Philadelphia Medical Malpractice Lawyers: Statute of Limitations in Survival Actions

By ,

SPG

Pennsylvania Supreme Court to Review Statute of Limitations in Survival Actions

On June 7, 2016, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed to review the Superior Court’s expansion of the statute of limitations applicable to survival actions in medical malpractice cases.

In Dubose v. Quinlan, the Superior Court affirmed judgments entered in a wrongful-death and survival action brought by the administrator of the estate of Elise Dubose. Dubose died while in the care of Willowcrest Nursing Home, after developing severe pressure ulcers that were left untreated.  During her stay at Willowcrest, Mrs. Dubose was malnourished, suffered severe dehydration, pain from bed sores, bone infection, and developed sepsis systemic infection that ultimately lead to organ failure and death in October of 2007. The jury found in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $125,000 on the Wrongful Death Claim and $1,000,000 on the Survival Action.

The defendants argued on appeal that they were entitled to a judgment notwithstanding the verdict because the Survival Action exceeded the two-year statute of limitations, pursuant to the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error (“MCARE) Act. Defendants argued that the statute of limitations began to run in 2005, when Dubose developed the first pressure wound. The plaintiff filed two complaints in August 2009 and September 2009, so therefore the claim would have been barred. However, the Superior Court disagreed, ruling that the statute began to run at the time of death, in October of 2007. Believing that the approach the Superior Court took was far too literal, the defendants then filed a Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court, claiming that the expansion of the statute of limitations was improper.

If the Supreme Court affirms the decision, it would open up more litigation in the medical malpractice field. A plaintiff could bring a survival action suit for an injury caused by another person’s negligence if there were complications that resulted in death, regardless of how many years are between the injury and death.

For more information, call our Philadelphia medical malpractice lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers: Employment Protections to Medical Marijuana in Pennsylvania

By ,

SPG

On May 17, 2016, the new Medical Marijuana Act (MMA) took effect, making Pennsylvania the 24th state to legalize medical marijuana, and contains several significant employment related provisions. The Act states that “no employer may discharge, threaten, refuse to hire or otherwise discriminate or retaliate against an employee regarding an employee’s compensation, terms, conditions, location of privileges solely on the basis of such employee’s status as an individual who is certified to use medical marijuana.” (Emphasis added). Furthermore, the Act states that it does not require an employer to make any accommodation of the use of medical marijuana on the premises of any place of employment. Employers can still discipline employees who are under the influence of medical marijuana at the workplace when the employee’s conduct falls below the standard of care normally accepted for that position. These employment provisions raise questions on how courts will determine what “falling below the standard of care” for that position.

Employers who adhere to a zero tolerance policy and/or an anti-discrimination policy may need to modify them accordingly. The Act strictly limits the list of medical conditions in which medical marijuana is legally permissible, and smoking medical marijuana is still prohibited; the drug can only be dispensed as pills, oil, creams, liquids, and forms that can be vaporized.

For more information, call our Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

 

 

 

 

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: Lawsuit Alleges Defamatory Billboard

By ,

SPG

Defamation is when an individual makes a defamatory statement about another person that damages that person’s reputation. Libel and slander are both types of defamation, with libel involving a written statement, and slander involving a verbal statement. Defamation, libel, and slander are all relevant issues in business law.

A group of prominent judges, attorneys, and businessmen in Hillsborough County, New Hampshire recently filed a civil lawsuit against mortgage broker Michael Gill, who is running for Governor of New Hampshire, and demanded that he take down an allegedly defamatory billboard that explicitly refers to the professionals as drug dealers and extortionists.

The three men filed a lawsuit against Gill for libel and defamation. The lawsuit alleges that Gill made defamatory statements against the men on a large electronic sign outside Gill’s business, The Mortgage Specialists. The men allege that he has been posting these defamatory signs for years. The signs have drawn public criticism in the area for their use of vulgar language. Further, the men allege that Gill defamed them on the radio and over social media. Gill posts the details of his allegations of corruption on his website, and also purchases radio time for a regularly scheduled radio call-in program where he discusses corruption. The most recently noted sign refers to plaintiffs as “drug dealers” and accuses another of extortion.

