Liever, Hyman & Potter, P.C.

From the desk of John Badal, Liever, Hyman & Potter, nursing home abuse and nursing home neglect lawyers.

The Chicago Tribune (5/7, Garcia) reports, “House lawmakers unanimously approved legislation Thursday that would sharply raise the standards of care and safety in Illinois’ troubled nursing homes. The measure was embraced by Democrats and Republicans alike, and was sent to the Senate on a 118-0 vote, where the plan is expected to be met with similar support.” Notably, the “proposal would require nursing homes to increase staffing levels, meet higher standards before admitting patients with serious mental illness, and segregate the most dangerous residents in secure units where they would receive more intensive monitoring and treatment.” The Tribune adds, “Overall, the bill is designed to move thousands of mentally disabled people out of the homes and into less costly and more effective community treatment programs.”

We must do more to protect our nu rsing home residents in Pennsylvania. They have a right to the best care and the right to live out their lives with dignity. Unfortunately, the law firm of Liever, Hyman & Potter deals on a regular basis with families whose members have been the subject of nursing home neglect and nursing home  abuse in Berks County, PA and in Schuy lkill County, PA. We do what we can. We must all do more.

From the Pennsylvania Association for Justice News Brief of October 12, 2009:

The PA Association for Justice reported on the new Superior Court Opinion of Zappala v. The James Lewis Group (No. 313 EDA 2008).  This case involved the question of whether a forum non conveniens motion to transfer venue (the place of the trial) must be based upon evidence relating to the inconvenience of the plaintiff’s chosen forum, or may instead be based upon evidence that the plaintiff engaged in improper forum shopping.  In this case, a Superior Court panel reversed the order of the trial court transferring the case from Philadelphia County to Chester County determining that there was no evidence to support the trial court’s finding that the plaintiff engaged in improper forum shopping by including Philadelphia defendants in the lawsuit.  The Court pointed out that a plaintiff’s choice of forum should rarely be disturbed and that a plaintiff has the right to select the best forum to suit his/her needs unless the plaintiff manufactures venue by naming parties that are not proper defendants.

The determination as to the proper jurisdiction and venue for the filing of lawsuit is an important consideration when choosing a personal injury lawyer Reading Pa, and at Liever, Hyman & Potter, P.C., we have filed personal injury lawsuits in the courts of Berks County and the surrounding counties, as well as in federal court.  When you are considering how to choose a personal injury lawyer Reading Pa, the experienced attorneys at Liever, Hyman & Potter, P.C., are available to talk to you about your choice of court and all other legal issues concerning your case.

Motorcycle accident attorneys know that motorcycle accident cases are a “different breed of cat” when it comes to vehicle accident cases. A large majority of reported motorcycle accidents involve serious injury or death, so the damages are significant. And although  the accident may not have been the motorcyclist’s fault, the public’s perception of cyclists can make it tough to win the case.

Jurors often have preconceived notions about motorcyclists. They have all seen a cycle operator  sometime somewhere operating his bike in an irresponsible manner. They may feel that all cyclists are reckless thrill-seekers. The irony is that most motorcycle accidents are not the fault of the motorcycle. Numerous studies have shown that the overwhelming majority of car-motorcycle accidents occur because the driver of the car violated the cyclist’s right-of-way. The car fails to see the motorcycle and pulls out in front of the bike, or makes a left turn into the bike. Failing to see the motorcycle is negligence. The car can’t  use “looking but not seeing” as an excuse.

There is really no typical motorcycle rider. They are young, old, rich, not so rich. Some ride for pleasure, others for economic reasons. The interesting fact is that studies that compare the personality characteristics of motorcyclists to other drivers find no significant differences between the two groups.

One of the things a motorcycle accident attorney can do to level the playing field is educate jurors and potential jurors. Motorcylists are just folks who like to ride and who have as much right to be on the road as car, SUV or truck operators.

Edward E. Houseman, Esq.

