Author Archive

ISSUE: Sam passed away and left a sizable gun collection to his three sons. Sam failed to take into consideration that his sons had been convicted of aggravated assault twenty years before down in Florida. Will Sam’s executor be able to carry out Sam’s wishes?

ANSWER: No. Pennsylvania Uniform Fire Arms Act establishes that persons are not allowed to possess, use, manufacture, control, sell or transfer fire arms if they have been convicted of an offense that includes aggravated assault. Other offenses that prevent one from obtaining guns include arson, aggravated indecent assault, burglary, and many others. Sam’s sons will have to attempt to get a restoration of their fire arms rights which will not be available to them for many years.

Disclaimer: The above article is for instructive purposes only and each case is fact sensitive. Consultation with an attorney should be obtained instead of reliance upon the legal issues discussed in this column.

Lou is receiving Social Security Disability benefits as a result of a low back condition which involves several herniated discs. He was previously employed as a well driller but cannot perform that job due to the rigorous physical aspects of his former job. Lou has stayed in touch with his former employer, Bud. Bud’s well drilling business is thriving as a result of the Marcellus Shale natural gas boom. Bud asked Lou to come back to work as a consultant and assured Lou that he will not be performing any physical tasks. But Lou is concerned that if he returns to work, his Social Security Disability benefits will stop.
Question: Can Lou return to work and still collect Social Security Disability benefits?
Answer: Yes, there are special rules that allow people receiving Social Security Disability benefits (or Supplemental Security Income) to return to work and still receive monthly payments. And if Lou cannot continue working because of his back problems his benefits can start again.
Social Security has created work incentives to allow people receiving benefits to return to work. These incentives include continued cash benefits for a time and continued Medicare or Medicaid while Lou returns to work.
This “trial work period” will allow Lou to test his ability to work for at least nine months. During this trial work period, Lou will receive his full Social Security benefits regardless of how much he earns as long as he reports his work activity to Social Security and he continues to have a disabling impairment. In 2010, a trial work month is any month in which his total earnings are $720 or more. The trial work period continues until you has worked nine months within a 60-month period. After this trial work period, Lou also has 36 months during which he can work and still receive benefits for any month when his earnings are not “substantial.” In 2010, earnings of $1000 or more are considered “substantial”. If Lou earns more than $1000 per month after the trial work period, his benefits will stop.
Disclaimer: The above article is for instructive purposes only and each case is fact sensitive. Consultation with an attorney should be obtained instead of reliance upon the legal issues discussed in this column.

The Law Offices of Dougherty, Leventhal & Price (DLP) are proud to co-sponsor the 2nd Annual Harford Rodeo set for JULY 18, 2010 at 2:00pm at the Harford Fair Grounds, Exit 217 off Interstate Route 81. Doors open at noon. Events include Saddle Bronc, Bull Riding, Steer Wrestling, Roping and Barrel Racing. For the kids there will be Mutton Bustin’ and Boot Scramble with prizes for the winners. All kids under 6 are free. Music starts at noon and there will be food and entertainment as well.

Sandy was seriously hurt in a motor vehicle accident which was not her fault. Sandy went to an attorney recommended to her by one of her friends. The attorney promised to represent her and attempt to settle her case and, if necessary, file suit. As months passed by Sandy became very frustrated as the attorney neither returned her calls or kept telling her that he was keeping track of things and was attempting to settle her case. Finally, Sandy had enough with the delay and found out that the attorney that she had gone to had never filed a suit within the two years in which she was allowed, under the law, to bring the suit. Sandy was furious and decided she was going to sue her lawyer.

ISSUE: Sandy quickly found out that her lawyer had no legal malpractice insurance and she wondered if a lawyer can practice without legal malpractice insurance.

ANSWER: Yes. Legal malpractice insurance is not required in Pennsylvania. Nevertheless, a lawyer that does not carry professional liability insurance, is required to inform all new clients, in writing, that he or she does not have professional liability insurance or at least $100,000.00 per occurrence or $300,000.00 total. This is required under the rules of professional conduct. It has also been in effect for about three years.

Disclaimer: The above article is for instructive purposes only and each case is fact sensitive. Consultation with an attorney should be obtained instead of reliance upon the legal issues discussed in this column.

Elizabeth was well into her 70’s and her husband had passed away several years before. She had two daughters whom would check on her on a daily basis. Elizabeth got a phone call from a gentleman stating that he had gotten her name from a local bank. He said he was interested in knowing if Elizabeth would like to invest some money in his oil removing company.

Elizabeth followed the news closely and she was aware about what was going on in the Gulf. The kind gentleman stated that his company had perfected a device that was capable of quickly removing oil from water and recycling the water so it could be used again. The gentleman stated that for only $2,000.00 invested, he would guarantee Elizabeth $10,000.00 back every month for at least one year. Elizabeth was informed that the United States Government had awarded the gentleman’s company a very large contract and it was simply a great deal, but Elizabeth would have to invest the money immediately or else she would be passed by.

Elizabeth was very impressed with the man and wrote out a check for $2,000.00.

Unfortunately it did not take long to find out that Elizabeth had been the victim of a con man. This type of deal is called the “pump-and-dump.” Elizabeth’s daughters tried to find out the identity of the individual in order to get the money back, but of course they were unsuccessful. Elizabeth forgot the lesson that she had taught her children: that if a deal seems too good to be true-it probably is.