Gill has often publicly accused a plaintiff of being arrested years ago for possession of cocaine, citing what he claims is the arrest number for the charge. The plaintiff has maintained that the number cited by Gill comes from 1987, and there is no record of any arrest or conviction. He said he is not sure what the purported arrest number signifies or corresponds to.

A superior court judge was scheduled to hear arguments requesting an injunction to remove the sign and order that Gill cease making defamatory statements while the suit is pending.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Seek Justice for Victims of Libel and Defamation

If someone has made harmful, defamatory statements against you or your business, contact the experienced Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green. With offices conveniently located in Philadelphia, we represent clients throughout Southeastern Pennsylvania and South Jersey. Call us at 215-574-0600 or contact us online today.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers: Wal-Mart Retaliation Case

By ,

SPG

Third Circuit Affirms Award of Attorneys’ Fees in Wal-Mart Retaliation Case

A plaintiff does not have to prevail on all of his claims in order to be awarded attorneys’ fees. In Boles v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., the Third Circuit affirmed an award of attorneys’ fees to a plaintiff who succeeded on only one of his claims. No. 15-3128, 2016 WL 2990406 (3d Cir. May 24, 2016). Barry Boles was an employee of Wal-Mart who took unpaid medical leave for several months. Id. at *1. Upon being cleared by his doctor, Boles received a termination letter dated one day after he attempted to come back to work. Id. at *2.

Boles filed a complaint against Wal-Mart alleging retaliation and failure to accommodate based on Wal-Mart’s refusal to grant extended leave in violation of New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination. Id. Boles’ retaliation claim was successful and the District Court granted his motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. Id. On appeal, Wal-Mart argued that the award of attorneys’ fees should be reduced because Boles only succeeded on one of his claims. Id. at *4. The Third Circuit affirmed the awards of attorneys’ fees because Boles’ claims revolved around the same events, witnesses, and facts, and the work of his attorneys’ could not be separated out by claim. Id. It also affirmed the award because Boles achieved overall success due to being awarded back pay, emotional distress damages, and punitive damages. Id.

For more information, call our Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: Arbitration Decision

By ,

SPG

Arbitration Decision from 7th Circuit Leaves Split Among Appellate Courts

In a recent decision, the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a health care software company was in violation of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) when it required its employees to waive their rights to pursue wage-and-hour claims in class actions. In the case, Lewis v. Epic Systems Corp., Lewis brought a claim in federal court against his employer, Epic Systems, asserting they had violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by depriving him and a few fellow employees of overtime pay. No. 15-2997, 2016 WL 3029464 (7th Cir. May 26, 2016). Epic Systems moved to dismiss the claim and compel individual arbitration, in light of an arbitration clause requiring groups of employees to bring any wage-and-hour claims against the company only through individual arbitration and prohibiting collective arbitration or class action. Id.  Lewis claimed the arbitration clause was unenforceable because it violated Section 7 of the NLRA, which states that “employees shall have the right to… engage in…concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.” 29 U.S.C. § 157. Epic Systems contended that the clause was enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). Id. Both the district court and the 7th Circuit agreed with Lewis. Id.

This decision directly opposes a decision from the 5th Circuit, leaving a split among the appellate courts and increasing the possibility that the Supreme Court will take up the issue. In 2013, the 5th Circuit overturned a National Labor Relations Board decision in D.R. Horton, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., and allowed employers to have these mandatory individual arbitration agreements under the FAA. 737 F.3d 344 (5th Cir. 2013). This split in decisions will leave a lot of uncertainty, and possibly more lawsuits, for employers not in those circuits who have or want to enforce arbitration agreements and class-action waivers.

For more information, call our Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers: Filing Period for Constructive Discharge

By ,

SPG

Filing Period Begins to Run at the Time of Resignation

On May 23, 2016, the Supreme Court decided that for a former employee to bring a constructive discharge claim, the filing period to do so begins once the employee gives his/her resignation notice. In Green v. Brennan, No. 14-613, 2016 WL 2945236 (U.S. May 23, 2016), the plaintiff applied for a promotion, but did not receive the position after being with the USPS since 1983. Id. at *3. Soon after the denial, the plaintiff filed a complaint alleging he was denied the promotion because of his race. Id. After the complaint, the plaintiff alleged he was receiving retaliatory treatment from his supervisors, and even accused of delaying the mail, a criminal offense. Id. The plaintiff was investigated for this criminal offense by the Postal Service’s Office of the Inspector General, and ultimately signed an agreement with the USPO. Id. That agreement gave the plaintiff the choice between retiring early or moving to a new location over 100 miles away for a much lower salary, and in return the USPO would not pursue criminal charges. Id. After deciding to resign, the plaintiff contacted an Equal Employment Opportunity counselor to report his complaint 41 days after handing in his resignation paperwork, but 96 days after signing the agreement to resign. Id.

