web analytics
Posted on May 21, 2013 by Eric S. Goldberg

Zoning - Site Specific Relief and Standing

In the case of In Re Appeal of Chester County Outdoor, LLC, the applicant, Chester County Outdoor LLC (“CCO”), desired to erect a billboard on certain property in Penn Township. CCO filed a challenge to the validity of Penn Township’s Zoning Ordinance pursuant to Section 916.1 of the Municipalities Planning Code, alleging that that Section 1800G of the Ordinance excluded billboards.  Section 1800G stated that no sign could be erected in the Township except one for a business or merchandise for sale on the same premises as the billboard. 

At the hearing before the Zoning Hearing Board (“Board”), CCO withdrew the site plan that was attached to its application.  Thereafter, the Board confirmed at the hearing that the only issue before it related to the validity of Section 1800G.  The Board then agreed with CCO and ruled that Section 180OG was invalid as it excluded billboards.  It did not address whether CCO was entitled to site specific relief.

CCO appealed the Board’s decision stating that it was entitled to site specific relief.  The Common Pleas Court affirmed the Board’s decision and ruled that CCO lacked standing to appeal the Board’s decision.

The Commonwealth Court affirmed, noting that CCO was not an aggrieved party.  It held that the only issue before the Board was whether Section 1800G was invalid.  The Board ruled in favor of CCO on that issue, and therefore CCO was not aggrieved.  The Court also stated that the Board never held that CCO is not entitled to site specific relief, despite the fact that the Board noted that CCO would not be entitled to the particular site specific relief in its application (as it needed a dimensional setback).  The Court held that this portion of the Board’s decision was dictum and it was merely informing CCO what it would need to change on its plans if it requested site specific relief.  Thus, while Section 1800G was declared invalid, the applicant was unable to obtain site specific relief.  

Tags:
Posted on May 17, 2013 by R. Tyler Tomlinson

Pennsylvania Residents Be Warned when Texting/Driving in New Jersey

When Pennsylvania drivers cross over the Delaware River and go into New Jersey, they should know that the penalties for using cellphones while driving are much significant.  New Jersey will soon pass a law that will dramatically increase the fines and penalties for texting while driving.  Motorist caught texting or making cellphone calls while driving will face stricter penalties under the new law.

The fine for first-time distracted-driving offenders would increase from a minimum of $100 to $200, and a maximum of $400.  Second-time offenders would face a fine of between $400 and $600.
 
For a third or subsequent offense, fines would range between $600 and $800, along with three motor vehicle penalty points.  Also, a court could order a driver’s license suspended for up to 90 days.
 
Distracted driving is such a problem that every angle you can attack it from will help.  There needs to be a culture shift so people understand how drastic the problem is.  
 
According to the New Jersey State Police’s Fatal Motor Vehicle Crash Report for 2011, 627 people in the state were killed as a result of fatal crashes that year.  Of that total, 119 killed were 29 years old or younger.  “Driver inattention” was listed as the contributing factor in most of these accidents.
Tags:
Posted on May 10, 2013 by Michael C. Ksiazek

Should Cameras Be Required in Operating Rooms?

Nineteen-year old Raina Ferraro, a college freshman from Rockland County, NY, was admitted to Phelps Memorial Hospital Center for a routine endoscopy in January.  She is now in a persistent vegetative state.  According to a medical malpractice lawsuit filed by her parents, Raina went into cardiac and respiratory arrest due to negligent anesthesia administration resulting in severe brain damage.  The parents say it took the hospital two weeks to discuss the matter with them and, when they did, the hospital was unable to explain what went wrong during Raina’s procedure.
 
Now, Raina’s parents are pushing lawmakers to create legislation that would require cameras in all operating rooms.  The purpose of the legislation, dubbed “Raina’s Law,” would be to document proof of medical malpractice and ensure families get answers to the question of “what went wrong?”  The parents want to make sure that what happened to Raina, does not happen to others.
Tags: ,
Posted on May 8, 2013 by Edward Shensky

Certificate of Merit in a Medical Malpractice Case

Within sixty (60) days of the filing of a Complaint with the Court in a medical malpractice case the injured party plaintiff must file a “Certificate of Merit”. The Certificate of Merit is a document that must state one of three things: 1) that an “appropriate licensed professional” has signed a written statement that the treatment provided by the medical provider fell below the standard of care and caused injury to the plaintiff; 2) that the claim is based on allegations that other persons for whom the defendant is responsible provided treatment that fell below the standard of care; or 3) that expert testimony is not needed in this case.
 
