Seven Pietragallo Lawyers Recognized in the Best Lawyers in America 2020 Guide

2019/08/15

Best Lawyers® has named seven Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP lawyers in its newly released The Best Lawyers in America 2020 guide. The rankings are based entirely on peer-review content, designed to capture the consensus opinion of leading lawyers on the professional abilities of their colleagues within the same practice area and region. The following Pietragallo lawyers earned recognition: William Pietragallo for his work in the following fields: Bet-the-Company Litigation, Commercial Litigation, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants Mark Gordon: Workers’ Compensation Law – Employers Gaetan Alfano: Commercial Litigation Marc S. Raspanti: Health Care Law Francis Pipak: Workers’ Compensation Law – Employers Clem Trischler: Commercial Litigation, Product Liability Litigation – Defendants Paul Kenneth Vey – Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants Paul Vey has been recognized by Best Lawyers since 2009 and has received additional acknowledgement in the 2020 Guide as a “Lawyer of the Year” in Medical Malpractice Law. For more information about Best Lawyers, please visit their website. For more information about our Attorneys, we invite you view Our Team pages. Read More

Product Liability Mid-Atlantic Update

March 21, 2017

A recent decision in the case of Wilson v. TA Operating, LLC, No. 4:14-cv-00771, 2017 WL 569195 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 13, 2017) (Brann, J.), should be an eye-opener for any defendant facing a claim of punitive damages. The facts in Wilson were both tragic and unusual. The decedent-driver experienced a fire in the front brakes of his tractor trailer as he was traveling on Interstate 80. After extinguishing the flames, he brought the rig to the nearest service station for repairs. Having been assured that the brakes were fixed, the decedent was sent on his way. But after just 15 miles on the road, the brakes again caught fire. While trying to put out the blaze, he suddenly collapsed and died along a remote stretch of highway. Although the opinion does not say so explicitly, it appears that the cause of death was a heart attack. The defendants—the service station where the repairs were made and the technician who made them—moved for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages. The court, however, denied the motion, finding genuine issues of material fact concerning the defendants’ training, supervision, and expertise. Thus, construing Pennsylvania law, District Judge Brann held that the mechanic’s failure to properly repair the brakes could, under the circumstances presented, rise to the requisite level of recklessness to support a claim for punitive damages. Ultimately, the question was left to the jury as one of fact. Of course, the potential for an award of punitive damages in a negligence action is not remarkable, in and of itself. Indeed, it’s long been the rule in Pennsylvania that willfulness, wantonness, or recklessness can justify the imposition of exemplary damages. But what makes Wilson noteworthy is the fact that the alleged recklessness (i.e., failure to repair the brakes) did not lead directly to decedent’s death. Read More

Jason M. Reefer Elected Partner

October 19, 2015

PITTSBURGH, PA, October 8, 2015 – Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP is pleased to announce the election of its newest partner, Jason M. Reefer. Mr. Reefer is a member of the Product Liability group and is based in the Pittsburgh office. Mr. Reefer’s practice is dedicated to defending manufacturers of pharmaceutical products, automotive vehicles, and firearms in litigation pending throughout the United States. Mr. Reefer has litigated at all levels of state and federal court, including the U.S. Supreme Court, where he represented an amicus curiae in the seminal case, Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett. “Mr. Reefer is one of the truly gifted young lawyers in America in the Product Liability field,” said Bill Pietragallo. He holds two degrees from the University of Pennsylvania: a B.A., summa cum laude, with Distinction, earned in 2005; and a J.D., earned in 2008. Mr. Reefer is admitted to the bar in Pennsylvania and to the U.S. District Court- Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Read More

In Wake Of ‘Mensing,’ FDA Proposes ‘Levine’ As Law

February 25, 2015

Under the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, a drug is classified either as a branded drug (a drug whose composition is novel) or as a generic drug (a drug designed to be a copy of a branded drug). Manufacturers of the latter are currently immune from most products liability lawsuits. But this near-immunity may soon come to an end. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration proposed a rule to change federal law in a manner that purports to expose generic-drug manufacturers to personal injury liability. Indicative of the complexities of the proposal and importance of the issues, more than 100 comments were submitted in response. Yet questions remain as to whether the FDA’s proposal would do more harm than good and if an alternative to the FDA’s approach should be adopted. The modern era of drug regulation began in 1984, when Congress passed the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act, commonly known as the Hatch–Waxman Amendments to the FDCA. At that time, Congress had two goals: to provide incentives for the invention of new drugs and to lower the prices for patients to obtain existing drugs. In furtherance of these goals, Congress provided branded-drug manufacturers with greater patent protections to reward innovation and generic-drug manufacturers with a streamlined approval process to decrease the costs of market entry. To obtain the FDA’s approval to market a branded drug, the drug’s sponsor must prove through the new drug application, or NDA, process that the drug’s active pharmaceutical ingredient is safe and effective for a particular indication. To do so, NDA sponsors must conduct extensive clinical trials and formulate warnings to apprise physicians of the side effects identified during those trials. The costs associated with the NDA process are staggering. Forbes has estimated that it costs approximately $5 billion to bring a branded drug to market. Read More

