Philadelphia Police Misconduct Lawyers: $40 Million in Settlements

By ,

SPG

Over the last four years, police misconduct lawsuits within Philadelphia have spiked. Over 600 cases have been settled, resulting in close to $40 million in payments. According to MuckRock, an organization which helps individuals in filing governmental requests for information through the Freedom of Information Act, the largest settlements have involved police related shootings. Compared to other major cities such as San Francisco and Austin, Philadelphia has settled five times as many Police misconduct cases. Most common were cases involving assault and excessive force. Shooting related cases lead to the bulk share of the dollars settled; over $14 million dollars have been paid out to these victims and their families.

The biggest specific payout involved a shooting where police thought a man was intruding a building in which he lived. The family settled for $ 2.5 million dollars. Settlements continue to increase as the year progresses. In a highly controversial case in 1999 which involved the shooting and death of a male individual, the case was settled for $ 712,000 dollars. Recently in February a case was settled for $200,000 involving a man who was brutally beaten by police prior to his arrest which was also not warranted. The man broke his orbital bone, had lacerations on his face and was bleeding badly. Video surveillance displayed evidence that thus man was falsely arrested.

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

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: Copyright Claims and Unauthorized Copying of Copyrights

By ,

SPG

In order to have a claim for copyright infringement, the plaintiff must show: (1) that they have a valid copyright and (2) that the original elements of their work were copied, without their authorization. To file a claim under the Federal Copyright Act, federal registration must first be acquired.  A plaintiff can satisfy the first element, a valid copyright, by showing that the work is original and that they are the author of the work or by producing their federal copyright certificate if they already federally registered their copyright.

Unauthorized copying can be shown with direct evidence of copying or indirect evidence of copying.  When using indirect evidence of copying the plaintiff must show that the defendant had access to the plaintiff’s work and that the works are substantially similar.  Substantial similarity may be shown by lay witness testimony or expert witness testimony.  Additionally, the aspects of the works that are substantially similar must be protectable elements of the work.  The author’s express of their idea is protectable but the actual idea or theme itself is not protectable.

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

Philadelphia Medical Malpractice Laywers: Crozer-Chester Hospital Found Liable For Negligent Treatment

By ,

SPG

A jury found defendant doctor, Mohammed Budeir, and Crozer-Chester Medical Center negligent in treating plaintiff Bonnie Semple. Semple is now required to have a permanent tracheostomy tube. The jury awarded Semple $2.78 million.

Semple was admitted to Crozer-Chester Medical Center after a car accident, in which she was knocked unconscious and suffered abdominal bleeding, as well as blunt force trauma to her head. Semple was endotracheally intubated, and Budeir then performed a repair of liver lacerations. She remained intubated for several days, and an ear, nose and throat doctor found swelling in her airways. The doctor recommended she receive steroids for the next few days. Semple’s swelling continued despite the small doses of steroids Budeir gave her.

Semple was discharged in mid-April, but was readmitted to the hospital in May to treat a bacterial skin infection involving her chest wall and neck. Doctors found tissue swelling, multilevel airway collapse and obstruction, due to a misplaced tracheostomy. Semple underwent numerous additional surgeries in 2009 and 2011, including a reconstruction procedure that involved removing portions of Semple’s rib bones and cartilage to correct the error.

Semple argued the treatment caused her to need a permanent tracheostomy, a special valve to speak, limited activity, and the need to take extra precautions around water. She also noted her tracheostomy tube must be replaced every three months, and she must take medications to control her stomach acidity.

For more information or to discuss a possible claim of medical malpractice, call Philadelphia medical malpractice lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Philadelphia Trademark Lawyers: Under Armour Trademark Infringement

By ,

SPG

Athletic apparel giant, Under Armour, filed a trademark infringement and unfair competition lawsuit against Armor & Glory, LLC, a competitor athletic apparel company. In the lawsuit, Under Armour claimed that Armor & Glory’s products and promotions were similar to Under Armour, and that the two brands could be mistaken for one another.

The lawsuit specifically states that the Armor & Glory logo could “dilute the distinctiveness” of the famous Under Armour logo. The company filed the complaint in the U.S. District Court in Baltimore, seeking damages and requesting that the court prevent further use of the Armor & Glory name.  The case has not yet been decided.

Philadelphia Trademark Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Represent Victims of Trademark Infringement

Philadelphia trademark lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. are extremely knowledgeable in all aspects of trademark law, including trademark infringement. To schedule a consultation with one of our experienced trademark lawyers, call us at 215-574-0600 or submit an online contact form. We serve clients throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers: Medical Leave

By ,

SPG

Employers have a duty to inform workers about Medical Leave request’s deficiencies.

The Third Circuit (PA, NJ, and DE) recently ruled that Employers cannot deny a request for medical leave under FMLA if the request is not complete or insufficient to be reviewed. Instead, the employer has a duty to inform the employee their request is insufficient and give them the chance to correct it.  In Hansler v. Lehigh Valley Hosp. Network, No. 14-1772, 2015 WL 4925819 (3d Cir. Aug. 19, 2015) the Third Circuit ruled that the employee’s FMLA request was “insufficient” and she should have gotten the chance to fix the request within seven (7) days. Instead the employer simply denied the request with no further review into the request, and never gave notice to the employee until her termination for taking time off for her undiagnosed medical condition.