Title VII required a federal employee to consult an EEO counselor within 45 days of the matter alleged to be discriminatory, and this case would then turn based on when the filing time period begins. The Court held that the 45-day clock for a federal employee’s constructive discharge claim begins running once the employee resigns, and more specifically in this case would begin when the employee gave the postal Service his notice of resignation. Id. at *1. The Court came to this conclusion after explaining there must first be a “complete and present cause of action”, and until the employee resigns, there is not a “complete and present cause of action” for constructive discharge. Id.

For more information, call our Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers: FLSA Salary Threshold Raised

By ,

SPG

Beginning December 1, 2016, approximately 4 million Americans will qualify for overtime pay under new rules from the U.S. Department of Labor under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). Currently, the “white collar” exemption under FLSA for overtime pay requires that employees: (1) be paid on a salary basis, receiving a predetermined and fixed salary that is not subject to reduction because of variations in the quality or quantity of work performed (“salary basis test”); (2) be paid more than a specified salary threshold of $23,660, or $455 a week (“salary level test”); and (3) primarily perform certain executive, administrative, or professional duties as specified in DOL regulations (“duties test”). Now, rule changes influenced by the Obama administration are altering part (2) to increase the salary threshold to $47,476 or $913 a week, but are leaving parts (1) and (3) undisturbed.

The threshold will be automatically updated every three years to keep salaries in line with inflation. Starting in 2020, the threshold will be increased to match the 40th percentile of full-time salaried workers in the lowest-wage Census area, which in this case is currently the South. The Department of Labor estimates that in 2020, the salary threshold will increase to approximately $51,000 a year.

For more information, call our Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: Viacom Lawsuit

By ,

SPG

A battle has ensued over the future of Viacom, a $40 billion media empire founded and controlled by Sumner M. Redstone in 1987. Mr. Redstone recently turned 93 years old. His daughter, Ms. Shari Redstone, who was long estranged from her father, has now reconciled with him. As a result, Directors from Viacom allege that they have been pushed aside, and are challenging his mental capacity in court. The directors claim that Ms. Redstone is orchestrating an unlawful corporate takeover, and that she is manipulating her father to change the terms of the trust that control his companies. In response, Mr. Redstone’s legal team has asked the court to confirm the changes that he has made to the trust.

The claim alleges that things came to a head when Mr. Redstone suddenly and unexpectedly removed directors from the trust who were set to gain control over all of his companies, including Viacom. The directors immediately sought to block the moves on grounds that Mr. Redstone suffers from profound physical and mental illness, and is subject to the undue influence of his daughter. They further claim that the new arrangement tips the balance of power to her, giving her great control over the companies should Mr. Redstone pass away or become incapacitated.

According to Mr. Redstone’s legal team, there is no evidence to support these allegations, and he has been clear and unequivocal that the plaintiffs should be removed as trustees. The judge agreed, but did not rule on Mr. Redstone’s competency.

The plaintiffs assert that Mr. Redstone has not appeared in public for nearly a year, and can no longer stand, walk, read, write or speak coherently. They also claim that he requires a feeding tube to eat and drink, and his saliva must be manually suctioned around the clock to prevent breathing complications.