The “appropriate licensed professional” referenced above must meet the qualifications for an expert set forth in the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Act (MCARE). 
 
If a plaintiff fails to file a Certificate of Merit within the time frame required and has also failed to get an extension of time for doing so, the case may be dismissed. A separate Certificate of Merit must be filed for each defendant listed in the Complaint.
 
The qualifications for an expert under the MCARE Act will be discussed in my next Blog entry.
Tags:
Posted on May 6, 2013 by Carin A. O'Donnell

May is Motorcycle and Bike Safety Awareness Month

To keep our clients and fellow motorcyclist safe, we want to remind everyone of the “T-CLOCS” inspection checklist.  “T-CLOCS” stands for Tire, Controls, Lights, Oils, Chassis and Stands. These are all things you should inspect at a minimum before you ride your motorcycle. Regarding the tires ("T"), be sure to always check the tread and air pressure. This will help you keep traction to the roadway surfaces.  On the controls ( “C”)  you want to look at the handlebars, levers, pedals cables, hoses and throttle. Things to look for, among other things include fraying, cuts or kinks in the cables or hoses.  Your handle bars should always be straight, turn freely and your grips should be secure.  Checking all of these allows your motorcycle to operate in the safest manner.

Oils (“O”) should be inspected next.  You want to not only make sure nothing is leaking but also make sure you have enough fluids including hydraulics, coolants and don’t forget the fuel! You do not want to find yourself without gas, sitting on the side of the road.   The Chassis ("C") is the next part of the inspection before you begin on your ride.   Things you want to look out for are the front forks, shocks and the swingarm bushing/ bearings. You want to make sure all have proper pressure for the smoothest ride possible. Finally you want to check the Stands (“S”).   You want to make sure there are not cracks and that the springs are in place. 

We at Stark and Stark hope you have are safe each time you ride your motorcycle.

Tags:
Posted on May 3, 2013 by Michael C. Ksiazek

Johns Hopkins Study Shows Large Medical Malpractice Payouts Are Not the Primary Cause of Rising Health Care Costs

For years, some have pointed to large medical malpractice verdicts and settlements as the cause of rising health care costs.  Efforts at enacting tort reform have often been premised on the idea that medical malpractice payouts are over-burdening the U.S. health care system.  According to a new study from Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, however, this is not true.  The Johns Hopkins researchers, led by Marty Makary, M.D., M.P.H., an associate professor of surgery and health policy, reviewed medical malpractice payouts over $1 million nationwide from 2004 to 2010.  They found that, during this period, those medical malpractice payments actually accounted for less than 1% of national medical expenditures in the United States.
Tags:
Posted on April 26, 2013 by Leslie A. Mitnick

Backlog in Processing Disability Hearing Requests

Social Security is reporting an overall increase in average hearing processing times to nearly a year in 2013.   That means, if you file an appeal of the initial denial of your Social Security Disability Claim or Supplemental Security Income Claim, it may take you a year or more to get your case heard by a Social Security judge.

In addition, Social Security reports that the number of appeals is up and that disability examiners are denying a higher percentage of claims at all levels of the process. 

Although a claimant may represent himself or herself at a hearing, your odds of getting a “fully favorable opinion,” which means approval of your claim, from a Social Security judge, are much better if you are represented by an attorney specializing in this area of the law.  If your initial claim is denied, you have 60 days to file an appeal and request a hearing.  At this point in time, you should contact an attorney to explain the appeal process and represent you at your hearing.

Leslie A. Mitnick is a member of Stark & Stark’s Yardley, PA office, concentrating in Accident & Personal Injury Law. For more information, please contact Ms. Mitnick.
Tags: ,
Posted on April 15, 2013 by Michael C. Ksiazek

Tort Reform Not All It's Cracked Up to Be?

