Posts Tagged ‘Inc’

But gas exploration isn’t the only reason small businesses are thriving in Pittsburgh. The region’s “eds and meds” economy and a supportive environment also is helping small businesses, said Martha O’Grady, president of Panta Rhei Media Inc., a video service company based in Turtle Creek, which employs four people.

“The presence of all the universities keeps a lot of new ideas finding their way into the marketplace,” she said. “I don’t benefit from a lot of that personally, but I think it’s the economic spring for the city.”

The swing in Pittsburgh’s ranking may be also due to the recession, which has hit many parts of the country harder than the local region, said Chris Briem, regional economist at the University of Pittsburgh.

“There have been incremental positive changes in recent years,” he said. “It may not be that we’re busting out in any fast way, but a lot of these competitor places have been hit very hard.”

Access to private capital has been easing, and the start-up community is maturing, meaning resources are readily available for new businesses, said Terri Glueck, director of communications at Innovation Works, a nonprofit agency that provides funding and technical advice to entrepreneurs.

Last year was the best year for private capital than in several years, she said.

“People want start-ups to succeed,” Glueck said. “We have great mentors and advisers and accountants and lawyers.”

Read more: Marcellus likely among the reasons Pittsburgh moves up 48 slots on small business vitality rankings | Pittsburgh Business Times

Read more: Marcellus likely among the reasons Pittsburgh moves up 48 slots on small business vitality rankings | Pittsburgh Business Times

(Source: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette) tracking By Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Mar. 24–The discovery and development of the Marcellus shale natural gas deposits has been big news in Pennsylvania and neighboring states for several reasons.

One is the massive energy resource it represents. Another is the jump in jobs it could create. A third is the tax revenue that might be reaped. And one more is the concern that widespread drilling poses for the environment.

That worry covers a range of issues, but a major one to catch the eye of the Environmental Protection Agency is “fracking,” the hydraulic fracturing technology that breaks the rock deep in the ground to release the gas. The process injects millions of gallons of water mixed with chemicals and sand under great pressure into a gas well to crack the shale. How should drillers best dispose of this water?

While fracking has been used for decades at shallow depths, the EPA said last Thursday it would do a $1.9 million study of the potential adverse effects of the process at a mile or more underground. The EPA wants to gauge the impact on water quality and public health — and that makes this money well spent.

In Pennsylvania alone, 2,500 drilling permits were issued by the state for Marcellus shale gas wells between 2007 and 2009, with another 5,000 expected this year. The Marcellus Shale Coalition, a trade group, says 1,100 Marcellus shale wells have been drilled so far, as a way to get to some of the estimated 363 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

While the coalition and others in the industry say they are committed to ensuring a safe approach to treatment and disposal of wastewater due to fracking, it’s good to know the EPA study will provide an objective, scientific view on how well they are doing.

It’s unfortunate the study could take two years to complete, but Americans should be willing to sacrifice speed for thoroughness on a question that involves community health.

—–

To see more of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.post-gazette.com.

Copyright (c) 2010, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.

For reprints, email [email protected], call 800-374-7985 or 847-635-6550, send a fax to 847-635-6968, or write to The Permissions Group Inc., 1247 Milwaukee Ave., Suite 303, Glenview, IL 60025, USA.

A service of YellowBrix, Inc.

View the original article here.

Attorney John Finnerty is a 2009 and 2010 Recipient of the Equal Access to Justice Award from Lackawanna Pro Bono, Inc. for volunteer efforts in representing indigent clients.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has ruled that an employee who signed a Workers’ Compensation Disclaimer at the time of commencing employment effectively waived her right to file claims against clients of her employer for damages otherwise covered under the Workers’ Compensation Act. In this case, Bowman v. Sunoco, Inc., the employee, Ms. Bowman filed a negligence claim for injuries she sustained on Sunoco property. At the time of the injury Ms. Bowman was employed as a private security guard with Allied Barton Security Services. Bowman contended that the Disclaimer she signed was contrary to public policy and, therefore, unenforceable. The Court disagreed and ruled that the release was not violative of public policy since it did not eliminate Bowman’s right to file a claim for workers’ compensation benefits.

James suffered catastrophic injuries, including quadriplegia, when the truck he was driving as an employee for Peter Pan Transport, Inc. went off the road on Interstate 81 south of Scranton. James’ attorney brought suit against various manufacturers of component parts of the truck.

Unfortunately for James, Peter Pan Transport, Inc. had destroyed and failed to preserve key parts of the truck, including the brakes themselves, “black boxes” that monitored the action of the antilock brakes and motor, and other items. Based upon these actions, James sought to sue his employer, Peter Pan Transport, Inc., because he alleged that they either intentionally or negligently destroyed all of the evidence he would need to establish his claim.

Normally, an employee cannot sue his employer due to the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act in Pennsylvania. These provisions bar suit when the employee is in the scope and course of employment at the time of his injury.

Issue: Can James sue his employer in this case?

Answer: Yes. James is not alleging in his complaint damages from his former employer for physical injuries to himself during the course of his employment as a driver. Rather, he alleges that he has economically been damaged as a result of the alleged actions of his former employer, Peter Pan Transport, Inc., in destroying essential evidence that may well fatally damage any right of action he would have had against the manufacturers of the component parts involved in the braking system.

In cases like that of James, which are called products liability lawsuits, a preservation of the evidence is absolutely essential so that the defendants have a fair opportunity to inspect the alleged defective parts themselves. Absent the availability of these parts for inspection by all parties, these types of suits are thrown out of court.

