Member Mark Stadler was elected by Vincentian Collaborative System’s Board of Directors to serve as its chair for a minimum of a two-year term. In this role, Mr. Stadler will help direct the strategy of the three nursing home and related senior living services system with assets of $115 million and annual revenues of $50 million.
Burns White healthcare litigator Stuart T. O’Neal secured the maximum arbitration monetary award available for the firm’s hospital client involving a commercial dispute over the sale of hospital equipment to a third party vendor. The hospital contended that the Tulsa, Okla.-based defendant, which it was suing, was unjustly enriched and breached a commercial sales contract with the hospital over the sale of the equipment. The defendant contended through several witnesses at the hearing, including its CEO, that a mutual mistake between the parties voided the transaction and the contract. The three-person arbitration panel found in favor of the hospital in less than twenty minutes.
Note: The results obtained in a particular case are, of course, always heavily dependent on the facts and the law specific to that case.
Healthcare litigator Stuart T. O’Neal obtained dismissals in two separate cases. One was a medical malpractice case in Philadelphia County, where a dismissal was granted due to a procedural technicality. The other was a defamation suit in Sunbury, Pa. in Northumberland County that was negotiated to the client’s satisfaction with no money owed.
In the third, healthcare litigators Stuart T. O’Neal and Anne P. Schmidt secured a dismissal for a hospital client in a medical malpractice matter in Philadelphia County. The hospital, along with a physician, faced lack of informed consent and negligence in the performance of a procedure allegations. The plaintiff voluntarily withdrew the case before the expiration of the discovery deadline.
Note: The results obtained in a particular case are, of course, always heavily dependent on the facts and the law specific to that case.
Member and Co-Chair of the Energy Group Jeffrey D. Roberts and Associate Matthew G. Brouse penned an introduction providing an overview of the energy industry in Pennsylvania in Volume XIV of the Pittsburgh Journal of Technology Law & Policy, a publication of the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. The issue focused on law, technology and energy in Pittsburgh.
To download a PDF of the introduction, visit Pittsburgh Journal of Technology Law & Policy.
Member and Co-Chair of the Transportation Group T.H. Lyda and Associate Christine R. Hardy successfully obtained a defense verdict for a major Class I railroad client in a week-long jury trial held in Philadelphia. The claim, brought under the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA), involved a machinist welder plaintiff claiming that our client’s negligence caused the onset of arthritis in his lumbar spine and left hand which led to surgery and his ultimate disability. The jury, which only took about an hour to deliberate, dismissed all claims concluding that the railroad provided the plaintiff with a reasonably safe place to work.
Note: The results obtained in a particular case are, of course, always heavily dependent on the facts and the law specific to that case.
PITTSBURGH, Jan. 13, 2014 — Burns White LLC welcomes five associates to its Pittsburgh and Philadelphia offices.
Pittsburgh
Simoné L. Delerme is an Associate practicing in the areas of products liability, mass tort litigation and oil and gas title work with a focus on title curative measures and due diligence. Ms. Delerme received both J.D. and M.B.A. degrees from Duquesne University in 2013. As a law student there, she held various editorial roles at the Duquesne Law Review, served as vice president and treasurer of the Black Law Students Association as well as treasurer of the Mid-Atlantic Region Black Law Students Association, and was the first recipient of the Charles Hamilton Houston Scholarship for demonstrated academic excellence in her legal studies.
Stefan E. Flickinger is an Associate of the Energy Group at Burns White, focusing on due diligence, title curative and certified title opinions in oil and gas matters. Additionally, Mr. Flickinger represents energy clients in oil and gas lease litigation. Prior to joining Burns White, he clerked for the American Civil Liberties Union and the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. Mr. Flickinger graduated from the University of Pittsburgh School of Law in 2012, where he was an inaugural teaching fellow of the Marshall Brennan Constitutional Literacy Project.