The lawsuit further alleges that Mr. Redstone’s daughter made changes to her father’s last will and testament. Allegedly, after years of estrangement, she has inserted herself into his home, and isolated him from everyone, including his business colleagues. The directors allege that these actions could have far-reaching negative consequences for thousands of Viacom’s shareholders and employees.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Provide Skilled Representation in Business Litigation

Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green have extensive experiencing litigating commercial disputes. To learn more about how we can leverage our experience to help you, call us at 215-574-0600 or contact us online today. With offices located in Philadelphia, we represent clients throughout Southeastern Pennsylvania and South Jersey.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers: Richmond Unpaid Overtime Lawsuit

By ,

SPG

Recently, 134 employees at Richmond, Virginia’s Department of Social Services have alleged that they were improperly denied overtime wages during the three years prior to June 2015. Richmond’s Mayor, Dwight C. Jones has asked the City Council to approve a $2.7 million settlement to resolve the lawsuit.

In their lawsuit, the government employees assert that they regularly worked more than 40 hours a week without overtime pay that they were entitled to receive under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Allegedly, they had excessive caseloads that required them to work during lunch, and also at home in the evenings and on weekends. They maintain that their managers told them that they needed to do whatever it took to get their jobs done. Their salaried positions were supposed to be scheduled for only 40 hours per week.

Even if the Richmond City Council approves the settlement, it is not clear how much money each of the effected employees would receive. As with most unpaid overtime lawsuits, some of the money would cover back wages, and some would cover penalties or damages, but it is not clear at this time how the award would be allocated.

Other similar lawsuits have plagued municipalities in the Richmond area. In 2012, Henrico County paid out $3.5 million to police officers who alleged that the county manipulated the way hours were recorded to avoid having to pay overtime. And in 2011, Richmond paid its own Police Department seven million dollars in a lawsuit over unpaid overtime.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Pursue Maximum Compensation for Employees Denied Overtime Pay

Unfortunately, unpaid overtime lawsuits are very common. Often, employers will manipulate time sheets or work schedules in order to avoid paying employees the time-and-a-half wages they are rightfully owed. If you suspect that your employer has wrongfully denied you overtime pay, Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green can help. To schedule a consultation, call us at 215-574-0600 or contact us online today. With offices located in Philadelphia, we fight for workers throughout Pennsylvania and South Jersey.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers: Uber’s Proposed Class-Action Settlement

By ,

SPG

A settlement is pending in the highly publicized Uber class-action lawsuit over whether the ride-sharing company has wrongly classified employees as independent contractors to avoid costs. The settlement is awaiting approval by a San Francisco federal judge and faces opposition from drivers and other parties who would be indirectly affected by the settlement.

Under the terms of the provisional settlement, Uber drivers would be awarded a $100 million payout. This number could be anywhere from $12 or upwards of several thousand dollars depending on how many miles driven for the company.

In addition, the deal contains a number of non-monetary provisions, such as an agreement to change the policy regarding driver termination, provision of an appeals process for terminated drivers, and an agreement that the company will notify drivers that they do not automatically receive tips from fares. Under the terms of the settlement, drivers will also be permitted to solicit tips. Also, the company has agreed to help the drivers form a union-like association. The settlement has many contingencies, for example, $16 million of the payout is dependent on the company’s future valuation increasing by 150 percent.

But the specific provision that has many concerned is a “sunset clause,” which would allow the non-monetary provisions of the deal to expire in two years unless Uber elects to keep them in place longer. This clause would allow Uber to simply back out of the deal if the proposed changes prove too costly or unwieldy for the company.

Uber drivers have also expressed concern that the settlement does not resolve the issue of whether the law requires that drivers be classified as employees. A settlement would give them little certainty about what the market for on-demand driving will offer in the future.

Another concern has been raised in a related class-action case against Uber where drivers have challenged the company’s use of credit reports during driver background checks. If accepted, the settlement would prohibit drivers from being able to continue participating in their case depending on their credit.

Uber has requested to omit details from the settlement that would allow drivers to evaluate the deal and give informed consent to the settlement, citing trade secrets that would damage the company if made public. In a similar lawsuit filed against Lyft, Uber’s chief competitor, a Federal District Court judge denied the company’s request to keep similar information secret. It is unclear if Uber’s request will result in the same outcome.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Provide Effective Representation in Class Action Lawsuits

The experienced Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green represent individuals in class action lawsuits against companies and organizations of all sizes. Class action lawsuits often start with just one person stepping forward. If you suspect that you may have a class action lawsuit, call us at 215-574-0600 or contact us online today. With offices conveniently located in Philadelphia, we represent clients throughout Pennsylvania and South Jersey.