| A Summary of Recent Pennsylvania
| |
| | of fact, resolution of the issue will
|
| Appellate Court Decisions & Rule Changes
| |
| | turn upon the courts assessment of the
|
| REPORTING DECISIONS THROUGH AUGUST 1 2006
| |
| | witnesses credibility; however, there is
|
| PENNSYLVANIA STATE COURT DECISIONS
| |
| | no legal requirement that a party
|
| 1. CIVIL LITIGATION
| |
| | alleging forgery present a handwriting
|
| 1.1. AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
| |
| | expert to support the claim.
|
| *Superior Court of Pennsylvania
| |
| | 3. WORKERS COMPENSATION
|
| *Santorella v. Donegal Mutual Insurance
| |
| | 3.1. RETIREMENT
|
| Co., 2006 PA Super 202 (July 31, 2006)
| |
| | *Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
|
| Holding:An individual who owns a
| |
| | *Pries v. Workers Compensation Appeal
|
| registered, uninsured motor vehicle in a
| |
| | Board (Verizon Pennsylvania), No. 1870
|
| state other than Pennsylvania is
| |
| | C.D. 2005 (July 25, 2006)
|
| precluded from receiving first party
| |
| | Holding:Affirming its decision in County
|
| medical benefits under a policy issued to
| |
| | of Allegheny (Dept. of Public Works) v.
|
| another member of the individuals
| |
| | Workers Compensation Appeal Board (Weis),
|
| household. In this case, plaintiff David
| |
| | 872 A.2d 263 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2005), the Court
|
| Santorella, Jr., owned an uninsured car
| |
| | holds that, in order for disability
|
| registered in California. The Superior
| |
| | compensation to continue following
|
| Court denied the plaintiff first party
| |
| | retirement, a claimant must show that he
|
| benefits under 75 Pa.C.S.A. 1714 because
| |
| | or she is seeking employment after
|
| the word registered is not qualified by
| |
| | retirement and that he was forced into
|
| the words in this Commonwealth in the
| |
| | retirement because of his work-related
|
| statute, we refuse to read into the
| |
| | injury. It is the claimants burden to
|
| section an exception it does not
| |
| | show that he or she has not withdrawn
|
| explicitly declare
| |
| | from the entire work force.
|
| *Wheeler v. Nationwide Mutual Fire
| |
| | 3.2. PSYCHIATRIC TREATMENT
|
| Insurance Co., 2006 PA Super 197 (July
| |
| | *Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
|
| 31, 2006)
| |
| | *Huddy v. Workers Compensation Appeal
|
| Holding:An individual whose motor vehicle
| |
| | Board (U.S. Air), No. 1031 C.D. 2005
|
| insurance policy on which he or she is a
| |
| | (August 1, 2006)
|
| named insured does not provide income
| |
| | Holding:A Notice of Compensation Payable
|
| loss, may not recover first party income
| |
| | is properly amended to include depression
|
| loss benefits from the insurance policy
| |
| | and anxiety when a claimant proves that
|
| covering the motor vehicle he or she was
| |
| | the work injury was a substantial
|
| driving at the time of the accident.
| |
| | contributing factor to the psychological
|
| 1.2. DAMAGES
| |
| | injury/diagnosis.
|
| *Superior Court of Pennsylvania
| |
| | 3.3. SUBROGATION
|
| *Excavation Technologies, Inc. v.
| |
| | *Superior Court of Pennsylvania
|
| Columbia Gas Co. of Pa., 2006 PA Super
| |
| | *Urmann v. Rockwood Casualty Insurance
|
| 164 (July 7, 2006)
| |
| | Co., 2006 PA Super 201 (July 31, 2006)
|
| Holding:A utility company is considered
| |
| | Holding:A settlement agreement, which
|
| to be in the business of supplying
| |
| | apportions a settlement between an
|
| information when acting in compliance
| |
| | injured workers claim and the workers
|
| with the Pennsylvania One Call System and
| |
| | spouses loss of consortium claim, will
|
| is therefore subject to Section 552(2) of
| |
| | not be overturned when it is adjudicated
|
| the Restatement (Second) of Torts. In
| |
| | by the trial court based upon an
|
| addition, the Court adopts Section 552(3)
| |
| | evidentiary hearing and the execution of
|
| for negligent misrepresentation cases
| |
| | a settlement agreement. In this case, the
|
| that arise under the One Call Act.
| |
| | facts demonstrate that the trial court
|
| Finally, the Court holds that the
| |
| | attempted to assure that the
|
| economic loss doctrine which states that
| |
| | apportionment was fair and consistent
|
| no cause of action exists for negligence
| |
| | with Darr Construction Co. v. Workmens
|
| that results solely in economic damages
| |
| | Compensation Appeal Board (Walker), 522
|
| unaccompanied by physical injury or
| |
| | Pa. 400, 715 A.2d 1075 (1998).