Philadelphia
Associate Brent J. Anderson defends clients in Pennsylvania and New Jersey against workers’ compensation claims. Prior to joining the firm, Mr. Anderson clerked for the Honorable Thomas J. Shusted, Jr. in the Superior Court of New Jersey in Camden. He received a J.D. and an M.B.A. from Rutgers University in January 2013. While there, he served on the university’s Bankruptcy Pro Bono Project and Volunteer Income Tax Assistance Project.
Samantha J. Foss is an Associate of the Workers’ Compensation Group at Burns White, defending clients throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey against workers’ compensation claims. Prior to joining the firm, Ms. Foss was an Associate at White and Williams, representing large insurance carriers in property subrogation matters. Ms. Foss graduated from Rutgers University School of Law in 2012, where she participated in its Civil Practice Clinic representing Camden-area residents in various civil litigation matters.
Jill M. Persico is an Associate seasoned in civil and criminal litigation, as well as contract law. With an emphasis on the healthcare industry, Ms. Persico primarily defends long-term healthcare providers against professional liability and medical malpractice claims. Ms. Persico brings a broad range of legal experience in both the public and private sectors to her practice at Burns White, including positions as a contracts attorney for RPS Inc., Assistant District Attorney for Chester County District Attorney’s Office and Arbitrator for the Chester County Arbitration Administration. Ms. Persico received a J.D. from the University of Akron in 1996.
A summary of a defense verdict for a railroad client for claims brought under the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA) was included in the December 2013 issue of the Indiana Jury Verdict Reporter. A former employee initiated the litigation that ultimately spanned four separate lawsuits and multiple venues after claiming he obtained debilitating injuries to his knees over his 20+ years of employment with the company. Daniel Hampton, a Member of the Transportation Practice Group, and local co-counsel Barry Loftus handled the case.
Click here to read the publication’s write up. Additional information is also included here on the firm’s website.
PITTSBURGH, Dec. 20, 2013 — Burns White LLC is pleased to announce the promotion of four attorneys to Member, effective Jan. 1, 2014: Jason J. Cervone, Stephen A. Hall and Amanda H. Sargent of the Pittsburgh office and David M. McGeady of Philadelphia.
Pittsburgh
Mr. Cervone joined Burns White in 2004, and focuses his practice in the areas of banking, business practices, general liability litigation and railroad defense litigation. Primarily, Mr. Cervone, who is a certified commercial lender and an approved title attorney, advises clients in all facets of commercial transaction and investment matters, while also representing traditional lenders in connection with financing and other related fields. In addition, Mr. Cervone has defended multiple railroads in complex litigation matters throughout the Northeast. Mr. Cervone graduated from West Virginia University School of Law.
An attorney at the firm since 2004, Mr. Hall practices in several areas of trial and appellate litigation, including railroad defense involving occupational injury, grade crossing and wrongful death claims brought under the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA), and also has substantial experience in products liability, premises liability and other commercial litigation. In addition, Mr. Hall co-chairs the Estate Planning and Administration Group, assisting families with a wide range of estate planning needs, including planning for children with special needs. Mr. Hall received his J.D. with distinction from Ohio Northern University, where after graduation he served for two years as a judicial law clerk to the Honorable John M. Cleland, former President Judge of the McKean County Court of Common Pleas.
Ms. Sargent, who joined the firm in 2005, represents a diverse array of clients in the areas of transportation law, business law and general litigation. Ms. Sargent concentrates her practice on transportation law and railroad/maritime litigation matters, with an emphasis in occupational disease claims and toxic tort litigation under FELA and the Jones Act. She also counsels clients on general business matters, including business contracts, entity formations and business disputes. Ms. Sargent is a graduate of Duquesne University School of Law.
Philadelphia
Mr. McGeady, who has been with the firm since 2007, brings a 17-year career in nursing to his practice in defending healthcare facilities and medical professionals in professional liability and medical malpractice claims. He received his J.D. from the Temple University Beasley School of Law, Evening Division and graduated from Thomas Jefferson University with a B.S. in Nursing. A practicing nurse, Mr. McGeady has worked primarily in neurosurgical intensive care and post-anesthesia care units almost continuously from 1996-present.
