Parenting is as rewarding as it is challenging. In this video attorney Kerri Cappella discusses co-parenting after separation, even under the best of circumstances, takes those challenges to another level. Effective, respectful communication between parties reduces tensions between them and helps children adapt to the changes in their lives.
Source Read More
Many readers will recall the sagacious approach to life challenges postulated by Vanilla Ice in his seminal (only?) hit song, Ice Ice Baby: “If there was a problem, yo, I solve it (check out the hook while my DJ revolves it. Ice ice baby too cold, too cold).” (Citation omitted).
How on earth could this epistemological font be applicable to a custody case, you ask? Simple.
Our legislature, in its own bout of perspicacity, listed the following as the very first factor that our courts must consider in any custody action:
Which party is more likely to encourage and permit frequent and continuing contact between the child and another party.
Vanilla Ice could not have said it better himself: a client walks into your office with a problem in a custody case and, yo, you solve it—with Factor 1 at the forefront of your mind.
Start with this simple truism: children do best when they have healthy (safe) relationships with both of their parents. This may not mean 50/50 in every case, but it means that each parent should take every reasonable (safe) step to promote their child’s (safe) relationship with the other parent. Not only is this mindset beneficial to children; it is also good strategy, because it heeds Vanilla Ice’s wisdom and focuses on the consideration set forth in Custody Factor 1. It also informs attorneys how to prepare for a custody trial.
Unlike almost any other area of the law, custody cases will focus not only on evidence that occurred before the case but also on evidence that develops while the case is pending up to the date of trial. Keeping Factor 1 in mind, courts will expect that each parent has done whatever they have within their respective abilities to solve problems regarding custody, and evidence regarding these efforts will be critical in terms of the court’s determination. Read More
Pietragallo partner Pamela Coyle Brecht will be returning to the Pennsylvania Bar Institute’s 2023 Health Law Institute to speak on the “False Claims Act Update” panel. This two-day seminar will be held in-person at the Pennsylvania Convention Center in Philadelphia on March 14 and 15.
Pam will be joined by co-panelists Charlene Fullmer and Zane Memeger as they each discuss their viewpoints on recent decisions.
More information can be found here: https://www.pbi.org/Meetings/Meeting.aspx?ID=44147 Read More
Devotees of the probate code are well aware that 20 Pa. C.S. Section 6111.2 provides that if a former spouse passes away and is either divorced or grounds for divorce[1] have been established, then any beneficiary designation by the deceased ex-spouse in favor of the surviving ex-spouse is deemed ineffective unless the deceased ex-spouse makes clear in an updated designation or in a court order or written contract that the designation was intended to remain effective.
Effective May2, 2023, the Pennsylvania Legislature updated the Divorce Code to require every divorce decree to reference the probate code as follows:
An order accompanying a decree of divorce or annulment of the marriage shall include a provision informing the parties to reaffirm or change the beneficiary status on an existing life insurance policy, annuity contract, pension, profit-sharing plan or other contractual arrangement providing for payment to the spouse if it is the intention of one of the parties to keep or change the other party as a beneficiary. The provision shall also warn the parties that failure to do so may result in revocation of the beneficiary designation pursuant to 20 Pa.C.S. § 6111.2 (relating to effect of divorce or pending divorce on designation of beneficiaries). The provision shall be a form as may be prescribed by general rule.
This language is extremely important in any pending divorce action, especially now that the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas requires parties to obtain an order establishing grounds for divorce before the Court will hold a final hearing to determine the economic issues arising from the divorce.
In other words, there will now be a gap between the establishment of grounds for divorce—which would revoke beneficiary designations without a further writing—and when the Court issues a final determination as to how assets will be distributed. Read More
By The Legal Intelligencer’s The Young Lawyer Editorial Board
Let’s set the record straight. There are no “usual stipulations” that apply to depositions.
Although some attorneys may share a vague understanding about the usual stipulations, the phrase has no established meaning. In fact, there is no rule, case, or statute that defines the usual stipulations. “Everyone purports to know without asking the content of the ‘usual stipulations’ until a dispute arises; the ephemeral nature of the parties’ understanding is then quite apparent.” See United States v. Liquid Sugars, 158 F.R.D. 466, 473 n.8 (E.D. Cal. 1994).
Because the phrase has no accepted meaning, an attorney should respond to a proposal for the usual stipulations by asking, “What do you mean by the usual stipulations?” The question might elicit shock, anger, or some patronizing retort like, “I’m surprised you don’t know what the usual stipulations are.”
You may feel tempted to agree to the usual stipulations without any clarification. This is especially true for newer lawyers, who fear that asking for an explanation will reveal their inexperience. But there is no reason to be embarrassed. In all likelihood, the attorney proposing the usual stipulations has no idea what the phrase means.
Many attorneys simply mimic what they perceive to be a common practice without questioning whether the practice makes sense. These same attorneys might argue, “I’ve done hundreds of depositions, and no one has ever refused the usual stipulations.” That may be true, but a prevalent practice can still be a flawed practice.
Consider these two common versions of the usual stipulations: “reserving all objections until trial or there is an attempt to use the deposition” or “reserving all objections except to the form of a question.” While neither helps the taking attorney, both give the defending attorney a strategic advantage beyond what the rules provide. Read More
You are both good parents and want to spend equal time with your child. You are now faced with the question of which schedule will work best for your child. There are several things to consider.
Consider your child’s age. Older children benefit from longer stretches with each parent and fewer transitions. Teens often do a week-on/week-off schedule exchanging on either Fridays or Sundays. Sometimes the parent with the “off week” has a Wednesday night overnight or dinner visit.