Firm Newsletter, Winter 2014

June 26, 2014

Read More

Twenty-Three Pietragallo Law Firm Lawyers Named PA Super Lawyers

June 2, 2014

PITTSBURGH and PHILADELPHIA, PA – William Pietragallo, II, founding partner of the law firm of Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP was selected as a Pittsburgh Top 50 Lawyer by Super Lawyers 2014. Mr. Pietragallo was recognized for his work in Business Litigation. Marc S. Raspanti, name partner in the firm, was selected as a Philadelphia Top 100 Lawyer and a Top 100 Lawyer in Pennsylvania by Super Lawyers 2014. Mr. Raspanti was recognized for his work in the White Collar Criminal Defense Practice Area. These designations are awarded to lawyers who received the highest point totals in the Pennsylvania Super Lawyers 2014 nomination, research, and blue ribbon review process. Twenty-three attorneys in total were named by the publication as 2014 Pennsylvania Super Lawyers. In addition to Pietragallo and Raspanti, the following firm counsel were recognized by the publication as 2014 Pennsylvania Super Lawyers, Gaetan J. Alfano, Joseph J. Bosick, Mark Gordon, Christopher A. Iacono, Kathryn M. Kenyon, James W. Kraus, Daniel J. McGravey, Michael A. Morse, Francis E. Pipak, Jr., Kevin E. Raphael, Douglas Rosenblum, Clem C. Trischler, and Paul K. Vey. The following firm attorneys were recognized as 2014 Pennsylvania Super Lawyers Rising Stars, Ethan J. Barlieb, Sarah R. Lavelle, Leslie A. Mariotti, Alicia M. Passerin, John A. Schwab, and Peter S. Wolff. Selection as a Pennsylvania Super Lawyer is an honor reserved for only 5% of the Pennsylvania Bar. The arduous selection process encompasses a strict nomination, research, and review process. Read More

Nine Pietragallo Lawyers Selected as 2014 Best Lawyers in America

August 15, 2013

Nine lawyers from Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP were recently selected by their peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America® 2014 (Copyright 2013 by Woodward/White, Inc., of Aiken, S.C.).  The attorneys who received this distinguished honor are listed below: William Pietragallo, II (Bet-the-Company Litigation, Commercial Litigation, Personal Injury Litigation- Defendants) Mark Gordon (Workers’ Compensation Law- Employers) Gaetan J. Alfano (Commercial Litigation) Marc S. Raspanti (Health Care Law) Alan G. Towner (Copyright Law, Litigation-Intellectual Property, Litigation- Patent, Patent Law, Trademark Law) Joseph D. Mancano (Criminal Defense: White-Collar) Paul K. Vey (Medical Malpractice Law- Defendants) Clem C. Trischler (Commercial Litigation, Product Liability Litigation- Defendants) Francis E. Pipak, Jr. (Workers’ Compensation Law- Employers) Since its inception in 1983, Best Lawyers has become universally regarded as the definitive guide to legal excellence. Because Best Lawyers is based on an exhaustive peer-review survey in which more than 41,000 leading attorneys cast almost 3.9 million votes on the legal abilities of other lawyers in their practice areas, and because lawyers are not required or allowed to pay a fee to be listed, inclusion in Best Lawyers is considered a singular honor. Corporate Counsel magazine has called Best Lawyers “the most respected referral list of attorneys in practice.” It is important to note that the lawyers listed in Best Lawyers have no say in deciding which practice areas they are included in. They are voted into practice areas entirely as a result of the votes they receive from their peers. The subspecialties listed after their names are based on information from a variety of sources. Read More

Firm Newsletter, Winter 2013

February 1, 2013

Articles In This Issue: 1. The Fundamentals of Intellectual Property 2. Circuit Split Narrowed in Favor of Employees With Disabilities Regarding Whether ADA Reassignment Requires Preferential Treatment 3. The Superior Court’s Decision in Patton v. Worthington Sounds Death Knell for Statutory Employer Defense and Elevates Construction Costs Throughout the Commonwealth 4. Pennsylvania Product Liability Law Remains Unsettled   Related Information: Firm Newsletter, Winter 2013 Read More

Pennsylvania remains unsettled – not with the 2012 Presidential election – but with the adoption of the Restatement (Third) of Torts

October 19, 2012

Pennsylvania products liability law remains unsettled and a recent decision from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals only highlights the confused state of the law and the divergent standards that may be applied in the state and federal courts.  With its decision in Sikkelee, et al. v. Precision Airmotive Corporation, et al., 12-8081, — F.Supp.2d — (3d Cir. Oct. 17, 2012), the Circuit reaffirmed its two prior opinions that federal courts sitting in diversity should look to sections 1 and 2 of the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability as the standard for defining whether a product is defect.   In contrast, the Supreme Court has yet to definitively address the applicability of the Restatement (Third), and most recently noted in Beard v. Johnson & Johnson, Inc., 41 A.3d 823, 839 (Pa. 2012) that section 402A of the Restatement (Second) is the current law of Pennsylvania.  What this split means in practice is that products cases in Pennsylvania may have markedly different outcomes depending upon whether they proceed in state or federal court, as the federal courts shift away from Pennsylvania’s traditional standard may allow for broader consideration of conduct related evidence. Related Information: View a copy of the Order here Read More

Restatement (Third) Of Torts: A Fifty-State Compendium

October 1, 2012

Bradley A. Matta authored a 50 state compendium on the adoption of §2 the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability. Read More