Workers’ Compensation/OSHA Claims Due to COVID-19

2021/02/02

Questions have persistently arisen as to whether an employer is responsible to pay workers’ compensation benefits to an employee who has been rendered disabled as a result of a COVID-19 diagnosis or, in the alternative, is prevented from working based on an employer’s concern that the employee’s presence may lead to others contracting the disease. In the vast majority of instances, it is unlikely that an employee can demonstrate that COVID-19  arose in the course and scope of the employee’s employment.  If one assumes a 40-hour work week, less than 25% of the employee’s potential exposure occurs in the work environment versus the non-work environment. COVID-19 is not unique to the work setting.  Accordingly, in most instances an employee’s efforts to prove causation between COVID-19 and work exposure will fail. Every state has their own unique workers’ compensation statute for dealing with compensatory illnesses.  Recognizing that certain classes of individuals may be more susceptible to a given disease in a work environment when compared to the general population, states have created presumptions to establish medical causation. Many states have extended workers’ compensation coverage to employees who fall victim to COVID-19 by creating a presumption that the employee’s work led to the deleterious exposure and contraction of the infection.  Those states addressing these issues have identified certain professions where there is a known increased risk in contracting the infection due to the occupation.  Classes of employees who have received the benefit of these presumptions in those states that have addressed the same include first responders (police, firefighters and EMTs) and front line healthcare workers.  In those states that have successfully passed such legislation, a presumption is created that those who work in these professions and carry a COVID-19 diagnosis are presumed to have contracted the disease while in the course and scope of their employment.  Read More

Should I Stay or Should I Go? Managing Your Law Firm Separation

2021/01/05

The devastating financial fallout of the COVID-19 crisis has exacerbated law firm dissolutions and key attorney separations. Firms that were overleveraged, undercapitalized, poorly managed or otherwise unable to adjust to revenue slowdowns have failed outright or have found themselves struggling to adapt. Stakeholders, whether partners or shareholders, have been forced to consider their professional options, including voluntarily (or involuntarily) separating from their firms. We have counseled dozens of firms and attorneys with respect to professional transitions over many years. In our experience, our attorney clients who successfully forged new careers have followed these five suggestions. Consider Your Options While Your Practice Is Vibrant The thought of uprooting your practice and starting over, either in another firm or on your own, is incredibly daunting. Attorneys, by nature, are creatures of well-honed habits. Consequently, you may find yourself succumbing to inertia and waiting until your firm literally is falling apart before planning your future. This inactivity is a huge mistake, as it is impossible for a practice to thrive in a failing environment. Instead, the consequences of business failure—e.g., working with limited and dwindling resources, dealing with professional and staff departures and the resulting impact on clients and cases, and attempting to manage a caseload despite the distraction of pressing administrative and financial issues—erode the time and energy required for an effective practice. While the icon of the “last man or woman standing” may play well in survival video games, it can be an unmitigated disaster in a failing law firm. If you have considered the issues facing your firm (and the impact on your practice) and have not been able to resolve them, then consider moving on before these issues degrade your career. Know What You Are ‘Selling’ and Sell Your Strength This next step requires a critical and honest self-evaluation: What is the strength of your current practice? Read More

From our COVID-19 Response Team: Pennsylvania Business Guidance For Probable or Confirmed Case of COVID-19