In 2003, Texas enacted medical malpractice tort reforms.  The issue of tort reform generally arose out of the so-called “medical malpractice crisis”, which has been blogged about in this space before.  The “medical malpractice crisis” is the belief that, as a result of too many frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits being filed, which physicians and their insurance companies have to defend, medical liability insurance carriers have increased insurance premiums to the point where practicing medicine was becoming cost-prohibitive for physicians in certain states.  The result - or feared result - was that doctors would flee to more doctor-friendly states.  A soon-to-be-released Texas study, however, would seem to refute that.
 
According to a draft of the study, which was conducted and authored by law professors Bernard Black (Northwestern University), David Hyman (University of Illinois) and Charles Silver (University of Texas at Austin), and is currently being peer-reviewed, there is no evidence that physicians fled Texas in high numbers prior to tort reform, or returned to Texas in high numbers after tort reform.  In fact, the physician-to-patient ratio is actually worse in Texas today than it was before tort reform.  Contrary to what tort reformers might suggest, it appears tort reform does not positively impact physician supply.
 
Michael Ksiazek is a member of Stark & Stark’s Yardley, PA office, concentrating in Accident & Personal Injury Law. For more information, please contact Mr. Ksiazek.
Tags:
Posted on April 11, 2013 by Michael C. Ksiazek

Missed Diagnosis of Breast Cancer the Most Common Cause of Malpractice Suits Against Radiologists

An article in the February 2013 issue of the journal Radiology, which is published by the Radiology Society of North America, concludes that the most common general cause of medical malpractice suits filed against radiologists is error in diagnosis and, within that general category, missed diagnosis of breast cancer was the most frequent cause.  This is followed by error in diagnosis of nonvertebral and spinal fractures.  The study considered 8,401 radiologists in 47 states.

When it comes to breast cancer, timely and early detection is everything.  If you believe that you or a loved one has been the victim of missed or delayed diagnosis of breast cancer, or any other medical condition, contact the medical malpractice attorneys at Stark & Stark for a free consultation. 

Michael Ksiazek is a member of Stark & Stark’s Yardley, PA office, concentrating in Accident & Personal Injury Law. For more information, please contact Mr. Ksiazek.

Tags:
Posted on April 5, 2013 by R. Tyler Tomlinson

8 Things To Do After an Auto Accident

  1. STAY CALM
    • Turn off your car
    • If anyone is injured: give first aid if qualified or call 911
  2. CALL THE POLICE
    • Always call the police so that there is an incident report on file
    • Cooperate fully with the police officer
  3. GATHER INFORMATION - WRITE IT DOWN!
    • If you are able to, and it creates no danger to yourself or others, get names, addresses and phone numbers from the witnesses
    • Try to take pictures with a camera or cell phone 
  4. SEEK MEDICAL ATTENTION
    • If you are hurt, go to the local Emergency Room immediately
    • Serious injuries do not always result in instant pain. If there is the slightest chance you may be injured, see your doctor as soon as possible 
  5. NOTIFY YOUR INSURANCE COMPANY
    • Cooperate fully with your insurance company 
  6. REPORT THE ACCIDENT
    • Pennsylvania law requires that you file an accident report within two days after an accident. Your insurance company or the police department will provide you with the standard form. 
  7. IF YOU HAVE BEEN INJURED, SEE A LAWYER IMMEDIATELY
    • Consult an attorney who is experienced in handling auto cases. You may talk to Stark & Stark either over the phone or in person at our office. If you are unable to come to the office because of the injuries, then we will meet with you in the hospital or at your home. You do not pay any lawyers fees unless your case is successfully concluded.  Call Stark & Stark at 1.800.53.LEGAL or visit us on the web at www.StarkInjuryGroup.com. 
  8. KNOW YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS
    • You should know your legal rights, and you should know what to do to protect those legal rights before giving any statements to the other driver's insurance company.

Tyler Tomlinson is a Shareholder in Stark & Stark’s Yardley, PA office, concentrating in Accident & Personal Injury Law. For more information, please contact Mr. Tomlinson.

 

Tags: