Posts Tagged ‘personal injury lawyer pennsylvania’

Dougherty, Leventhal and Price personal injury Attorneys Patrick E Dougherty, Joseph G. Price and Paul T. Oven settled a motor vehicle accident case against a paving company winning $14.5 million for their client. The client sustained traumatic injuries in the one car crash.

The client turned out of a driveway and traveled about a half mile when the passenger side tires left the road and dropped six inches in an open and exposed dirt shoulder. Traveling at about 45 mph, the tires ran along the dirt shoulder. The client then over-steered the vehicle back into the road, yawed and then struck two trees. The impact of the crash nearly threw the plaintiff through the rear window.

The paving company contracted with the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation to pave and shoulder more than 40 miles on a number of roads.

Shouldering and paving is a process whereby the edges of the road are prepared and two layers of surface are laid. Afterward, steps are to be taken to immediately restore the shoulders of the road or to protect or warn the public about the open road edge and drop off.

Despite completing the edge and paving work, the paving company did not shoulder the road or protect or warn the public about it at any time prior to completing the shoulder work.

Now a quadriplegic, the client spent months in various hospitals for intensive physical therapy and rehabilitation. A life care plan was prepared outlining the extensive costs associated with future medical care and medical management. The client is now at home under 24 hour care.

A Columbia County jury awarded $1.5 million to the family of a patient whose pulmonary hemorrhage was allegedly misdiagnosed by a Bloomsburg doctor. The law firm of Dougherty, Leventhal & Price filed a medical malpractice suit on behalf of the family of Bruce Whitmire, 43, against the doctor, Donald A. Remaly, alleging he had mistakenly treated Whitmire for pneumonia.

“What killed him was that he was allowed to bleed into his lungs for three weeks,” said personal injury attorney Patrick Dougherty, who along with Attorney Brian Walsh represented the Whitmires. Whitmire, a truck driver, died on April 10, 2000.

A Columbia County jury found Remaly negligent in his care of Whitmire. It awarded $444,000 in damages to the victim’s family, $5,067 to cover the cost of Whitmire’s funeral and $1,050,933 to compensate for his suffering and mental and physical pain. This represents the largest jury verdict in the history of Columbia County.

A Nanticoke couple has been awarded $1.96 million in a verdict returned by a Luzerne County jury against the Tennessee corporation that operates Dollar General stores. The couple, Joan and Jay Urbanski, was represented by personal injury Attorneys Patrick Dougherty, Joseph Price and Brian Walsh of the DLP law firm. Attorney Price believes the verdict to be a record in Luzerne County for that type of case. It also could go higher as a motion has been filed seeking delay damages against Dollar General.

Mrs. Urbanski, 40, was injured in the fall at a Dollar General Store in Hanover Township on Sept. 4, 2000. She fell after stepping on transparent plastic packaging material that had been left in the store aisle. The jury determined Mrs. Urbanski, a nurse, should receive $862,000 for economic damages, including lost income and the costs of ongoing medical treatment, and $1 million in punitive damages. Her husband was awarded $100,000 for loss of companionship. Dollar General admitted negligence relative to Mrs.Urbanski’s fall, but disputed the extent of her injuries and the diagnosis of reflex sympathetic dystrophy, a nerve disorder resulting from the fall, which disables Mrs. Urbanski. Mr. Price said the case and verdict have a component of deterrence. Attorney Price noted :”We wanted to tell this Tennessee corporation that, if they’re going to have outlets and make profits from people in Northeastern Pennsylvania, then they need to operate safe stores”.

In a recent settlement, personal injury Attorney Brian Walsh of the DLP law firm secured an award of the insurance policy limits ($300,000.00) for an injured motorist who had initially agreed to settle the case for $3,000.00.

Plaintiff, a 19 year old male, was injured in a motor vehicle accident.

Within a week of the accident, a representative from the defendant’s insurance company met with the plaintiff, who had not yet secured legal representation. The insurance representative convinced the plaintiff to sign a release settling the case for a sum of $3,000.00. The plaintiff then contacted the DLP law firm. DLP was able to void the release and ultimately settled the case for $300,000.00.

“It’s important to know your rights and not sell your claim short” commented DLP’s Brian Walsh, who represented the plaintiff and was able to secure the applicable policy limits in the case. “This gentleman thought he was getting a fair shake when he met with the adjuster. In reality, he wasn’t. Fortunately, he came to us and we were able to void the release. The settlement we were able to secure for him is fair compensation for the injuries he suffered. The moral of the story- obtain legal counsel early”, Attorney Walsh added.