Young children, on the other hand, benefit from shorter “visits” with each parent and more exchanges so that they do not go too long without seeing the other parent. The “2-2-3” schedule is popular in this instance. Parent “A” has the child for Monday and Tuesday nights, Parent “B” for Wednesday and Thursday nights. Parent “A” then has the weekend (Friday night through Monday morning) with Parent “B” then having Monday and Tuesday nights and the pattern continues. The downside of this schedule is that some parents do not like that weeknights change each week so that they cannot take the child to certain activities each week.
Some children benefit from being with the same parent on the same weekdays each week. The “5-2-2-5” schedule is popular in this instance. Parent “A” has the child every Monday and Tuesday nights, Parent “B” for every Wednesday and Thursday nights. The parties then alternate weekends (Friday night through Monday morning). Some parents do not like the stretches of five nights in a row. However, once a child has done the 2-2-3 they can transition to the 5-2-2-5 when they get a little older, often when they begin kindergarten or first grade.
A less popular happy medium between the 2-2-3 and the 5-2-2-5 is the “3-4-4-3.” Each week, each parent has the same three nights and they alternate the “odd” night of the week. Read More
PHILADELPHIA, PA (February 6, 2023) – Two whistleblowers from Florence, South Carolina, Scarlett Lutz and Kayla Webster, have resolved their 10-year qui tam lawsuit against Laboratory Corporation of America, Inc. (“Labcorp”), one of the largest laboratories in the world, for $19 million. The whistleblowers alleged that Labcorp, with the knowledge and approval of its senior executives, had participated in a conspiracy to violate the False Claims Act (“FCA”) by providing blood draws to their healthcare provider customers who were receiving cash kickbacks from Health Diagnostics Laboratories (“HDL”) and/or Singulex, Inc. (“Singulex”) as part of a complex healthcare fraud scheme. Relators and their counsel vigorously pursued these claims after the United States declined to intervene in May 2018 and resolved this matter just as a three-week jury trial was about to begin in early January 2023 before the Honorable Richard M. Gergel in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina in Charleston. Labcorp has denied all allegations in Relators’ Fourth Amended Complaint and has not admitted any liability as part of the executed settlement.
The whistleblowers alleged a widespread scheme in which numerous physicians were offered and paid kickbacks by HDL and Singulex to order laboratory tests. According to the whistleblowers’ allegations, the scheme was initiated by HDL’s former CEO, LaTonya Mallory, together with Floyd Calhoun (“Cal”) Dent and Bradford (“Brad”) Johnson, through Dent and Johnson’s marketing company, BlueWave.
A Tale of Blood and Money
Relators Lutz and Webster alleged that HDL and Singulex had paid referring providers kickbacks disguised as “draw fees” or “process and handling” (“P&H”) fees to induce lucrative referrals for lab testing, and that Labcorp had participated in this conspiracy to violate the FCA by providing blood draw services for kickback-receiving providers in exchange for referrals to Labcorp. Relators alleged that, by drawing the blood samples, Labcorp had conspired to violate the FCA, had caused the submission of false claims by HDL and/or Singulex, and had submitted its own kickback-tainted false claims to federal health care programs. Read More
Pietragallo partners Marc Raspanti and Pamela Coyle Brecht are presenting with Italian law firm Gitti and Partners for a seminar entitled “Guida pratica alla normativa sul whistleblowing” or “The New Italian Whistleblowing Legislation: A Practical Guide”. This webinar will take place on Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 12:00pm EST and 6:00pm in Italy.
Marc and Pam will present on American whistleblowing laws and how they compare to the new proposed Italian laws. Marc is a published author on the differences and similarities of the Italian and U.S. whistleblowing legislation.
While the rest of the seminar will be held in Italian, Marc and Pam will share their expertise in English.
Further information and registration can be found here: https://www.grplex.com/it/convegni/download/1105/guida-pratica-alla-normativa-sul-whistleblowing Read More
Pietragallo partner Rich Parks will be participating in the Pennsylvania Bar Institute’s seminar “PA Business Law Quirks: What You Don’t Know Can Hurt Your Client” co-sponsored by the PBA Business Law Section and PBA Large Law Firm Committee, of which Kevin serves as the chair. This seminar will be held virtually on February 22, 2023. Kevin will be moderating the event while Rich will be speaking on the PA Deficiency Judgment Act.
Business law is an integral aspect of any legal system as it governs and regulates the business environment, this program offers an overview of key concepts necessary to establish a strong foundation in this practice area.
During the program speakers will be presenting on:
Forming business entities under PA law (Corporations, LLCs and LP)
Anti-takeover law
Consent to Jurisdiction by registration, Mallory v. Norfolk Southern
Enterprise liability in PA – piercing the corporate veil
Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law: Who is protected, What does it protect against? Gregg v. Ameriprise Fin. Inc.
PA Deficiency Judgment Act
Further information can be found here: https://www.pbi.org/Meetings/Meeting.aspx?ID=44457 Read More
On February 16, 2023, Pietragallo partner Tim Hazel will present “COVID’s Impact: Commercial and Residential Real Estate Post-Pandemic” as part of a real estate continuing education program co-hosted by the Western Pennsylvania Chapter of the Institute of Real Estate Management and the Apartment Association of Metropolitan Pittsburgh. This event will be held at the Double Tree by Hilton in Pittsburgh, PA beginning at 8:00 am. The full course will offer 7 hours of CE credit, with Tim’s presentation offering 3.5 hours of credit.
For nearly two decades, Tim has represented lenders, borrowers, developers, contractors, design professionals, big box retailers, landlords, and tenants in a myriad of transactions. He frequently uses his expertise to present to groups within the real estate industry and will provide insight into the current market and where it is headed during this program.
Further information can be found here: https://realtorspgh.com/ramp-events/irem-aamp-ce-program-thursday-feb-16-2023-8-am-4-pm/ Read More
