Posts Tagged ‘June’

June 17th, Gov. Tom Corbett’s top health adviser said that he wants to make Pennsylvania the first state to create a registry to track illnesses in communities near heavy drilling in the Marcellus Shale natural gas formation. The registry could determine if fracking imposes a public health risk.

Shale drilling requires blending huge volumes of water with chemical additives and injecting it under high pressure into the ground to help shatter the thick rock, a process called hydraulic fracturing or fracking. In addition to the gas, some of that water returns to the surface tainted with metals like barium and strontium.

Health Secretary Eli Avila told Corbett’s Marcellus Shale Advisory Commission that creating such a registry is the timeliest and most important step the Department of Health (DOH) could take, and that his agency is not aware of anything like it in other drilling states. “We’re really at the frontiers of this and we can make a speedy example for all the other states,” Avila told the commission at its fourth meeting.

Collecting information on drilling-related health complaints, investigating them, centralizing the information in one database and then comparing illnesses in drilling communities with non-drilling communities could help refute or verify claims that drilling has an impact on public health, he said. The aggregation of data and information also would allow the DOH to make its findings public, in contrast to the privacy that surrounds its investigation into individual health complaints and the findings that may result.

The Marcellus Shale formation is considered to be the nation’s largest-known natural gas reservoir. Pennsylvania is the center of activity, with more than 3,000 wells drilled in the past three years and thousands more planned in the coming years. The rapid growth of deep shale drilling and its involvement of high-volume hydraulic fracturing, chemicals, and toxic wastewater are prompting health concerns in Pennsylvania.

“As drilling increases, I anticipate, at least in the short term, a proportionate increase in concerns and complaints which the department must be prepared to address,” Avila said. In the past year or so, the Department of Health has received several dozen or so health complaints, he said.

Such health registries are common, and in the past have been created to track measles and influenza, Avila said. To set up a drilling-related registry and fully investigate drilling-related health complaints would require another $2 million a year for the department and possibly require the help of the state’s schools of public health, Avila said.
Posted At: Examiner.com

Should Pennsylvania impose a tax on the gas drilling industry?  Governor Tom Corbett says “No” but he awaits a report from a Commission reviewing the issue.  The Commission report is due out in late July, 2011.  However, the State budget is due to be passed by June 30,  2011.  There appears to be bipartisan support growing in Harrisburg for some type of gas tax.  Whether sufficient veto proof support exists is yet to be determined.  The twelve lawyers at DLP continue to monitor this and other gas drilling rig related issues while representing victims of gas drilling rig accidents, Pennsylvania truck accidents and other gas drilling related incidents.

Terry began working for Helpful Companion Company as a home health aide in June of 2008. Since her start though, she was assigned only one patient from the date she began working through the date that she was involved in an automobile accident on her way to that patient’s home. In performing her work assignment, Terry always drove directly from her own home to the patient’s home. In January of 2010, Terry’s vehicle slid on ice and Terry was injured sustaining serious injuries to her neck and back. Terry has not been able to continue working since that time and filed a workers’ compensation claim against her employer.

Issue: Will Terry be successful?

Answer: No. There is a general rule referred to as the “coming and going rule” which precludes individuals such as Terry who are injured while traveling to and from work from receiving workers’ compensation benefits. This is a general rule. There are exceptions which do not apply. Those exceptions would have been if Terry’s employer had provided transportation to her or if Terry was being paid for her travel time by the employer.

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.

Ward and June were taking a leisurely drive between Honesdale and Hawley on Route 6 when a large pickup truck heading in the opposite direction entered their lane of travel. Ward had no option but to steer as hard as he could to the right, causing the vehicle to go off the road and eventually impacting with a tree. Unfortunately, both Ward and June suffered severe injuries.

The operator of the vehicle that caused the accident never stopped nor were the police ever able to identify it.

Issue: Do Ward and his wife, June, have any recourse?

Answer: Yes. Fortunately, Ward was wise enough to cover uninsured motorist protection on his own vehicle.

In cases such as this where there is an accident caused by a phantom vehicle, Ward will be able to make a claim against his own insurance policy for his pain and suffering as well as June’s. The amount that Ward will be able to claim up to will depend upon how much coverage Ward paid for. This type of coverage is very inexpensive and all drivers should obtain at least $100,000 for uninsured motorist coverage.

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.

Ward and June were on their way back to Pleasant Mount after visiting their son at Lockhaven University. It was a sunny, warm afternoon and visibility was excellent as they were traveling east on Route 80.

Ward noticed a large tractor trailer in his rearview mirror coming up behind him in the passing lane going extremely fast. Ward would later testify that the truck had to be going at least 85 miles per hour.

Just as the truck was approximately three-quarters of the way past Ward, for some inexplicable reason, the truck started to come into Ward’s lane. Ward started to move over but the truck came over too quickly causing an impact. Both the tractor trailer and Ward’s vehicle were out of control.

The next thing Ward realized was that he woke up in the hospital. Both Ward and June would sustain extremely serious injuries with June having incurred permanent brain damage.

The truck driver would later claim that a deer or some animal began to enter his lane of travel, and he was trying to veer out of the way so as not to kill the animal. Other non-involved witnesses, though, would deny ever seeing any animal anywhere in the roadway or near the road at or around the time of the accident. One witness to the accident claimed that before the investigators arrived, the truck driver stated he might have dozed off for a second.

The U. S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration sets forth strict rules about keeping log books that apply to trucks and trucking companies. The acquisition of copies of all these log books as soon as possible after the injury is imperative. There are strict safety rules about the number of hours that truck drivers can drive per day and per week. However, the regulations on interstate truckers only require that these log books be kept for a certain period of time.

The best lawyers who handle trucking accident cases know that this is one piece of evidence among many that must be preserved as soon as possible. Too often when diligence is not followed, these records are discarded by trucking companies.

One of the main reasons that truckers have collisions with other vehicles is because of driver fatigue. The log books often show just how tired or overworked the person was behind the wheel at the time of the wreck.

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

June and Ward were on their way up Route 191 towards Hancock to visit June’s mother. About a mile before Equinunk, Ward noticed a car coming in the opposite direction at a high rate of speed traveling in the middle of the road.

June became extremely agitated and started to yell at Ward to pull off the road. Ward was able to move his vehicle off on the side of the road as much as possible but part of his vehicle remained on the macadam. As the vehicle approached, Ward realized that, in all likelihood, there was going to be an impact with the vehicle and extended his right arm sideways to try to protect his wife. Sure enough, the oncoming vehicle sideswiped Ward’s vehicle shaking it violently. Fortunately, neither Ward or June were seriously injured but the impact was significant enough that both of them sprained their necks and low backs.

The state police were quick to respond as the other vehicle did pull over eventually. The driver of the other vehicle was rendered a breathalyzer test by the state trooper, and it became readily apparent that the other driver was visibly intoxicated. The state trooper would cite the other driver on the investigative report. As it turned out, the other driver had a 2.4 alcohol blood level or three times the legal limit.

Neither Ward nor June had serious injuries, and Ward’s coverage on his vehicle was for limited tort which means he could not sue the other driver unless he sustained a serious and permanent injury.

Question: Will Ward and June have any recourse against the drunk driver?

Answer: Yes, despite the fact that Ward has limited tort, because the accident did involve a driver who was found to be driving under the influence, both Ward and June will be able to bring suits against the drunk driver’s insurance company. This is one of the exceptions and was meant to be another factor in trying to convince people not to drive while intoxicated.