Pennsylvania Injury Law Report : Pennsylvania Personal Injury Lawyer & Attorney : Stuart Carpey Law Firm : Auto Accidents & Product Liability : Pennsylvania Injury Law Report

Former Luzerne County, Pennsylvania judge Michael T. Conahan was  sentenced to 17 1/2 years in a federal prison and was fined $900,000.

Conahan pleaded guilty to racketeering conspiracy last year. He and former judge Mark Ciavarella Jr. were charged with taking bribes from the builder of a pair of juvenile detention centers and extorting cash from the facilities' co-owner in what has been called the "cash for kids" scandal.

Ciavarella was convicted  at trial. He was sentenced last month to 28 years in prison.

Assistant U.S. Attorney William Houser stated

"Mr. Conahan abused his power to enrich himself and his friend Mark Ciavarella. The justice system in Pennsylvania was shaken to its very foundation."

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court had to overturn 4,000 convictions of kids that Conahan and Ciavarella issued between 2003 and 2008.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The new Fair Share Act passed earlier this year eliminates joint and several liability. Joint liability now only applies when a defendant is found at fault for not less than 60 percent of the total liability apportioned to all parties. Under the predecessor statute of joint and several liability, a legal doctrine that had ruled Pennsylvania since the Colonial era, a successful plaintiff could pursue a judgment against any one party as if it were jointly liable; it then became the responsibility of the defendants to sort out their respective proportions of liability and payment. Now, collection of the judgment is based on a defendant's actual level of responsibility for an injury so long as that defendant is not found by the jury to be 60 per cent or more negligent vis a vis the other defendants.

But, in the medical malpractice context, the abolition of joint and several liability in fact exposes individual doctors to the risk of greater jeopardy to personal assets. Why? Typically the defendant doctor is sued as a corporation and as an individual actor. Under the old law, a total payment of the verdict (or settlement) would be made on behalf of the doctor and his corporate entity and paid by the defendant doctor’s corporate medical malpractice insurer. Case over. Under the current law, if that doctor is found less than 60 per cent negligent, the plaintiff can only collect on a pro rata portion of the verdict of that doctor’s negligence. In other words, with the enactment of the Fair Share Act, plaintiffs’ counsel clearly have a greater incentive, and legal obligation, for suing physicians individually and keeping those judgments on file in the courts indefinitely where excess verdicts, over and above the carrier’s policy limits, are obtained. Additionally, the Fair Share Act’s intent was to reduce exposure to medical defendants. But consider the likelihood that more defendants will have to be sued in order for plaintiffs’ counsel to try to identify the individual or corporate entity who may ultimately be the defendant who is 60 percent or more responsible for plaintiff’s injuries. That information is simply not known pre-suit, and can only accurately be determined after litigation is commenced and in the discovery portion of the case. More defendants will undoubtedly be sued than they otherwise would have been before the abolition of joint and several liability.

Who may these defendants be? They will be nurses, hospitals policy makers, administrators, and peripheral physicians who would otherwise not have been the focus of the lawsuit, but now will be, under the Fair Share Act.

The stated purpose of the Hospital and Health System Association of Pennsylvania was to get more doctors into the clutches of hospital employment equating to the consolidation and control of medical care by the large hospital corporations. And why wouldn’t a doctor want that? Clearly he or she would because as an employee of the hospital corporation the doctor not only does not have to worry about liability coverage, but the hospital corporation can purchase greater amount of coverage than the individual doctor could have or would have otherwise chosen.

The unrealized and unanticipated effects of the Fair Share Act will be played out in the Commonwealth’s courts for years to come, and unfortunately some physicians may find they do  not like the results.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This article was written by Daniel Lopez a current student at Villanova University School of Law.

During the summer months most law students work or intern at law firms in order to learn and gain valuable experience about the profession they will soon be entering. In better economic times virtually every law student was guaranteed a position at one firm or another. However, in the new economic climate, summer positions for law students have been dwindling and getting a position is highly competitive.

