The area had just sustained two large snowstorms in less than one week. The state and local authorities had performed well in removing the snow, but there were large piles everywhere immediately adjacent to the road.

Kelly pulled up to an intersection, but because of the amount of snow that had been piled at the corner, she had a very difficult time ascertaining whether or not it was safe to pull onto the main highway. She found herself having to pull out well beyond the stop sign, exposing the front of her car. As she slowly edged out into the road, unfortunately the front passenger side of her car was clipped by a vehicle which she was never able to see coming. The other driver, who had the right of way, claimed that she never saw Kelly’s car until it was well onto the road.

QUESTION

Kelly felt that she should not be at fault since there was nothing she could do to avoid the accident. Kelly felt if anything, the municipality that was in charge of the snow removal should be responsible.

ANSWER

Both the state and local municipalities are not responsible in situations like this. For artificially created hazards that might occur as a result of the moving and removing of snow. The governmental units enjoy sovereign immunity in cases such as this. As a basic rule, this immunity applies to artificially created situations on a road, but would not apply if they were negligent construction or design of a road.

Paul and his family lived in Harrisburg. Paul worked for the Reliable Car Company and had become one of their best salesmen. Paul’s family had a second home in Wayne County, and he always felt it would be nice to move up to that area on a full-time basis.

As fortune would have it, Paul was contacted by a local Wayne County car dealer and was offered a five-year guaranteed contract to come sell cars in the Poconos. After a lengthy discussion, Paul decided to take the offer and his family moved up on a permanent basis to the area.

At first Paul did very well but because of the down turn in the economy, his sales fell off sharply. Paul was notified by the owner of the company that he was going to be laid off for economic reasons.

Issue: Does Paul have any course of action against his new employer?

Answer: Yes. While Pennsylvania is an Employment-At-Will state, which means that the employment relationship is presumed to be terminable by either party at any time with or without notice and with or without cause, there are exceptions. One is where there is an express contract. In this case, Paul was guaranteed five years of employment at a base salary. Should the employer insist on Paul’s termination, they will have to pay him for the full five years what his base salary would have been had he continued working.

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.

A recent study out of Pennsylvania State University has been quoted by the gas industry as predicting that as many as 98000 new jobs may be created in Pennsylvania as a result of increased drilling for natural gas.

The Pennsylvania personal injury Attorneys at Dougherty Leventhal and Price LLP are committed to protecting the rights of workers and their families for injuries or death suffered while working at drill sites. Attorney Thomas Cummings and Attorney Joseph Price will be attending a seminar at the University of Texas which will discuss issues involving gas drilling. Attorney Cummings handles workers compensation claims for injured workers. Attorney Price handles serious/complex personal injury claims involving injury or death. Both Attorney Cummings and Attorney Price have been named Super Lawyers by Philadelphia Magazine.

Any person or family suffering death or injury as a result of gas drilling in Pennsylvania should contact Dougherty Leventhal and Price LLP immediately for a free consultation.

Pennsylvania Personal injury Attorney Joseph Price, a managing partner in the law firm of Dougherty Leventhal and Price, LLP. announced today that the firm is reviewing potential Avandia drug claims in Northeast Pennsylvania.
According to Attorney Price, Avandia is a drug prescribed to people suffering from Type 2 diabetes. Recently the drug has been subject of recall notices by its manufacturer and the FDA. Studies have linked Avandia to increase risk of heart attack, heart failure and other potentially life threatening side effects.
Individuals who have suffered heart problems, or who have family members who have suffered heart problems after using Avandia should contact Dougherty Leventhal and Price LLP immediately for a free no obligation consultation.

Four well drilling workers suffered serious injuries on a drilling rig in Elk Hills, California on February 15th. The workers were performing a pressure test on a well when an unexpected pressure release occurred. It appears that at least some of the injuries resulted from the workers jumping from the rig, according to reports from the scene.
Two of the men injured suffered severe injuries and were flown from the accident by helicopter. Two others suffered less critical injuries and were taken by ground ambulances to hospitals. A fifth worker suffered minor injuries and was treated at the scene.
Source: The Taft Midway Driller, Tuesday, February 16, 2010.

