PITTSBURGH, PA – Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP is pleased to announce the election of its newest partners, John R. Brumberg, James J. Buldas and Lee van Egmond.
Bill Pietragallo said that John, Jim, and Lee are “diverse in experience, but each talented and industrious, we are very pleased to have these lawyers join our Partnership.”
Mr. Brumberg is a member of the Litigation Practice Group. Mr. Brumberg has experience successfully representing a wide variety of clients, from publicly traded companies involved in complex litigation to individuals making large personal injury claims. He earned his J.D. from Duke University School of Law, where he was the recipient of a Duke Law Scholarship. Mr. Brumberg currently serves on the board of the Duke Club of Pittsburgh as Treasurer.
Mr. Buldas is a member of the Commercial Litigation, Insurance Coverage, and Construction Practice Consortium Practice Groups. He represents businesses and individuals in federal and state courts matters involving professional liability, commercial disputes, as well as products, premises, construction, boating, and aviation liability. He has also been involved in catastrophic loss insurance disputes, arising out of floods, fires, and explosions. Mr. Buldas earned his J.D. from John Marshall Law School and his undergraduate degree at Ohio State University. He is admitted to the Supreme Courts of Pennsylvania and Illinois. He is also admitted to the United States District Courts for the Western District of Pennsylvania and the Northern District of Illinois.
Ms. Van Egmond is a member of the Business/Corporate Practice Group. She has a broad range of experience in advising clients on corporate and finance matters, contract and real estate negotiations, licensing and strategic transactions. She also has experience in the manufacturing, technology, entertainment, banking and investment, retail, hotel, restaurant and life science industries – both in day-to-day counseling and transactional matters. Read More
Marc Stephen Raspanti will be speaking at the Fraud and Compliance Forum. His topic for presentation is on Medical Necessity and The False Claims Act. His co-presenters include John-David H. Thomas, J. Reginald Hill, and Jessica Sievert. The name of the presentation is titled, “Medical Necessity and the False Claims Act – Lions and Tigers and Experts, Oh My!” Read More
PITTSBURGH, PA – Gaetan J. Alfano has become a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers, one of the premier legal associations in North America.
The induction ceremony at which Mr. Alfano became a Fellow took place recently before an audience of 900 persons during the recent 2017 Annual Meeting of the College in Montréal, Québec.
Founded in 1950, the College is composed of the best of the trial bar from the United States and Canada. Fellowship in the College is extended by invitation only and only after careful investigation, to those experience trial lawyers of diverse backgrounds, who have mastered the art of advocacy and whose professional careers have been marked by the highest standards of ethical conduct, professionalism, civility, and collegiality. Lawyers must have a minimum of fifteen years trial experience before they can be considered for Fellowship.
Membership in the College cannot exceed one percent of the total lawyer population of any state or province. There are currently approximately 5,800 members in the United States and Canada, including active Fellows, Emeritus Fellows, Judicial Fellows (those who ascended to the bench after their induction) and Honorary Fellows. The College maintains and seeks to improve the standards of trial practice, professionalism, ethics, and the administration of justice through education and public statements on independence of the judiciary, trial by jury, respect for the rule of law, access to justice, and fair and just representation of all parties to legal proceedings. The College is thus able to speak with a balanced voice on important issues affecting the legal profession and the administration of justice.
Mr. Alfano is a partner at Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP and has been practicing in Philadelphia for 37 years. The newly inducted Fellow is an alumnus of Villanova University School of Law. Mr. Read More
Pennsylvania is on the cusp of a significant change as the State’s medical marijuana industry becomes fully operational. This summer, Pennsylvania awarded permits to twelve businesses to grow marijuana and twenty-seven businesses to sell medicinal marijuana. By June 2018, residents can start purchasing marijuana from dispensaries for approved medical purposes, and the industry is projecting first-year sales of 150 million dollars. Once the dispensaries open, the consumption of marijuana by Pennsylvania residents may increase substantially.
Given the magnitude of anticipated change, Pennsylvania employers should prepare for the likelihood of increased marijuana usage by their employees. As a starting point, employers with mandatory drug testing programs need to closely monitor medicinal marijuana legal developments, not just because of the tension between state disability discrimination laws and the Federal Controlled Substances Act’s prohibition on marijuana use generally, but also because of the conflict between state laws permitting medicinal marijuana use and certain industry-specific regulations banning the use of medicinal marijuana. As an example, the Department of Transportation’s drug and alcohol testing regulation, 49 CFR § 40.151(e), prohibits companies from allowing individuals in safety sensitive positions in the transportation industry to use marijuana for medicinal purposes, even if they live in a state that permits such activity.
Most employers have always operated in a world where they could lawfully terminate an employee for failing a drug test, including due to the presence of marijuana. It did not matter whether the drug use occurred during non-working hours. For now, that is the law in Pennsylvania. That used to be the law in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut; it no longer is…..or at least the law is no longer as black and white. In states allowing medical marijuana, employers may have to “accommodate” an employee’s medical marijuana use as a reasonable accommodation for an employee’s disability. Read More
Gaetan J. Alfano authored an article titled, “A Shift Away From Exclusive Regulation of Attorney Conduct by the Courts?” published August 09, 2017 in The Legal Intelligencer. Read More
Joseph L. Gordon was interviewed in an article titled, “Potential Litigation Uptick Seen From 3rd Circuit’s Workplace Slur Ruling.” Published July 31, 2017 in The Legal Intelligencer.
Related Information:
Click Here to Read The Legal Intelligencer Article Read More
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision to take up McGuire v. Russo has caused consternation among practitioners, as the Court may overturn 26-year-old precedent that limits legal malpractice actions arising from settled cases. Indeed, the Court’s Order permitting the appeal states the issue ominously:
Should this Court overturn its decision in Muhammad v. Strassburger, McKenna, Messer, Shilobod & Gutnick, 587 A.2d 1346 (Pa. 1991), which bars legal malpractice suits following the settlement of a lawsuit absent an allegation of fraud, even in instances where an attorney’s negligence led to a lesser settlement.
To be sure, the Court could overturn Muhammad wholesale. But the final phrase of the issue statement – “even … where an attorney’s negligence led to a lesser settlement” – indicates that it may merely clarify the case’s meaning. And clarity may be needed. Subsequent cases have interpreted Muhammad inconsistently and carved-out various exceptions. Thus, the doctrine has become virtually inscrutable.
Muhammad involved a couple who lost an infant to complications from general anesthesia. Id. at 1347.They sued the hospital and two physicians for medical malpractice and, after discovery, accepted a settlement for $26,500. Id. The Muhammads then sued the attorney who had negotiated the settlement on their behalf for legal malpractice. Id. at 1348.
Muhammad addresses the too-bad contract a scenario where the litigant comes to second-guess the amount of a settlement to which she has agreed. Id. As the Court stated, “sanctioning these ‘Monday-morning-quarterback’ suits would be to permit lawsuits based on speculative harm; something with which we cannot agree.” Id. at 1352 n.13. But the rule that flows from Muhammad is not, on its face, limited to suits based on the amount of the settlement. Instead, it forecloses all malpractice suits seeking to relitigate a settlement, except where a party was fraudulently induced into settling. Id. at 135. Read More
