News & Information

Governor Rendell VETOES Joint and Several Liability Reform

Under the current law, all negligent parties are jointly and severally liable for any verdict in favor of a claimant. For example, a claimant is a passenger on a SEPTA bus and the bus is involved in an accident with another car that ran a stop sign. The car owner, however, failed to insure its vehicle. If the claimant can prove the SEPTA driver contributed to the happening of the accident (was negligent) to any degree, then SEPTA would be responsible for paying the entire judgment to the claimant and SEPTA would have to try to get its money back from the uninsured defendant.

The Pennsylvania Senate and House of Representatives passed SB 435 which sought to severely reform this law. In March of 2006, Governor Rendell vetoed the proposed legislation indicating that the bill does not offer enough protection to victims in negligence cases.

We applaud Governor Rendell for his decision. It stands to reason that the innocent injured citizen should be protected above and beyond any negligent parties to the action.

After an automobile accident, you may be asking why the "At Fault" party isn't paying your medical bills.

In the State of Pennsylvania, regardless of fault, the insurance company responsible for the payment of your medical bills is determined by an Order of Priority. The order is:

First: The Policy in which you are a Named Insured

Second: The Policy in which you qualify as an "Insured" (residing in the same household and related to a named insured)

Third: The policy covering the motor vehicle you were occupying.

Fourth: If you were not the occupant of a motor vehicle (i.e., pedestrian), the policy covering any vehicle involved in the accident.

But, don't worry. If your own insurance policy is primary under the law, your premiums will not be affected by making a claim for payment of medical bills.

What amount of Weekly Workers' Compensation Benefits should I expect?

Under the Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Act, injured workers are entitled to indemnity (wage loss) benefits based on your average weekly wage (AWW).

The following Chart sets forth the Benefit Rate Schedule.

For example, if you are injured in 2008 and your AWW is:

$1210.50 or greater, your weekly compensation benefits will total $807 (max).

Between $605.26 and $1210.50, your weekly compensation benefits will be 66 2/3% of your AWW.

Between $605.25 and $432.78, your weekly compensation benefits will be $403.50.

Less then $448.32, your weekly compensation benefits will be 90% of your AWW.

Merck & Co. has agreed to pay $4.85 billion to settle thousands of cases brought by people who suffered heart attacks and strokes after taking Vioxx, its painkiller drug.

Vioxx was pulled from the market three years ago after serious concerns were raised regarding its safety. According to some reports, Vioxx was shown to double the risk of heart attacks and strokes in its users. Most patients took Vioxx for arthritis pain.

On CNN's Anderson Cooper's 360: Keeping them Honest, CNN reports on the "Three D's" tactics of some insurance companies - Delay, Deny and Defend - to deny auto accident victims due compensation while reaping additional profits. Click here to watch Story...

In Lewis v. WCAB, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed its prior decision in King v. WCAB and now requires employers seeking to modify or terminate a claimant's benefits to show a change in the claimant's physical condition since the last adjudication. Therefore, if your employer seeks to modify or terminate your benefits on the basis that they claim your medical condition has improved, your employer bears the burden of demonstrating actual physical improvement.

Are you a City or State Employee receiving benefits under the Heart and Lung Act? In City of Wilkes Barre v. Sheils, a Federal Court has ruled that the City of Wilkes-Barre had no right to subrogation from a City employee's tort settlement arising out of a motor vehicle accident because the employee was paid benefits under the Heart and Lung Act. The court relied on a Commonwealth Court case, Fulmer v. Pa. State Police, where the Court had held that the State Police did not have a right to subrogation from a state troopers tort settlement where the trooper received benefits pursuant to the Heart and Lung Act.

What are the subrogation rights of Welfare and Medicaid?

Cash Assistance/Public Assistance (Welfare). A person who receives cash assistance from the date of the accident causing an injury to the time of the settlement or verdict has an obligation to reimburse DPW for such assistance. An attorney is not obligated to notify DPW or protect DPW's interest in a settlement, however, under the "lump sum income rule" a welfare recipient who receives a sum of money may be disqualified from receiving additional money for a period of time. The disqualification will apply to the entire family. The period of time will depend on the amount of the settlement.

Medical Assistance (Medicaid). Under Pennsylvania Law, DPW has the right to claim reimbursement for Medicaid payments made on account of medical benefits paid out following an injury caused by a third party. An attorney has an obligation to assure that Medicaid is reimbursed for any benefits paid. The law does provide, however, that the reimbursement to Medicaid shall not exceed one-half of the recovery after reducing for attorney's fees, costs and other medical expenses paid by the beneficiary.

Act No. 109 of 2006 was signed into law by Governor Rendell on July 7, 2006. The Act permits the Department of Public Welfare (which collects past due child support) to intercept overdue child support from lump sum monetary award or settlements paid by insurers. In order for DPW to have rights to intercept payments, the "net proceeds" must be greater than $5,000. ("Net Proceeds is money paid to the claimant after attorneys fees, costs, unpaid medical expenses, etc.) Before distributing any monies, the attorney is required to obtain a written statement from the client concerning the amount of the arrearages. The attorney is also required to verify the information by doing a lien search, usually done through the DPW website.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in L.S. v. Eschbach, ruled that pedestrians injured by automobiles are NOT bound by limited tort coverage. The court ruled that limited tort coverage only applies to motor vehicle drivers and occupants, not "innocent pedestrians" who happen to get injured by automobiles, even if they elected the limited tort option when purchasing auto insurance.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals in State Farm v. Rosenthal has ruled that the Statute of Limitations on an Underinsured Motorist Claim is four years from the date of the settlement, verdict or award, NOT four years from the date of the accident as argued by State Farm.