As a result of the recent Pennsylvania state budget compromise, the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources recently received bids for the leasing of state lands by gas drilling companies. The leases were for up to 32,000 acres of land in Cameron, Potter, Tioga, Clinton and Clearfield counties. The land is located in State Forests including Sproul, Elk, Tioga and Susquehannock.

According to the DCNR the leases will generate at least $125 million in additional revenues for the State coffers. The leases will also help create jobs. State environmental groups have raised serious concerns over the leases, but DCNR is confident that a balance has been struck addressing all issues.

Dougherty Leventhal and Price LLP represents individual injured as a result of gas drilling related injuries in Pennsylvania. Contact one of DLP’s twelve (12) Pennsylvania personal injury attorneys if you have any questions regarding injuries suffered as a result of companies or individuals related to the Pennsylvania natural gas drilling industry.

The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court has ruled that a detoxification program was “reasonable medical treatment” and upheld an Order granting a suspension of wage loss benefits. Under the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act, if an injured employee (the “claimant”) refuses reasonable treatment, the employee shall forfeit all rights to compensation for any increase in incapacity resulting from such refusal. Treatment has been deemed “reasonable” if it is highly probable that the treatment will cure the health problem and enhance the claimant’s prospects for gainful and fulfilling employment. In the case of Bereznicki v. W.C.A.B. (Eat “N Park Hospitality Group), the employer offered the claimant entry into a detox program and claimant refused the offer. The employer filed a suspension petition, alleging that the claimant refused reasonable medical treatment.

In support of their Petition, the employer offered expert medical testimony which indicated that the claimant was taking various medications (Methadone, Oxycodone, Neurontin, Alprazolam, Zanaflex, Effexor, Wellbutrin, Depakote and Etodolac) and that a chronic pain management program would allow claimant to return to normal neurologic function by decreasing the toxic doses of the medications. The employer’s medical expert also noted that any program that would decrease the toxic dose of the opioids would be in claimant’s best medical interest, that a supervised detox program entails very little risk and that although such a program would not help her return to her pre-injury job, it would make it possible for her to function with activities of daily living.

The WCJ ruled that, while the detox program would not guarantee that the claimant could return to her pre-injury job, an improvement of functioning would make it possible for claimant to work. Thus, the WCJ decided that the claimant refused reasonable medical treatment that would improve her ability to function and return to work.

The Commonwealth Court has upheld the WCJ’s decision in stating that a detox program would wean the claimant from toxic doses of medication, curing that health problem, and would allow the claimant to return to normal functioning and enhancing her prospects for gainful and fulfilling employment. Although the detox program would not return the claimant to her pre-injury job, her refusal of such treatment certainly increased her incapacity.

Helen was taking a leisurely stroll on a sunny Saturday afternoon on Main Street in Hawley. Helen was on her way to the candy store when, out of the corner of her eye, she noticed a rather large dog without a collar crossing the street heading towards her.

Helen continued to walk towards the store as the dog got closer and closer. Helen did not see any type of aggressive behavior with the dog and reached down to pet it. Unfortunately, as soon as Helen stuck her hand out, the dog bit her, causing a serious injury to her hand. When Helen screamed, the dog let go and ran away. Because of various complications, Helen’s medical bills would run over $20,000.

Issue: Does Helen have any right to bring a lawsuit against the municipality?

Answer: No. A stray dog on a town sidewalk would not be considered within the care, custody or control of the municipality. The municipality would enjoy sovereign immunity or, in other words, could not be sued in such a circumstance. Examples of potential liability would be for police dogs and/or horses that were being used by policemen.

In cases involving animals, a court will determine whether the animal at issue was a wild or a domestic animal. If the animal is wild, there is no liability. If the animal is considered a domestic animal, then the court will make a determination whether or not that animal is in the control of the local governmental agency. If it is not, then there can be no lawsuit against the municipality.

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.