Disclaimer: The above article is for instructive purposes only and each case is fact sensitive. Consultation with an attorney should be obtained instead of reliance upon the legal issues discussed in this column.

Mick and Keith worked at Charlie’s Furniture Store and were carrying a large box to load in a truck. Mick lost his footing and his grip on the box, causing poor Keith to assume most of the 200-pound weight. Keith felt a pop in his lower back and sure enough, ended up causing serious damage to three different discs. Keith would end up going on workers’ compensation for what looked like an extended period of time, especially in light of the multiple operations he had to undergo.

Issue: Despite the fact that Keith was only 28, would he be able to apply for Social Security despite the fact that he was already receiving Workers’ Compensation?

Answer: Yes. An individual can collect federal social security at the same time he is receiving state Workers’ Compensation benefits. Most times though, the Social Security benefits will be reduced dollar-for dollar by what the individual is receiving in state benefits. On most occasions the individual will be receiving, with the combination of both programs, approximately 80% of his pre-injury gross wage.

Disclaimer: The above article is for instructive purposes only and each case is fact sensitive. Consultation with an attorney should be obtained instead of reliance upon the legal issues discussed in this column.

The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court has ruled that the employer who pays an injured employee wage loss benefits under the Heart and Lung Act is entitled to subrogate against the injured employee’s recovery against a negligent third party. In Oliver vs. City of Pittsburgh, the Court ruled that Heart and Lung Act benefits must be given the same effect as workers’ compensation benefits as the similar purpose of the two benefit schemes requires consistent treatment noting that benefits paid under the Heart and Lung Act should be treated in the same manner as payments made pursuant to the Workers’ Compensation Act. The Court concluded that the legislature intended the employer’s subrogation right entitlement to apply to Heart and Lung benefits as well as Workers’ Compensation benefits.

Jennifer was traveling east on Route 6 between Tafton and Milford, when all of a sudden and without warning Sleepy Sam, driving in the opposite direction, crossed the center line causing an almost head-on collision. The state police were quick to investigate and Sleepy Sam had a .06 blood alcohol level, according to the police report. Since the blood alcohol level was below .08, it was insufficient to charge Sam with driving under the influence.

It came out during litigation, though, that Sam was taking special medication which had specific instructions on it that it was NOT to be taken with alcohol. As it turned out, the medication along with the alcohol, as all the medical experts agreed, would have impaired Sam’s ability to drive.

Issue: Will the combination of the medication and the alcohol be admissible in evidence?

Answer: Yes. Pennsylvania law defines “driving under the influence” to include not only alcohol but also a controlled substance and/or a combination of both. Even if Sam was not aware of the effects of the combination, he would be liable for the effects of the same.

Disclaimer: The above article is for instructive purposes only and each case is fact sensitive. Consultation with an attorney should be obtained instead of reliance upon the legal issues discussed in this column.

Jennifer was traveling east on Route 6 between Tafton and Milford, when all of a sudden and without warning Sleepy Sam, driving in the opposite direction, crossed the center line causing an almost head-on collision. The state police were quick to investigate and Sleepy Sam had a .06 blood alcohol level, according to the police report. Since the blood alcohol level was below .08, it was insufficient to charge Sam with driving under the influence.

It came out during litigation, though, that Sam was taking special medication which had specific instructions on it that it was NOT to be taken with alcohol. As it turned out, the medication along with the alcohol, as all the medical experts agreed, would have impaired Sam’s ability to drive.

Issue: Will the combination of the medication and the alcohol be admissible in evidence?

Answer: Yes. Pennsylvania law defines “driving under the influence” to include not only alcohol but also a controlled substance and/or a combination of both. Even if Sam was not aware of the effects of the combination, he would be liable for the effects of the same.

Disclaimer: The above article is for instructive purposes only and each case is fact sensitive. Consultation with an attorney should be obtained instead of reliance upon the legal issues discussed in this column.

Al had been looking for a row boat for some time and his friend Gus just happened to inform Al that he, Gus, had heard one being available from somebody who lived near Lake Wallenpaupack. Gus gave Al the name of a fellow named “Buzz.” Al was directed to what he thought was Buzz’s home and sure enough saw a row boat in the backyard which appeared to be in good condition. A man appeared and offered to sell the boat to Al for $300.00.

No sooner had Al gotten his boat home, when the police showed up and advised poor Al that the boat he had purchased was stolen. Al insisted he bought it from a guy named Buzz, but the police did not know who Buzz was and in fact stated that the home that Al described did not have anyone living there by the name of Buzz. The police confiscated the boat and much to Al’s chagrin, when Al returned to find Buzz, Buzz was not around and nobody had ever heard of him.

Issue: Does Al have any rights to the boat that he paid $300.00 for?

Answer: No, basically Al bought a stolen property and the individual that sold the boat to Al had no right of ownership. As Al quickly found out, he was simply the victim of a scam and ended up paying $300.00 to learn his lesson.

Disclaimer: The above article is for instructive purposes only and each case is fact sensitive. Consultation with an attorney should be obtained instead of reliance upon the legal issues discussed in this column.