Associate Stephanie Solomon authored an article titled, “Bench Trials — A New Defense Tactic in Legal Malpractice Claims” for Volume 5, Issue 4 of Riding the E&O Line, the newsletter of DRI’s Professional Liability Committee. Click here to download the newsletter (courtesy of the Professional Liability Committee) and scroll to page nine to read the article.
By: Nichole E. Humes, Esq.
On November 22, 2013, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court handed down a ruling that dramatically impacts the nature of asbestos litigation against employers in the Commonwealth in Tooey v. AK Steel Corporation et al., No. 21 WAP 2011. In what has been called a landmark decision, the Supreme Court held that the exclusivity provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act does not apply to occupational diseases which occur outside of the 300-week time period provided in the Act, therefore allowing employers to file common law actions against their employers.
The Workers’ Compensation Act provides that “the liability of an employer under this act shall be exclusive and in place of any and all other liability to such employees, … or anyone otherwise entitled to damages in any action at law or otherwise on account of any injury or death…” 77 P.S. § 481(a) The Act further indicates that occupational diseases include asbestos and cancer resulting from direct contact with, handling of, or exposure to the dust of asbestos in any occupational involving such contact, handling or exposure.” 77 P.S. § 27.1(I).
Decedent, John Tooey, worked for Ferro Engineering as an industrial salesman of asbestos products from 1964 until 1982. In December 2007, 1,300 weeks following his last date of employment, Tooey was diagnosed with mesothelioma and eventually passed away. In 2008, Tooey and his spouse filed tort actions against multiple defendants, including his employer, Ferro, claiming that his mesothelioma was the result of his exposure to asbestos during the time he worked for Ferro. Tooey’s employers filed summary judgment on the basis that his cause of action was barred by the exclusivity provision of Section 303(a). The plaintiff/appellants responded to the summary judgment motions claiming that the federal and state constitutions and Pennsylvania case law permit a tort action against an employer where the disease falls outside the jurisdiction, scope and conversation of the Workers Compensation’ Act. The trial court agreed with the plaintiff / appellant and denied the employer’s motion for summary judgment. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania overruled the trial court and the matter was appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court granted review of the case to determine whether under the plain language of the Act, the definition of “injury” excludes an occupational disease that first manifests more than 300 weeks after the last occupational exposure to the hazards of such disease, such that the exclusivity provision of the Act does not apply. In reaching their analysis, the Court stated that when reviewing issues concerning the Act, “we are mindful that the Act is remedial in nature and its purpose is to benefit the workers of this Commonwealth. Thus, the Act is to be liberally construed to effectuate its humanitarian objections, and borderline interpretations are to be constructed and resolved in favor of the injured employee.”
The Court conducted a review of the statutory language of the Act and ultimately concluded that the Act was written in such a way that it only applies if an employee develops an occupational disease within 300 weeks after that last date of employment. As such, if an employee develops an occupational disease after 300 weeks following the last date of employment, the Act does not apply and the employee is permitted to bring a cause of action against their employer at common law.
In reaching this decision, the Court focused on the fact that if it were to interpret the exclusivity provision otherwise, the injured employee were to have no opportunity for redress against their employer in contravention of intentions of the legislature when enacting the Act, the mandates of the Act itself, as well as the dictates of prior common law which provided that the Act should not be construed to allow an employer to avoid liability under both the Act and common law.
The Court concluded that the Workers’ Compensation Act does not apply to Appellant’s claims. The Court therefore held that “the exclusivity provision of Section 303(a) does not preclude Appellants from seeking compensation for their injuries via a common law action against Employers.” In reaching its decision, the Court stated that “it is inconceivable that the legislature, in enacting a statue specifically designed to benefit employees, intended to leave a certain class of employees who have suffered the most serious of work-related injuries without any redress under the Act or at common law.
