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 refuse to read | | | | that he or she has not withdrawn from the entire work |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