Pennsylvania Injury Law Report : Accident Attorney Philadelphia: Personal Injury Attorney Philadelphia (PA), Injury Lawyer Philadelphia - Kreithen Baron & Carpey

At this point, you have probably heard about the high profile lawsuit being amassed against the National Football League (NFL) on behalf of current and former football players affected by head injuries caused by concussions. In short, the affected players are alleging that the NFL kept a tight lid on the serious, long-term health problems associated with concussions. Players involved in the suit have suffered from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), Alzheimer's Disease, dementia, depression, and other ailments attributed to traumatic brain injuries.

Kreithen, Baron & Carpey has taken an interest in how this lawsuit plays out, for many reasons, one of which is that the master complaint which is consolidating suits filed for over two thousand plaintiffs is being presided over in a Philadelphia federal court (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania). For the time being, our city is setting the scene for a lawsuit which could change how the NFL deals with its players, and for that matter the relationship between players and owners in all of sports!

To read more on the details of the master complaint, see our related blog post. In this article, however, we will focus on the tort claims which have been focused on Riddell Sports, the helmet manufacturer for the NFL.

The issue is that Riddell has, as part of promotions, reported that their helmets are effective in preventing concussions. Darren Heitner, a Forbes contributor, uncovered an article once printed in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review (June 16, 2006), in which Riddell account manager Marty Cothern reportedly stated that Riddell's Revolution helmet "was designed to protect players from concussions..." And indeed the helmet was marketed as capable of reducing concussions by as much as 31 percent.

Judging by the studies we wrote about in our other NFL piece, the Revolution helmet doesn't seem to have done its job. The fact that Riddell is a defendant in the master complaint indicates that the claims by the football player plaintiffs include theories of liability that the helmets designed were defective and unsafe, and that, like the NFL, Riddell was secretive about the risk of concussions for players.

Even if the lawsuit fails to land a sizeable blow to the NFL, Riddell could stand to be left hurting when all is said and done. The manufacturer could be found liable in the products liability aspect of the claim.. But even if Riddell escapes liability, the company's helmets may no longer be worn by more than half of NFL players. The NFL's contract with Riddell may be up for review in 2013 -- and the League may just want to distance itself from the manufacturer.

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

The ability to be patient is probably the single most important quality that a personal injury victim proceeding with a personal injury case can possess. That is, if you want to maximize your case. You have the right to maximize your case. If someone else, because of their negligence, has caused you injury, you have the right under the law to seek full compensation for your injuries.

But seeking full compensation requires time. Your doctors will want to treat your injuries with the best tools and services they have. Medical testing such as x rays and MRI's may be required. Surgery, physical therapy and other treatment may be necessary to assist in the healing process. Discipline in staying with your doctors' prescribed course of treatment will assist you medically and will also show that you were a compliant patient.

Whether your case is in the claim process or in suit, the evaluation of your claim both by your lawyer and by the opposing insurance company requires time. Obtaining all of your medical records also can be a very slow process. Certainly litigation of the personal injury case is not a quick process. The discovery process of the case, answering interrogatories and the taking of witness depositions, can be a drawn out process. And depending on the jurisdiction where your case is filed, the court docket may not necessarily allow for a rapid trial date. In other words, just because your case is in suit does not mean it is immediately going to trial.

Of course, it's easy to talk about the importance of patience and discipline. But for the personal injury victim whose life has been turned upside down, this is not always easy.

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

My daughter Julia is a junior at The University of Pittsburgh. And, although this blog generally does not address political issues, this time I feel compelled to bring one up. It has to do with Governor Tom Corbett’s budget, and how the budget affects all Pennsylvanians. State budgets are not the sexiest of issues, but here in Pennsylvania we all need to start paying attention. In this article I will only address one aspect of the budget -- how it threatened to affect college costs.

After suffering an almost 20 percent budget cut in 2011, The University of Pittsburgh, as well as other state schools, faced an additional 30 percent cut this year due to Governor Tom Corbett's February budget proposal. For instance, Pitt's appropriations would have been down from $167 million to about $80 million. Reportedly, over just two years, the school stood to lose roughly $100 million.

As a response to the proposed cuts, Pitt's Student Government Board put together a rally attended by school board members, professors, current students, former students, and community members, all of whom were outraged by the losses the school was facing. The residing sentiment throughout the rally and subsequent protests was that such extreme cuts to Pitt will ultimately hurt the surrounding community and Pennsylvania as a whole.

But Pitt wasn't the only school under the knife. State-owned and state-affiliated universities stood to receive massive funding cuts as well, including Penn State and Temple University, the latter of which held its own rally in March.

Fortunately, June 29 marked a huge victory for students and parents in Pennsylvania as the Senate passed the budget bill, reversing the cuts to state-related universities which were originally proposed by Governor Corbett. So, now universities will receive the same amount of money they received during 2011-2012. For the University of Pittsburgh, that is about $136 million, up from the below $100 million Corbett initially proposed. Apparently, the citizens of Pennsylvania spoke out, and their voices made a difference to their state legislators, many of whom are facing election challenges this fall. (Note that Governor Corbett is not facing an election this November).

The reversal of the budget cuts is such a victory because the education of our students is essential to our prosperity. Pennsylvania students need to have affordable higher education available to them. It was decidedly short-sighted for Governor Corbett to think that increasing college costs for state schools would be politically acceptable.

But politics aside, if Pennsylvania students and their families cannot pay competitive in-state rates for tuition and other college costs, there can be no real expectation that Pennsylvanians can compete nationally in the job market. So too, America’s kids cannot be expected to compete on the international job market with the costs of a college education as high as they presently are. Reversing the Governor’s proposed cuts to schools like Pitt, Penn State, and Temple was a move in the right direction, but more needs to be done to make college more affordable.

What do you think? Do you agree with this article? Do you have a differing opinion? Please share your comments by e mailing me at scarpey@carpeylaw.com

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