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 recently determined that the doctrine of res judicata precludes the filing of a second review petition to expand the description of the work related injury when the parties previously entered into a stipulation that expanded the description of injury.
In Weney v. WCAB (Mac Sprinkler Systems, Inc.), the claimant was injured on October 21, 2005 when he fell from a ladder and sustained a left shoulder strain. As a result of that injury, Weney was unable to work. Hie employer acknowledged the work injury via a Notice of Temporary Compensation Payable (NTCP), which was later converted into the NCP. On March 27, 2006, claimant filed the first Petition to Review Compensation Benefits (Review Petition I), which sought to amend the NCP to include a left shoulder injury in the nature of a tear of the anterior labrum with large glenohumeral joint effusion, tendonitis or a partial tear of the supraspinatus/infraspinatus, minimal impingement, and biceps tenosynovitis. The parties then entered into a Stipulation of Facts (Stipulation) wherein they agreed that the NCP should be amended to include the additional shoulder injuries as asserted by claimant in Review Petition I. On May 19, 2006, the Workers’ Compensation Judge issued a decision and order adopting the Stipulation and granting claimant’s Review Petition I. Neither party appealed this decision and order. On May 30, 2006, Weney filed a second Review Petition (Review Petition II) which sought to further amend the NCP to include four herniated discs at the C2-3, C3-4, C4-5, and C5-6 levels, which he allegedly sustained as a result of the October 21, 2005 work incident. The employer filed an Answer denying the allegations set forth in Claimant’s Review Petition II and asserting the affirmative defense that Review Petition II was barred by the doctrines of technical res judicata and/or collateral estoppel. The WCJ held two hearings at which the parties were given the opportunity to present evidence regarding Claimant’s Review Petition II.
The WCJ granted Claimant’s Review Petition II and amended the NCP to include Claimant’s herniated discs. The WCJ did not address Employer’s allegation that Claimant’s Review Petition II was barred by the doctrines of technical res judicata and/or collateral estoppel. Employer appealed and the WCAB reversed the WCJ’s decision and order. Claimant then appealed to the Commonwealth Court.
The Commonwealth Court agreed with the WCAB and concluded that technical res judicata applies and that Claimant’s Review Petition II was barred. The Court noted that the subject matter of both the Review Petition I and Review Petition II proceedings was the nature and extent of the injuries that Claimant sustained as a result of the October 21, 2005 work incident. Thus, the ultimate issue in both proceedings was whether the NCP accurately reflected the nature and extent of Claimant’s injuries.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently issued a decision indicating that a van modified to meets a quadriplegic claimant’s needs may fall within the definition of an “orthopedic appliance” that an employer is obligated to pay for under the provisions of the Pa. Workers’ Compensation Act (hereinafter “the Act”). In the case of Griffiths v WCAB (Seven Stars Farm, Inc.), the Court addressed an appeal by the claimant of a prior decision of the Pa. Commonwealth Court which held that the Act did not require the employer to pay for the purchase of the van.
The Supreme Court, in a decision issued on March 19, 2008, held that the van “is crucial to restore some small measure of the independence and quality of life that existed before the work injury.” The Court also noted that “the present restrictions on (claimant’s) life and mobility were caused by his service to his employer, and a modified van directly addresses and helps to remediate that very harm”. The Court thus concluded that a wheelchair accessible van qualifies under the broad definition of “orthopedic appliances” set forth within the Act.
The Court then took the analysis one step further noting that, while the Act is remedial in nature, “it does not authorize windfalls”. The Court remanded the case to the Workers’ Compensation Judge for findings of fact as to the claimant’s circumstances prior to his injury (whether he owned and regularly operated a vehicle, the age and type of the vehicle, its value, etc.).
If you have a question on your Workers’ Compensation claim, please feel free to call me (570-347-1011) or email me : [email protected]

Thomas P. Cummings, Esq.

In Lewis v. W.C.A.B. (Giles & Ransome, Inc.), 919 A.2d 922 (2007), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued an opinion detailing the high burden of proof employers face in attempting to terminate an injured employee’s workers’ compensation benefits.  In general, a workers’ compensation judge may modify or terminate a claimant’s benefits when it has been demonstrated that the claimant’s disability (loss or earnings power) has changed.   

In Lewis, the employer had unsuccessfully attempted to terminate the Claimant’s benefits on three prior occasions.  The employer subsequently filed another Termination Petition.  In support of its fourth Termination Petition, the employer presented expert testimony from a medical witness who acknowledged that Claimant was suffering from the same condition and the same disorders which had previously been diagnosed.  The employer’s medical expert merely attempted to recharacterize the cause of Claimant’s condition. 

Where there have been prior petitions to modify or terminate workers’ compensation benefits, the employer seeking modification or termination of benefits must demonstrate a change in physical condition since the last disability determination.  Because the employer did not produce evidence that Claimant’s medical condition had improved,the Lewis  Court held that the employer’s Termination Petition was barred by issue preclusion. 

The Lewis decision precludes an employer from re-litigating the cause of a claimant’s condition or symptoms.  Once it has been determined that a claimant is disabled due to a particular condition or symptoms, the only way an employer can subsequently terminate or modify the claimant’s benefits is to produce expert medical testimony establishing an improvement in claimant’s physical condition which results in an increase in Claimant’s earnings power.

John P. Finnerty, Esquire