|
| property damage does not automatically
| |
| | 3.4. WAIVER OF ISSUES ON APPEAL
|
| apply when only economic losses are
| |
| | *Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
|
| alleged. Rather, if, in a negligent
| |
| | *McGaffin v. Workers Compensation Appeal
|
| misrepresentation claim, (1) the
| |
| | Board (Manatron, Inc.), No. 2168 C.D.
|
| defendant was in the business of
| |
| | 2005 (July 19, 2006)
|
| supplying information, and (2) it was
| |
| | Holding:Because the claimant failed to
|
| foreseeable that the information would be
| |
| | raise/preserve the issue before the
|
| used and relied upon by third parties,
| |
| | Workers Compensation Judge of whether an
|
| the claim may proceed under Section 552
| |
| | impairment rating under Section 3006(a.2)
|
| of the Restatement, and the economic loss
| |
| | of the Act, 77 P.S. 511.2(1), precludes
|
| doctrine is inapplicable.
| |
| | a termination of benefits, the Court
|
| 1.3. MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMS & CIVIL
| |
| | declines to address the issue.
|
| PROCEDURE/PLEADINGS
| |
| | NEW PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
|
| *Superior Court of Pennsylvania
| |
| | PA.R.CIV.P. 204.11 (FORMAT OF PLEADINGS
|
| *Rostock v. Anzalone, 2006 PA Super 191
| |
| | AND OTHER LEGAL PAPERS)
|
| (July 26, 2006)
| |
| | *Effective February 1, 2007, all
|
| Holding:A complaint may be dismissed
| |
| | pleadings, motions and other legal papers
|
| under the doctrine of lis pendens based
| |
| | must conform to the following
|
| upon the pendency of a prior action or an
| |
| | requirements:
|
| agreement for alternative dispute
| |
| | 1. Documents must be on 8-1/2 by 11 inch
|
| resolution. The mere filing of a second
| |
| | paper
|
| complaint, identical in all respects to
| |
| | 2. Documents shall be on white paper
|
| the first with the sole exception that
| |
| | (except dividers and similar sheets)
|
| the second complaint alleged, This is a
| |
| | 3. The first sheet shall contain a 3-inch
|
| medical malpractice action, does not make
| |
| | space at the top for court stampings,
|
| the defense of lis pendens unavailable.
| |
| | filing notices, etc.
|
| *McSorley v. Deger, 2006 PA Super 200
| |
| | 4. Text must be double-spaced
|
| (July 31, 2006)
| |
| | 5. Quotations more than two lines long
|
| Holding:In a claim alleging lack of
| |
| | may be indented and single spaced
|
| informed consent, it is a jury question
| |
| | 6. Margins must be at least one inch on
|
| whether the doctors actions were within
| |
| | all four sides
|
| the terms of the consent provided by the
| |
| | 7. Letter shall be clear and legible, and
|
| patient. In this case, the pre-surgery
| |
| | no smaller than 12 point in size
|
| consent form permitted the physician to
| |
| | 8. Lettering shall be on only one side of
|
| perform such surgical or other procedures
| |
| | a page (except for exhibits and
|
| as are necessary and desirable in the
| |
| | supporting documents)
|
| event of unforeseen conditions that
| |
| | 9. Documents must be firmly bound.
|
| necessitate an extension of the original
| |
| | NEW JERSEY STATE COURT DECISION
|
| procedure.
| |
| | WORKERS COMPENSATION -- INTOXICATION
|
| 2. CIVIL PROCEDURE
| |
| | *Supreme Court of New Jersey
|
| 2.1. FORGERY
| |
| | *Tluma v. High Bridge Stone, No. A-69-05
|
| *Superior Court of Pennsylvania
| |
| | (July 19, 2006)
|
| *De Lage Landen Financial Services, Inc.
| |
| | Holding:In order for the statutory
|
| v. The Urban Partnership, LLC, 2006 PA
| |
| | defense of intoxication to bar the
|
| Super 169 (July 12, 2006)
| |
| | recovery of workers compensation benefit,
|
| Holding:Generally, when an allegation of
| |
| | an employer must prove by a preponderance
|
| forgery is raised in this case, it was
| |
| | of the evidence that the employees
|
| alleged that the document conferring
| |
| | work-related injuries were caused solely
|
| jurisdiction in Pennsylvania was forged
| |
| | by intoxication.
|
| the party claiming forgery has the burden
| |
| | Remember, visit Pennsylvania Legal
|
| of proving the existence of a forgery by
| |
| | Research Links, and make your home page
|
| clear and convincing evidence. Because
| |
| | for Pennsylvania research.
|
| the allegation of forgery raises an issue
| |
| |
|