A 57 year old paraplegic who sustained right shoulder injuries while staying at the Holiday Inn Express secured a settlement of $750,000.00 based on the negligence of the defendant. The plaintiff, who was represented by Personal injury Attorneys Patrick Dougherty and Brian J Walsh of the DLP Law Firm, suffered a torn bicep tendon, as well as a torn rotator cuff when the safety bar detached from the wall while the plaintiff was alighting from the commode.

As a result of the incident, the plaintiff underwent arthroscopic surgery for his torn rotator cuff. At the time of the incident, the plaintiff was employed by the paralyzed veteran’s association as a wheelchair repair person. Due to the incident, the claimant was deemed totally disabled and was unable to continue his employment.

DLP pursued a theory of liability that the safety rail was inappropriately secured to the bathroom wall. In addition, the complaint filed by DLP alleged that the defendant was negligent for failing to have appropriate inspection measures in place to ensure that the safety rails were properly attached to the wall.

The case settled prior to trial with the plaintiff securing a settlement in the amount of $750,000.00 to compensate for future loss of earning capacity and plaintiff’s pain and suffering.

In a confidential settlement, the DLP law firm secured an award of $540,000 for a victim in a vicious dog bite attack. Personal injury Attorney David Smacchi was the handling attorney for the dog bite victim.

Katherine was an extremely independent individual, even though she was now 77 years old. Katherine enjoyed her privacy and lived in her own small house. Every Saturday, she would go to the grocery store where she would shop. While it took her a little longer to do things, she was in good physical shape and was able to take care of herself.

Katherine had just finished her shopping at a local Hamlin market and was heading home. Upon arriving at her driveway, she slowed down and turned the wheel to go into her garage, which opened automatically. Suddenly, and without explanation, Katherine’s Toyota Camry started to accelerate, despite the fact that Katherine was not even pushing down on the gas pedal. Katherine tried to apply the brakes as hard as she could, but to no avail, and the car crashed inside her garage.

Fortunately, Katherine’s injuries were minor, but the damage to both her car and her garage were quite extensive. Katherine’s children were upset and believed that their mother should no longer be entrusted with driving a motor vehicle. Her children simply did not believe that the car took off on its own, despite Katherine’s insistence otherwise.

Katherine sought the assistance of an attorney and, after a close inspection of the vehicle by a mechanical automotive expert; it became clear that there was a defect in the acceleration mechanism of the car, causing it to accelerate unexpectedly.

Issue: Does Katherine have any cause for a legal action against the manufacturer of the vehicle?

Answer: Yes. All car manufacturers warrant that when their vehicles are used in the correct manner, that they are safe and road worthy. In this particular case, Katherine was in no way at fault. But for the mechanical defect in the car, the accident never would have happened. The manufacturer will be responsible for the property damage to both Katherine’s vehicle and to her home as well. Katherine will also, of course, and equally important, get an apology from her children. Katherine will be able to maintain her independence and continue to be a safe driver as she had always been.

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.

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.

As President of the Minooka Neighborhood Association, personal injury Attorney John Finnerty of DLP Law has been working with the City of Scranton in designing and implementing over $100,000 in repairs and improvements to the Billy Barrett Playground.

The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court has addressed the issue of what constitutes an “abnormal working condition” for the purposes of establishing a work related mental injury. In McLaurin v. W.C.A.B. (SEPTA), the claimant was a SEPTA bus driver with a set route in West Philadelphia. One day, several hooded young men entered his bus without paying their fares. At the end of the bus route, one of these men approached McLaurin and pulled a gun. McLaurin pleaded with the gunman, who eventually put away his weapon and got off the bus. McLaurin then drove to the bus depot and told his supervisor what had happened. He was unable to work the next day nor any other days after that. He then filed a claim petition seeking workers compensation benefits alleging that he suffered work-related post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, and angina as a result of the bus incident. The Commonwealth Court has held that Mr. McLaurin did not experience an “abnormal working condition” which he would need to establish to meet his burden of proof in establishing a psychiatric injury. The Court noted that the record contained substantial evidence which showed that life-threatening situations had occurred to its employees “with sufficient frequency that methods of dealing with dangerous passengers were built into employees’ training, and that the bus driver could have thus anticipated his assault”.