From the Legal Intelligencer of Monday, August 1, 2009:

The Legal Intelligencer (08/17/2009, Zack Needles) reported, “an Allegheny County Common Pleas judge has called for a new trial in a medical malpractice case, making the rare decision to vacate a jury’s defense verdict and suggesting that the defendant doctor be barred from testifying in the new proceedings.”  According to the Legal Intelligencer, the trial judge said that the pulmonologist “on trial for allegedly failing to make a timely diagnosis of lung cancer lied on the witness stand by claiming she had suspected plaintiff’s decedent . . . had lung cancer all along but that the patient had resisted a biopsy.”  However, the trial judge found this was not true and noted that the doctor’s “own writings” confirmed that she never made such a diagnosis.  According to the Legal Intelligencer, based upon the doctor’s lies a jury had found in favor of the doctor, but the trial judge was not persuaded and found that the verdict was “so against the weight of the evidence as to shock the conscience of the court.”  A new trial has now been granted and the trial judge has indicated that the doctor may not be permitted to testify at her new trial due to the egregious conduct of the defendant doctor.  Because of the Court’s ruling, the plaintiff will now be able to fairly present the case to a jury.

At Liever, Hyman & Potter, P.C., we handle cases involving doctor/hospital errors, surgery errors, pregnancy and birth injuries, misdiagnosis, failure to diagnose and prescription errors.  An experienced attorney for personal injury at our firm can assist you with these types of matters.   If you or a loved one have any questions or concerns about medical care or treatment you may want to contact Liever, Hyman & Potter, P.C., personal injury lawyer attorney in Reading, PA.

From the American Association for Justice News Brief of September 15, 2009:

The Legal Intelligencer (9/14, Passarella) reported, “The Superior Court, in a case of first impression, has thrown out a suit against Rohm & Haas made by the estate of a woman who developed, and died from, a brain tumor years after working for the company. In reversing the trial court in Ranalli v. Rohm & Haas Co., the Superior Court panel ruled the suit was barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act because the disease manifested 300 or more weeks after Olivia Ranalli worked at the plant.” The Court “also ruled a bar to workers’ compensation coverage doesn’t equal a right to a tort claim.” Personal injury defense attorneys Reading PA will in all likelihood hail this decision as favorable to the Insurance Industry. City personal injury attorneys Reading PA who represent injured workers will find that this ruling is unfair to injured workers.

Our lawyers at Liever, Hyman and Potter include the two co-chairman of the Berks Bar Association Workers’ Compensation Section , Andrew Fick and Adam Levin. This Section includes city personal injury attorneys , Reading , PA and other Berks county lawyers who represent injured workers and personal injury defense attorneys Reading PA and Berks County PA.

September 8, 2009, written by Andrew F. Fick, Esquire of the law firm of Liever, Hyman & Potter, P.C., personal injury attorneys Reading, Pennsylvania.

The Honorable Scott E. Lash of the Berks County Court, Reading, Pennsylvania recently issued an opinion in Coleman, et ux. v. Centre Township, et al. which was published in the Berks County Law Journal on July 30, 2009. The opinion was in support of his order dismissing the township from a lawsuit arising out of an automobile accident on the basis of governmental immunity under Pennsylvania law. Our firm did not represent the victim in this case. The law firm of Liever, Hyman & Potter, P.C., personal injury attorneys Reading, Pennsylvania has handled many successful lawsuits on behalf of injury victims against municipalities and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

The victim was involved in an automobile accident in which his vehicle slid on a township road, causing it to cross into the oncoming lane and strike another vehicle. The victim and his wife sued the driver of the other vehicle. They also sued the township, alleging negligence in the “design, construction, supervision and/or inspection of the roadway.” The victim and his wife retained an expert who determined that the curves in the roadway at the scene of the collision were sufficiently dangerous to require traffic controls, such as a warning sign or blinkers to warn of the oncoming hazard; that the township failed to warn oncoming motorists of the hazardous condition; and that the township was negligent in failing to do so, The Judge concluded that, even so, the victim and his wife failed to establish that the township had a duty to provide traffic control devices at the site because that the expert’s report was insufficient due to the fact that no traffic control studies, and only limited engineering testing, were conducted. He further noted that, even if traffic control devices were present which would have advised the victim to slow down, the victim and his wife had failed to establish a nexus between that and the accident, pointing out that the victim testified in his deposition that he was travelling as slow as 15 miles an hour at the time of the accident and that he did not believe that the accident would have been avoided if he had been driving any slower because of the nature of the wet roadway and the weight of his vehicle.

