Inside-Outside Counsel Summit

June 16, 2016

Mary G. March will speak at the Pennsylvania Bar Association’s Inside-Outside Counsel Summit. She will be part of a panel discussing, “Time Management for Lawyers – Taking Back Your Life.” The event takes place June 16-17, 2016 at The Gettysburg Hotel in Gettysburg, PA. Read More

National Business Institute

April 18, 2016

Frank E. Pipak will speak at “Handling the Workers’ Compensation Case from Start to Finish” seminar hosted by the National Business Institute.  He will present on “Preparing Your Case: Procedures for Claimant and Defendant” and “Settlement Options (Including MSA Considerations).” The event takes place at the Crowne Plaza Pittsburgh South on April 18th, 2016. CLE credit is available. Read More

Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP named a Tier 1 Metro “Best Law Firm”

November 1, 2013

Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP was recently named a Tier 1 Metro “Best Law Firm” in six practice areas by U.S. News – Best Lawyers® in 2014 for Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. The six practice areas are listed below: Commercial Litigation Labor & Employment Litigation Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants Workers’ Compensation Law – Employers Criminal Defense White Collar Health Care Law Firms included in the 2014 “Best Law Firms” list are recognized for professional excellence with persistently impressive ratings from clients and peers. Achieving a tiered ranking signals a unique combination of quality law prac­tice and breadth of legal expertise. The 2014 rankings are based on the highest number of participating firms and highest number of client ballots on record. To be eligible for a ranking, a firm must have a lawyer listed in The Best Lawyers in America©, which recognizes the top 4 percent of practicing attorneys in the US. Over 12,000 attorneys provided over 330,000 law firm assessments, and almost 7,000 clients provided close to 20,000 evaluations. In addition, to provide personal insight, a new Law Firm Leaders Survey was implemented in the decision-making process. Read More

Babcock & Wilcox Raises As Many Questions As It Answers

August 27, 2013

Should it stand, the Superior Court’s opinion in Babcock & Wilcox v. American Nuclear Insurers, 2013 PA Super 174, — A.3d —- (2013), will have a greater impact on Pennsylvania coverage disputes than any case decided by our appellate courts in decades. Of great interest, however, is what the court did not decide. While an admirable attempt at reconciling the bitter unfairness inherent in coverage disputes, Judge David Wecht’s opinion leaves important questions unanswered. In Babcock & Wilcox, the court held that when an insured is presented with an offer to defend subject to an insurer’s reservation of rights related to coverage, the insured has two mutually exclusive options: (1) accept the defense; however, if it does so, the insured must obtain the insurer’s permission to settle and stay “unqualifiedly bound” to the insurer’s defense strategy, or, alternatively, (2) decline the insurer’s defense, settle the case without the insurer’s permission and, if coverage exists, thereafter institute an action to recoup the fair, reasonable and noncollusive amount of settlement. Despite this straightforward choice, other fact patterns lurk. Consider, for instance, a scenario where an insurer prohibits an insured from settling the claim but has simultaneously instituted litigation denying that it owes the insured coverage — a scenario that did not present itself in the B&W litigation. Although the court observed that insurers may and do “seek declaratory judgments regarding coverage during the pendency of the underlying litigation,” the court was silent as to whether the insured, who has accepted a defense, must refrain from settling where its insurer has instituted a declaratory judgment action seeking to avoid coverage while the underlying claim against the insured is pending. Indeed, the opinion observes that Pennsylvania law provides insurers the option to “simultaneously … contest coverage” but also approvingly quotes a New York case that states that an insurer may only control the defense of a case if it does so “without any endeavor to demonstrate the policy does not afford coverage.” 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

Patton Sounds Death Knell For Statutory Employer Defense

November 14, 2012

In March, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania issued a decision in Patton v. Worthington Associates that virtually eliminated the statutory employer defense in Pennsylvania and, should the decision stand, will create a flood of new litigation against contractors and their insureds and will serve to substantially elevate construction costs throughout Pennsylvania. What does this mean for the construction industry? The short answer is greater exposure to claims made by employees of subcontractors. In Patton, 43 A.3d 479 (Pa. Super. Ct. Mar. 27, 2012), the Superior Court concluded that the statutory employer defense is available only to contractors that maintain a common law master-servant relationship with the employees of the subcontractor by demonstrating that the contractor had the contractual right to control the means and methods of the subcontractor’s injured employee. Before one can fully appreciate the adverse impact this holding will generate for the construction industry, a historical analysis of the statutory employer concept in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania is appropriate. The classic setting for the statutory employer concept is found in the construction industry, where the general contractor typically employs contractors, which, in turn, employs subcontractors to work at a job site. Since it was first included in Pennsylvania’s original workers’ compensation statute in 1915, the statutory employer concept has worked to provide workers’ compensation benefits to workers whose direct employers have failed to provide workers’ compensation coverage and has worked to insulate entities other than the subcontractor that could be called upon to provide such benefits from civil liability. It should be noted that, historically, an employer’s election to provide workers’ compensation insurance was optional. If an employer opted in, it enjoyed civil liability immunity. On the other hand, if an employer opted out, an injured employee could bring a civil action for injuries sustained that were alleged to have occurred as a result of the acts or omissions of the employer. Read More