2020/08/05

As COVID-19 continues to spread globally and throughout Pennsylvania, most employers will be faced with the question of how to respond when an employee tests positive, or has exposure to the coronavirus, and will need to determine when those employees can safely return to work.  In part, it depends on whether the employee has simply tested positive, or if the employee tests positive and has symptoms. Where an employee has tested positive for COVID-19, but has no symptoms, the employee can return to work 10 days after the first positive test. Where an employee has tested positive for COVID-19 and has symptoms, the employee may safely return to work at least 10 days after the onset of symptoms, at least 24 hours have passed since resolution of fever without the use of fever-reducing medications, and all other symptoms have improved.  All three criteria must be met before the employee can safely return to work.    For employees with severe illness, 20 days of isolation after symptom onset may be warranted. Once a company has ensured that an employee with a confirmed or suspected COVID-19 case will not be reporting to the business’ physical worksite, Pennsylvania employers must take the following steps: I. Secure and Decontaminate Affected Areas Close off areas visited by the person who is a probable or confirmed case of COVID-19. Wait at least 24 hours, or as long as practical, before cleaning and disinfecting the affected area. If more than seven days have passed since affected person visited the business or facility, enhanced cleaning and disinfection is not necessary. Open outside doors and windows and use ventilation fans to increase air circulation. Clean and disinfect all shared areas such as offices, bathrooms, break rooms, shared electronic equipment (printers, touch screens, keyboards, remote controls) used by the affected person. For more information, see https://www.governor.pa.gov/covid-19/business-faq/ Read More

Nineteen Pietragallo Attorneys Recognized by The Best Lawyers in America® 2021

August 20, 2020

Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti LLP, a business and litigation law firm with five offices across Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia, is proud to announce that nineteen of our distinguished attorneys have been recognized in The Best Lawyers in America® 2021 edition. “The legacy of our law firm is the depth of our courtroom talent,” noted Managing Partner, William Pietragallo, II. He continued, “I could not be more proud.” Recognition by Best Lawyers® is based entirely on peer review within the legal industry. The Best Lawyers® methodology is designed to capture the consensus opinion of industry-leading lawyers regarding the professional capabilities of their colleagues. Best Lawyers® distinction is demonstrative of the respect that recognized lawyers have earned amongst their peers. The following individuals of The Pietragallo Law Firm have been recognized for their work in the following industries:   Gaetan J. Alfano (2012) Commercial Litigation Employment Law – Individuals Employment Law – Management Litigation – Labor and Employment Pamela Coyle Brecht (2021) Qui Tam Law Marc S. Raspanti (2006) Health Care Law  Doug Rosenblum (2021) Criminal Defense: White-Collar Mark Gordon (2011) Litigation – Insurance Workers’ Compensation Law – Employers  James W. Kraus (2021) Criminal Defense: White-Collar Litigation – Health Care Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants  James F. Marrion (2021) Product Liability Litigation – Defendants  William Pietragallo II (2005) Bet-the-Company Litigation Commercial Litigation Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants  Francis E. Pipak, Jr. (2011) Workers’ Compensation Law – Employers  Peter St. Tienne Wolff (2021) Litigation – Trusts and Estates  Clem C. Trischler, Jr. (2011) Commercial Litigation Product Liability Litigation – Defendants  Paul Kenneth Vey (2011) Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants Sharon, PA  Richard Parks (2021) Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law   “Ones to Watch”   Leslie A. Mariotti (2021) Labor and Employment Law – Management  Peter W. Read More

Pamela Coyle Brecht Appointed as a Hearing Committee Member serving the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

2020/08/06

Partner Pamela Coyle Brecht of Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP has been appointed as a Hearing Committee Member serving the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania effective July 1, 2020. This appointment is a three-year term. Ms. Brecht also serves as Chair of the firm’s national Qui Tam/False Claims Act (FCA) Practice Group. She is experienced in white-collar criminal litigation, internal investigations, and complex health care litigation. Some of Ms. Brecht’s largest FCA cases have included alleged fraud by a large multi-state Medicaid managed care contractor and FCA violations by three of the largest hospital corporations in the country. The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania is dedicated to protecting the public, maintaining the integrity of the legal profession, and safeguarding the reputation of the courts. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania established the Disciplinary Board in 1972. In regard to the appointment, Ms. Brecht commented, “I’m honored and proud to accept this appointment. I will do my very best to assist our system of discipline.” Read More

