A Scathing Review Of Lynn Abraham

Paul Davies, deputy editorial page editor for the Philadelphia Inquirer, did not hold back in his Sunday opinion piece. Basically the gist of the article is that, as the title of the article says, "Abraham lays blame on everyone but herself."  He's talking about the investigation by a U.S. Subcommittee headed by Arlen Specter into the problems of the Philadelphia Criminal Justice System raised in recent news articles in the Inquirer. Here's some of what he says.

While Abraham was questioning the stories, she also acknowledged many of the problems they highlighted. But she said none of them had anything to do with her. Instead, she blamed judges for low conviction rates, saying they dismiss too many cases to clear their dockets, which may be true. She said the problems surrounding the bail system and witness intimidation have been around since at least 1968 - a not-so-subtle dig at Specter, who was district attorney then. 

Because I don't  work in the area of criminal law, I am somewhat unfamiliar with most of the issues raised in the article- backlog of criminal cases brought to trial, low conviction rates compared to other cities, and so on.

I do know from handling civil rights cases where Philly cops have injured or killed people while on the beat that there is frequently insufficient investigation by the Police Department and perhaps the DA's Office in those types of cases. In one  recent case I represented the family of an individual shot by a police officer. Now, the individual who was shot had a gun. But what I found out during the discovery process and my investigation of the case was that the Philadelphia police officer who had shot and killed my client had been involved in several shootings in his relatively short career up until that time.  In fact, he was in one where he had shot and killed a suspect while in uniform, as he had been in the case I handled. The circumstances of both case were similar. When I pointed this out to the defense attorney representing the officer, I distinctly remember her saying "some lawyers like to litigate, and some cops lite to fire shoot their guns." That case settled.

I personally know many law enforcement officers. They are dedicated professionals and they by and large  and by design intend on going through their entire careers without discharging their guns in the line of duty if they can.  That's why the recent case I just described was so unusual. And, the Police Department was unconcerned about the two shootings buy one Philly cop  in a relatively short period of time. I hope going forward changes in the investigation process by the City of Philadelphia where Philly cops injure or kill people while on the job will be better than what I have seen thus far.

What Did Ex Pennsylvania Superior Judge Michael Joyce Do To Deserve Being Sentenced To A 46 Month Prison Term?

Joyce was convicted in November 2008 of defrauding  two insurance companies of $440,000 -- $390,000 from Erie Insurance Group and $50,000 from State Farm Insurance Company. His case stems from a personal injury claim he made involving a low speed rear end collision that happened in 2001.

His criminal case went to trial in Federal Court, and the jury found him guilty of  insurance fraud, specifically for mailing false information to the insurance companies about the extent of the injuries he suffered in the car accident. Joyce told the companies his back and neck pain was so severe that he could no longer golf or scuba dive, though Joyce continued to engage in those and other activities. Joyce also claimed his injuries were so severe that he was unable to run for state Supreme Court in 2001 and 2003 and further that he had secured the state Republican nomination for a vacancy on the state Supreme Court, but that the injuries prevented him from running. His conviction was upheld by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in April 2010.

It is certainly disgraceful that a Superior Court judge would participate in this kind of ruse. Nor does it bolster confidence in the Pennsylvania judicial system. Consider what the public must think about our judges when reading about Joyce, and about other Pennsylvania jurists gone bad. I've written before on this blog about the "cash for kids" scheme in Luzerne County which has resulted in the guilty plea of former Luzerne County Judge Michael T. Conahan and pending charges against former Judge Mark A. Ciavarella. Should we expect better conduct form our jurists? Of course we should. 

But, let's specifically examine what Joyce did, and what it means for any individual claiming personal injuries. It's not hard to see what he did wrong, and what he did to draw attention to himself.  Did he exaggerate his personal injuries? Possibly, but maybe not.   We obviously do not have access to his medical records. But perhaps they do support a claim that would warrant a substantial settlement from two insurance companies. Keep in mind that he had to have medical records to bolster his injury claim. No insurance company is going to offer any injury victim $50,000 and $390,000 without medical evidence of the injury claimed, for instance MRI and EMG results showing objective evidence of injury to the spine, as well as other medical evidence. Insurance adjusters are well trained at evaluating medical records, (or they have nurses or doctors to review more complicated records for them).

Did he also fluff up his wage loss claim? It sounds like he did. It also sounds like he had no real way to prove his wage loss claim.

What Joyce did was lie to the insurance companies about how the injuries affected his activity level, both in his personal life and in his professional life.  He exaggerated how the injuries affected his life. Did the insurance companies who paid him money conduct videotape surveillance or other forms of investigation on Joyce both during the pending  injury claim and after it settled? You bet they did. That's what they turned over to the federal prosecutors. (The prosecutors also used the testimony of Joyce's ex-fiancee. She apparently did not help Joyce out when testifying about the sporting activities she witnessed him participate in). 

Was Joyce a target for prosecutors due to his status? Possibly. But every personal injury claimant is a target for prosecution if that claimant gives false information to an insurance company. Insurance adjusters are not only trained in evaluating medical records, they are also well trained in spotting exaggerated claims, (although Joyce's case sounds like it wasn't that hard to spot).

A word here on what is required to truthfully and accurately prove wage loss. In proving your wage loss claim (which is in essence what Joyce was trying to do when he claimed he could not run for the State Supreme Court) you, the personal injury claimant, will need proof of medical injury and disability from a treating doctor in the form of a disability report; and to prove past lost wages you  will also need proof from your employer that you were unable to work.  Ultimately your doctor and your employer may have to testify at trial, and they will testify from the documentation that they provided in your case. Proofs in a lost earning capacity claim or future lost wages, as well as past and future lost wages for a self employed individual are a little harder to put together, but certainly not impossible. Nevertheless, true, accurate and credible documentation to support your lost earnings, wage loss, future lost earnings, lost earning capacity and the like is what is required. Unsupported and unsubstantiated documentation of wage loss will only get you in hot water.