PA Court Addresses Work Injury Occurring During Lunch

October 31, 2012

Background Facts of Case On October 20, 2006, Dr. Jack Rabin was a professor employed by the Pennsylvania State University.  Sandra Rabin later pursued a fatal workers’ compensation claim petition alleging Dr. Rabin’s November 13, 2006 death resulted from work-related injuries incurred on October 20, 2006.  At that time, Dr. Rabin already had several serious systemic conditions, including lymphadema, lower extremity cellulitis, uncontrolled diabetes, hypertension, breathing difficulties, cardiac problems, kidney function deficits, and infections. Theodore Wachhaus testified in support of the fatal claim petition.  He was preparing to defend his doctoral thesis before a dissertation committee, of which Dr. Rabin was the chairman.  Mr. Wachhaus had worked closely with Dr. Rabin in crafting his dissertation.  Mr. Wachhaus had regularly met with Dr. Rabin off-campus, for their mutual convenience, in order to discuss his doctorate, because he was teaching at Penn State during the day, while Dr. Rabin was teaching there during evenings. On October 20, 2006, Mr. Wachhaus and Dr. Rabin met at a restaurant to discuss Mr. Wachhaus’s dissertation.  They arrived at the restaurant at noon and worked on the dissertation for over an hour.  Then they served themselves their lunches at the restaurant’s salad bar.  While at the salad bar, Dr. Rabin fell, fracturing and dislocating a shoulder, and fracturing his humerus.  Mr. Wachhaus testified that their meeting that day was expected to last until 3:00 p.m., and they planned to continue discussing scholarly topics relating to their profession after having served themselves from the salad bar. On the day of injury, surgery for both the shoulder and arm fractures was performed.  Complications, however, developed, including cardiac and respiratory distress.  Dr. Rabin died November 13, 2006, and according to Dr. Acri, his treating physician, he expired due to multiple medical problems stemming from his upper extremity injuries.  Dr. Acri explained that the injuries caused Dr. Read More

The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Again Discusses Guidelines For Invalidating The Compensability Of A Workers’ Compensation Claim, For An Injury Caused By A Violation Of A Positive Work Rule

September 21, 2012

Background Facts of Case Claimant sustained a foot injury at work on August 12, 2009.  Claimant’s regular job at the employer was confined to being a pallet jack driver.  He was trained regarding this position and the operation of the pallet jack, he was tested concerning the operational aspects of the job, and he was made aware of safety concerns pertaining to that position as well.  However, on August 12, 2009, he was driving a different piece of equipment at work, a forklift, that ran into a pole. The claimant’s foot had been sticking out of the forklift and was crushed upon impact. It turns out that on the day of the injury, before the end of his shift, claimant jumped on the forklift and drove it around for a while before driving it to the punch-out area.  He stated that he drove the forklift because it was “fun to drive.”  He said that sometimes he would spontaneously operate a forklift at work.  Certification and authorization to operate the forklift, though, was required, and claimant was neither certified nor authorized.   Claimant knew unauthorized personnel were not permitted to operate the forklift.  Claimant testified that his supervisor saw him drive the forklift and never told him that he was prohibited from operating it.  Claimant asserted that it was a common practice for employees to drive the forklifts to the punch-out area and that supervisors said nothing about it. Claimant’s supervisor testified, though, that claimant was not permitted to use the forklift, was not allowed to use it if he was non-certified to drive it, and that claimant was not certified. The supervisor testified that claimant was told not to be operating equipment for which he was non-certified.  He said that he did not see claimant driving the forklift on August 12, 2009.  Read More

The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Decides How Filmed Surveillance Evidence May Be Used To Defeat A Claimant’s Petition For Workers’ Compensation Benefits Entitlement

August 3, 2012

Background Facts of Case In 2005, claimant sustained a work related low back injury which the employer accepted as compensable and for which claimant initially received disability benefits.  He eventually returned to work and his indemnity benefits payments were properly suspended.  However, in October 2006, claimant contended that he experienced intense back pain with lower left extremity radiation.  He filed a Reinstatement Petition, alleging again that he was disabled and unable to work, as the result of his occupational injury, as of November 1, 2006, and this matter was litigated before a Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ). Claimant testified at three hearings for this case held in February 2007, November 2007, and April 2008.  On the latter occasion, he testified in detail as to his self-impressions about his symptomatology and difficulties. He alleged that his back and leg pain intensified with sleep, that constant use of a cane was necessary, that he must undergo Cortizone treatments, that he was considering surgery, that he had difficulty stair climbing, that he experienced leg numbness and increasing pain, that he cannot drive much, that he must build a first floor bathroom and bedroom in his home to accommodate his disability, that he must urinate in his kitchen sink because he could not navigate the stairs to a second floor bathroom, and that he likes to fish but could do this activity only occasionally because of back problems. Testimonies of three of claimant’s friends was also presented at this hearing, confirming his difficulties with standing and walking.  The deposition testimony for this case was also presented from claimant’s treating and examining doctors, who believed that claimant could not return to work.  Both doctors’ opinions were based, in part, upon claimant’s complaints and his own descriptions of his self-perceived physical difficulties. However, surveillance videotape was filmed of claimant on April 24, 2008, the day he had testified.  Read More