GROUP BLOG: Deliberate intent statute among changes made by WV legislature in 2015 session

In 2014, Republicans took the helm of both chambers in West Virginia, leading to monumental changes in the composition of its legislature. Further changes to many of the state’s employment laws were observed in the 2015 legislative session, where tort reform was made a priority. In his post for the Employment Law Blotter, Associate Matthew G. Chapman addresses modifications that were made to the deliberate intent statute. Click here to read it.

Stuart T. O’Neal and Sasha Miller receive dismissal for a physician client in federal court

Last month, Member Stuart T. O’Neal, III and Associate Sasha E. Miller secured a dismissal for a private physician client, along with the United States and some of its agents, in a medical malpractice case before the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Mr. O’Neal and Ms. Miller filed a successful Motion to Dismiss based on the plaintiff’s failure to establish that the allegation deviated from an acceptable professional standard as required for licensed professionals in the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, and that their physician client was not a proper party under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The court granted their motion and dismissed the claims against the client under the Federal Tort Claims Act with prejudice, as he was not a proper defendant. In addition, the court stated that any appeal would be frivolous and not taken in good faith.

Note: The results obtained in a particular case are heavily dependent on the facts and the law specific to that case.

Superior Court of Pa. affirms appeal denial in a lease dispute against a Burns White client

Recently, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed an appeal denial in a lease dispute against a large natural gas producing client represented by Member and Co-Chair of the Energy Group Jeffrey D. Roberts and Energy Associate Marissa A. Cocciolone. The plaintiffs, a husband and wife who own the surface rights of more than 300 acres of land in Tioga County, Pa., filed a complaint against our client and later the original oil and gas leaseholder from whom the land was purchased, seeking a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief and damages for trespassing.

Our client was granted an erosion and sediment control general permit by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection to construct a gas well pad with ten wells, drill pits, an access drive and a 4.5-acre water impoundment for the purpose of fracking. The appellants alleged that this use of the property was not permitted under the terms of the lease between the co-appellees. The trial court in Tioga County granted our client’s preliminary objections and dismissed the appellant’s complaint. The appellants didn’t file an appeal within the 30-day deadline and made several requests to the court to permit an appeal with no success.

Note: The results obtained in a particular case are heavily dependent on the facts and the law specific to that case.

T.H. Lyda and Cressinda Schlag wrote an article for The Legal Intelligencer on the EPA’s heightened enforcement focus under the Clean Water Act

Member and Co-Chair of the Environmental Group T.H. Lyda and Associate Cressinda Schlag wrote an article for The Legal Intelligencer addressing how the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s heightened enforcement focus under the Clean Water Act is impacting the oil and gas industry. Click here to learn more.

GROUP BLOG: Where Did Abercrombie Go Wrong?

In a follow up blog post for the Employment Law Blotter, Associate Sasha E. Miller looks at the recent Supreme Court Ruling in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. and where Abercrombie & Fitch may have gone wrong. Click here to read it.

Workers’ Compensation Group successfully defends Claim Petition for a client in a fracking-related chemical exposure claim

Member D. Scott Newman and Associate Ryan M. Carroll of the Workers’ Compensation Group successfully defended a client that manufactures and deals commercial service vehicles against a Claim Petition alleging injuries as a result of exposure to fracking-related chemicals. The claimant, a former employee who regularly cleaned frack containment ponds, alleged that he was totally disabled as a result of exposure to unknown chemicals contained within the flowback water. The claimant subsequently developed wheel and hive reactions on his body and experienced restricted airways as a result of his tongue swelling.

Despite the claimant’s attorney’s efforts to the contrary, Workers’ Compensation Judge Stephen Minnich considered medical opinions from our board certified physician in occupational medicine, as well as the claimant’s physician who was associated with the Southwestern Pennsylvania Environmental Health Project, a group devoted to characterizing and addressing health issues associated with unconventional natural gas extraction.The claimant’s attorney unsuccessfully argued that our expert should be disqualified due to his lack of understanding of the fracking process.

In his decision, Judge Minnich determined that the claimant failed to meet his burden of establishing that his allergic reactions were the result of exposure to flowback water. Further, Judge Minnich found that the claimant did not meet his burden of establishing an occupational disease under the “catchall” provision of Section 108(n). By successfully defending the Claim Petition, our client avoided liability for damages exceeding $250,000.

Note: The results obtained in a particular case are heavily dependent on the facts and the law specific to that case.

Patrick Sorek weighs in on Mylan’s domicile issue for the Pittsburgh Business Times

Member Patrick Sorek weighed in on Mylan’s domicile issue in a recent story for the Pittsburgh Business Times looking at what questions the FTC may consider in determining where Mylan is based. Mr. Sorek, who is an adjunct professor of international law at Duquesne University School of Law, stated that place of incorporation and principal office location are considered to determine whether a company is subject to U.S. competition law, but “principal offices” is not defined in federal regulations. Click here for more on the story.

1 12 13 14 15 16 40