As a Villanova Law student I began searching for summer jobs at Philadelphia personal injury law firms as early as January. Early on in my search I applied to an open position with Kreithen, Baron & Carpey, where I interviewed with Stuart Carpey. Thankfully, he hired me to work and gain the experience I desperately craved.

Confident with my knowledge and ability I began work immediately after finals. I thought that I would know exactly what was going on because of my law school education. Boy was I in for a surprise. From day one I realized how much I didn’t know and how knowledgeable Mr. Carpey was in the area of personal injury, medical malpractice, civil rights cases, and the litigation and trial of those kinds of cases.

One of the first things Mr. Carpey began talking about when I first started working for him was the difference between full tort and limited tort coverage in car accident cases.  I had no clue what he was talking about. So, I had to put my pride to the side and asked what the difference was. Stuart then clearly explained that a limited tort insurance policy is one where the policyholder pays lower premiums but gives up the right to be compensated for pain and suffering if involved in a car accident except where the injuries are quite serious. He explained that a full tort policy allows the policyholder to proceed with a personal injury case and to file suit if necessary for pain and suffering if involved in a car accident, without having to worry about the limited tort threshold. I couldn’t believe I had never heard of full tort or limited tort before. Stuart then handed me both of the books that he has written “Purchasing Auto Insurance In Pennsylvania” and “The 10 Biggest Mistakes That Can Wreck Your Pennsylvania Accident Case.” From that moment, I knew I really didn’t know that much at all about car insurance and how it applied to injured accident victims. Moreover, if I didn’t know the difference between full and limited tort, the odds were that most Pennsylvania drivers didn’t know the difference either. It was frightening to know that many Pennsylvania drivers had unknowingly given up an important right because it would save them a few dollars a month. It also became clear to me, as Mr. Carpey explained, that insurance companies and their agents were doing a disservice to their insureds by not fully informing them of their rights.

Within a few weeks of working for Mr. Carpey,  I met a variety of clients and listened to them speak with Mr. Carpey about their injuries. From listening to these discussions I learned how important it was for doctors treating accident victims to fully detail what the injuries were, and to fully document in the medical chart the full extent of their patients’ pain or discomfort. I was surprised to learn that insurance companies go out of their way to minimize an injured accident victim’s claim for damages, and that a complete medical chart is the best way a patient can combat that.

I learned a lot about how Mr. Carpey prepares for depositions and trial, and how it is important to keep your client informed of the process of his or her legal case. I was also part of Mr. Carpey’s program both on the Internet and in his written materials, of informing his clients and the public generally of their rights in personal injury cases.

These are just a couple of the things I learned while working with Mr. Carpey this summer. Now as I enter my final year of law school I will take my experience from this summer and use it to guide me in the future. I can say without hesitation that Stuart Carpey is a great person, mentor, and lawyer, and that this was a great summer experience.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

"Hot Coffee," the HBO documentary has been stirring up quite a dialogue around the country and about our system of civil justice in the United States. The film attacks and breaks down the myths associated with the McDonald's hot coffee case and accurately tells the story of the burn injuries suffered by Stella Liebeck. It puts a fresh spotlight on other threats to our access to the courts. The film shows the human costs to the rights we are losing because of caps on damages, pervasive uses of binding arbitration clauses and other types of clauses in consumer contracts,as well as corporate control and influence in judicial campaigns.The film has won numerous awards.

The McDonald's coffee case has been routinely cited by the media as an example of how citizens have supposedly taken advantage of the legal system. The movie shows how the case became  popular in the media, who funded the media efforts and and why. (Can you say big business, insurance companies, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the far right?). Ultimately is shows that spilling boiling hot coffee and otherwise sustaining serious injuries due to another's negligence is anything but a cakewalk though our legal system.

I urge anyone who has not seen it to watch the movie.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link