suit.  On appeal, the Fourth Circuit reinstated the suit.  The Court recognized that diners clearly do not expect a fried chicken sandwich to contain a hot pocket of grease.  

       The original McDonald’s hot coffee case resulted in what are sometimes called the “Stella Awards” named after Stella Liebeck, the plaintiff in that case.  According to Snopes.com, all of the cases discussed in the Stella Awards, however, are fabrications.

 http://www.snopes.com/legal/lawsuits.asp