It is important to promptly hire attorneys to assist in pursuing any type of injury claim. If you are trying to find personal injury attorneys Reading, Pennsylvania, contact Liever, Hyman & Potter, P.C.

August 6, 2009, written by John R. Badal, injury lawyer , Reading , PA , Liever, Hyman & Potter, Accident Lawyers, Reading, PA.

The Honorable Jeffrey K. Sprecher of the Berks  County Court , Reading , PA issued an opinion which was published in the Berks County Law Journal on July 9, 2009. The opinion was in support of his order that ruled that a victim of a car accident who suffered damages of $225,000 could collect $25,000 from the victim’s own underinsured motorist coverage with Liberty Mutual since he already collected $200,000 from the negligent driver’s liability insurance policies. The careless driver’s insurance included $100,000 from a primary auto insurance policy and another $100,000 from an excess motor vehicle policy. The amount of the deduction to be used in determining the payment for underinsured motorist was based on language in the Liberty Mutual policy.

It is important that an injury lawyer, Reading, PA and accident lawyers, Reading , PA as well as lawyers who practice in Pottsville, PA or anywhere else in the State of Pennsylvania understand the “Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law” that governs the type and amount of automobile and motor vehicle insurance including uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage. Underinsured Motorist Coverage protects an automobile accident victim when the negligent driver of another car does not have enough liability insurance to pay for all the damages which occurred. Policy holders are paying a premium for underinsured motorist coverage and should make sure that they have enough coverage. When there is a dispute about what the policy means it is sometimes up to a judge to decide what must be paid under the policy and the law. Judge Sprecher  was called on to  resolve such a dispute in Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance v. Jeffers.

by Holly Herman
Excerpted from Reading Eagle article

Rulings by the state Supreme Court in 2003 have reduced the number of medical malpractice lawsuits filed in Berks County Court by 33 percent, according to President Judge Jeffrey L. Schmehl.

The number of malpractice cases in Berks dropped from 30 in 2002, the year before the law changed, to 24 in 2008.

In 2003, the Supreme Court began requiring that cases be heard in the counties where plaintiffs say the malpractice occurred. (more…)

American Association for Justice
News Brief

The Wall Street Journal (4/28, Rockoff) reported, “The Institute of Medicine [IOM] recommended Tuesday that doctors, medical schools, professional groups and drug makers make far-reaching changes to prevent industry gifts and payments from influencing patient care and research.” According to the IOM’s proposals, “many now-common practices” should be eliminated, such as “meals, trips, or other gifts from companies” to physicians. The IOM’s recommendations, “contained in a 353-page report, come amid heightened concern and investigations – often led by Iowa Republican Sen. Charles Grassley – about the impact that industry gifts and payments have on doctors, medical schools, professional groups, and journals.” (more…)

Les Weisbrod, AAJ President
Excerpted from op-ed for the National Law Journal

“Court secrecy is an issue that has been around nearly as long as litigation has existed. But now more than ever, corporations are using secrecy agreements to hide their negligence when their products have harmed, injured and even killed unwary consumers.” He adds, “When wrongdoers settle cases involving their irresponsible conduct, they often force injured consumers to agree not to reveal any of the details of the case – even if the product remains on the market and the information could warn the public of a potential health hazard. In fact, manufacturers of faulty products regularly insist that any and all information turned over to injured consumers and their attorneys be kept secret.” He says in light of the recent AstraZeneca documents that were made public, exposing the dangers of the drug Seroquel, “Limiting secrecy in our civil justice will help prevent more people from being injured or killed by known defective products.” Concluding, he says, “Congress has a lot to deal with, considering the recent economic downturn, but protecting the public’s interests by shedding a light on safety issues should remain a top priority.”