One of Pennsylvania’s Top 100 Attorneys can be found at Pietragallo

2020/06/02

Twenty-one Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP attorneys were named to the 2020 Pennsylvania Super Lawyers and Rising Stars list, including founding partners William Pietragallo, II, Mark Gordon, Joseph J Bosick, Gaetan J Alfano, and Marc S Raspanti. These designations are awarded to lawyers who receive the highest feedback regarding their legal practice based on independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations. In addition to all of the Firm’s founding Partners, the following lawyers were acknowledged by the rating service as 2020 Pennsylvania Super Lawyers: P. Brennan Hart, Christopher A. Iacono, James W. Kraus, Michael A. Morse, Francis E. Pipak, Kevin E. Raphael, Douglas K. Rosenblum, John A. Schwab, Clem C. Trischler, and Paul K. Vey. The following firm lawyers were recognized by the rating service as 2020 Pennsylvania Rising Stars: John R. Brumberg, Joseph L. Gordon, Leslie A. Mariotti, and Peter St. Tienne Wolff. In addition to the recognition above, Super Lawyers further distinguished Gaetan J. Alfano as “Top 100: 2020 Pennsylvania Super Lawyers” and “Top 100: 2020 Philadelphia Super Lawyers.” Managing Partner William Pietragallo, II was also further distinguished as “Top 50: 2020 Pittsburgh Super Lawyers List.” For more information about any of our attorneys, we invite you to visit Our Team page. If you would like to reach one of our attorneys, their direct contact information can be found within their biographies. For more information about Super Lawyers, we invite you to visit their website: www.superlawyers.com. Read More

Client Alert: The CARES Act and the Paycheck Protection Program

March 27, 2020

The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the “CARES Act”), which was signed into law today allocates $350 billion for a Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) meant to provide immediate relief to small businesses (less than 500 employees) and other eligible entities impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Process: The process for securing a PPP loan is fairly simple. The law allows Small Business Administration (“SBA”) approved lenders to provide eligible businesses loans of up to $10 million (based on a formula tied to payroll costs) for payroll and other expenses incurred between February 15, 2020 and June 30, 2020. To determine loan eligibility, a lender need only consider whether the borrower was in operation on February 15, 2020 and paid employee salaries and payroll taxes or paid independent contractors. There are separate provisions for new or previously closed businesses. The Act waives fees for both borrowers and lenders. Loan Terms: A borrower is eligible for a loan equal to 2.5 months of regular payroll expenses, capped at $10 million. A borrower does not have to provide a personal guarantee or collateral to get a PPP loan. The loans have a maximum interest rate of 4% and only start to mature following the date the employer applies for loan forgiveness (see below). The loan can have a maximum maturity of ten (10) years from such date. Allowable Uses: Employers can use the funds from loans for (1) Payroll costs; (2) Group health care benefits during periods of paid sick, medical, or family leave, and insurance premiums; (3) Employee Salaries, commissions, or similar compensations (up to $100,000) (4) Payments of interest on mortgage obligations; (5) Rent (including rent under lease agreement); (5) Utilities; and (6) Interest on any other debt obligations incurred before the covered period. Loan Forgiveness: A portion of the loan may be forgiven in an amount equal to payments made on eligible employee payroll costs, interest payments on a covered mortgage obligation, rent, and utility payments made during the first 8-weeks after the origination date of the loan.  Read More

Information from our Employment & Labor Group to help you navigate COVID-19

March 19, 2020

The Families First Coronavirus Response Act (Act) was signed by President Trump on March 18, 2020.  The bill becomes law on April 2, 2020.Under the new law, certain employees will be eligible to receive paid sick and family leave through December 31, 2020 for leave related to COVID 19.  Relevant portions related to employment law are as follows: Emergency Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act This provision expands the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA).  It applies to employers with fewer than 500 employees.  It includes employers with less than 50 employees who were previously not subject to the FMLA.  Employees who have been employed for thirty days or more are entitled to take up to twelve weeks of job-protected leave: To care for employee’s child whose school or child care facility has been closed due to the coronavirus. The first ten days can be unpaid unless the employee chooses to substitute paid time off.  After the first ten days, the employee receives two-thirds of their regular rate, capped at $200 per day.  Part-time employees will be entitled to two-thirds of their paid sick leave in the amount equal to the average amount of hours they work for the six months prior to taking Emergency FMLA, capped at $200 per day. The Secretary of Labor may exempt small businesses with fewer than 50 employees if the imposition of such requirements would jeopardize the viability of the business. Emergency Paid Sick Leave This provision applies to employers with fewer than 500 employees.  Employers will be required to provide job-protected paid sick leave to all employees who require leave for the following reasons: The employee is subject to a federal, state or local quarantine because of the coronavirus; The employee must obtain medical care if he or she is experiencing symptoms of coronavirus; The employee must comply with health care provider recommendations to self-quarantine due to the coronavirus; The employee must care for an individual who is subject  to federal, state or local quarantine or to comply with a health care provider recommendation due to the coronavirus; The employee must care for the employee’s child whose school or child care facility has been closed  due to the coronavirus; and Any other substantially similar condition specified by the Secretary of Health and Human Services in consultation with the Secretary of Treasury and the Secretary of Labor. Read More

PA Justices’ Ruling May Rein in Grand Jury Report Releases

2020/02/12

On Jan. 22, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion ordering the permanent sealing of a grand jury report relating to allegations of sexual abuse and a potential coverup. In the opinion, In re Grand Jury Investigation No. 18, the Supreme Court concluded that because the report did not meet the Investigating Grand Jury Act’s statutory definitions of an “investigating grand jury report,” it could not be released to the public. This decision comes on the heels of a November 2019 Grand Jury Task Force report that recommended abolishing investigating grand jury reports entirely.[1] From our point of view, it appears that investigating reports are on their way out. The Investigating Grand Jury Act authorizes only two options for proceeding against an individual: a presentment recommending criminal charges or an investigating grand jury report.[2] Where a presentment is not an option — a common outcome for any number of reasons, including, importantly, that there is simply not enough evidence to proceed on criminal charges — an investigating grand jury report may be considered. As the Supreme Court recognized here, however, the use of investigative grand jury reports must be greatly limited in their reach, because of their impact on the constitutional rights of those named within them. Generally, the Investigating Grand Jury Act authorizes the judge supervising grand jury proceedings to make public an investigating grand jury report.[3] But the act’s two-prong definition of an “investigating grand jury report” is narrow. Specifically, only reports that regard “conditions relating to organized crime or public corruption, or both; or that propose recommendations for legislative, executive, or administrative action in the public interest based upon stated findings” meet the act’s definition. Reports that fail to meet those strict definitions cannot be released.[4] The petitioner here argued that the report in question did not meet the act’s limited definitions. Read More

In Wake of Passcode Ruling, Fifth Amendment Jurisprudence May Need an Update in The Legal Intelligencer

2019/12/05

On Nov. 20, in Commonwealth v. Davis, — A 3d. —, 56 MAP 2018, (Pa. 2019), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that compelling an individual to provide their password to an encrypted electronic device violates the Fifth Amendment. In this case of first impression, the government had moved to compel a defendant accused of distributing child pornography to provide the password to his encrypted computer, a device which itself had been lawfully seized. While the government’s request was through a pretrial motion, Davis’ holding is not limited to that context and will apply equally to grand jury practice. In Davis, the court found that the act of producing the password was “testimonial” in nature and thus the government’s request violates the defendant’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The court reviewed decades of U.S. Supreme Court precedent on the Fifth Amendment and distilled the caselaw to a few key points: First, the Supreme Court has made, and continues to make, a distinction between physical production and testimonial production. As made clear by the U.S. Supreme Court, where the government compels a physical act, such production is not testimonial, and the privilege is not recognized. Second, an act of production, however, may be testimonial when the act expresses some explicit or implicit statement of fact that certain materials exist, are in the defendant’s custody or control, or are authentic. The crux of whether an act of production is testimonial is whether the government compels the defendant to use the “contents of his own mind” in explicitly or implicitly communicating a fact. Third, and broadly speaking, the high court has recognized that the vast majority of compelled oral statements of facts will be considered testimonial, as they convey information or assert facts. Applying those principles, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that Davis’ provision of his password would be “testimonial” in nature: “Distilled to its essence, the revealing of a computer password is a verbal communication, not merely a physical act that would be nontestimonial in nature. Read More