The regulations surrounding these type of requests never allow for a request to be incomplete, essentially meaning there is no official request by the employee until there is a completed submitted request. This ruling protects employees who are facing a potentially new and undiagnosed condition, or anyone who does not submit a completed form. This ruling offers increases employers’ duties in regards to improper leave requests.

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

Philadelphia Overtime Lawyers: The Fair Labor Standards Act

By ,

SPG

The Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) was enacted in 1938 in an effort to regulate the work environment.  The FLSA requires employers to pay employees for all hours worked.  Additionally, if an employee works in excess of forty hours in a workweek, the FLSA requires the employer to pay the employee a rate of at least one and a half times the employee’s regular rate of pay.  However, the FLSA does not apply to all employees; some employees are exempt.  Many states, including Pennsylvania, have laws which parallel the FLSA.

In order to calculate the correct amount of hours an employee worked, it is important to determine what activities constitute “work” and when the workday starts.  This is of particular importance for employees who: work from home, travel, are required to wear protective equipment or clothing, or need to take preliminary steps so that they can perform their job. Employers who violate the FLSA can be liable for damages for unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys fees and costs, and criminal penalties.

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

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: Internet Harassment and Defamation

By ,

SPG

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act

Under both statutory and judge made law, a person cannot be held liable for posting on the Internet a hyperlink to, or repeating a quote authored by another person that was published on a website, regardless of the content; and the immunity from defamation claims afforded such users of the Internet is absolute.  See Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 230.

In Barrett v. Rosenthal, 40 Cal. 4th 33 (2006), the Court ruled that a user of interactive computer services was immune from defamation liability for posting information passed to her by a third-party publisher. In Barrett, Plaintiff sued Defendant for republishing what she considered was a defamatory email onto a third party website. The Supreme Court held that Defendant was a “user” as defined by the Communications Decency Act, and therefore did not re-publish content for the purposes of bringing a defamation claim. Rather, the Supreme Court told Plaintiff that she would have to sue the originator of the defamatory Internet publication.

Further, “subjecting Internet service providers and users to defamation liability [for third-party published content] would tend to chill online speech”. ); Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327, 331–33 (4th Cir. 1997).

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

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers: Unemployment Compensation

By ,

SPG

Necessitous and Compelling Cause to Leave Job

In WFG National Title Insurance Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, NO. 1268 C.D. 2014, a recent unemployment compensation (“UC”) case, the Commonwealth Court held that an employee had a “necessitous and compelling” cause to voluntarily quit his job due to a substantial and unilateral change to his pay and performance goals.

In WFG National Title Insurance Co., the employee was reassigned to a new supervisor and soon after, filed a complaint with human resources about his former supervisor. Soon after an investigation that ended with no disciplinary for the former supervisor, Employee’s new supervisor changed the way his bonuses would be calculated and set “unachievable expectations.” These changes significantly decreased Employee’s annual pay. Employee then quit his job, and filed for unemployment compensation benefits due to what he believed was retaliatory actions. In upholding the decision, the Court explains that a necessary cause to quit one’s job can exist when the employer has made an unreasonable change and that a considerable reduction in pay occurs.

It is important to note, that the court discussed how fast these actions occurred after the complaint, which signals that time is an important factor in determining if an employee has a cause of action. In WFG National Title Insurance Co., all of these actions occurred within a four (4) week time span.

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

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: Piercing the Corporate Veil

By ,

SPG

In Pennsylvania, a corporation is considered a distinct entity from its shareholders.  Under certain circumstances a court will pierce the corporate veil of a corporation and hold the shareholders personally liable for the corporation’s debts.  A strong presumption against piercing the corporate veil exists in Pennsylvania. However, in limited circumstances the court will allow it.

In Lumax Industries, Inc. v. Aultman, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court articulated factors to consider when determining whether to pierce the corporate veil.  The court should consider whether the corporation is undercapitalized, whether it adheres to the corporate formalities or not, whether substantial commingling of corporate and personal affairs is occurring, and whether the corporation is being used to commit a fraud.  In such circumstances the court may, as a matter of equity, pierce the corporate veil and hold the corporation’s shareholders personally liable for the corporate debt at issue.  However, the party seeking to have the corporate veil pierced has the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that the veil should be pierced.

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

Delaware County Physician Negligence Results in Paralysis, Other Physical Ailments

By ,

SPG

On August 7, 2015 a jury on found in plaintiff’s favor and against two of the doctors who treated him. The jury has awarded $12.5 million to plaintiff Kenneth Del Grosso who is paralyzed following an alleged delayed diagnosis of a cervical abscess. Del Grosso said he received negligent care, causing his paralysis of the arms and legs, as well as other damages.

Del Grosso arrived at the emergency room with symptoms of left-sided neck pain and tingling in his left arm, according to a pretrial memorandum for the plaintiffs. He was kept at the hospital overnight, where his symptoms worsened and he developed a fever.

Infectious-disease specialist Bonnie Rabinowitch evaluated Del Grosso and found symptoms of a cervical epidural abscess and ordered an MRI. Radiologist Ben-Zion Friedman interpreted the MRI and declared there was no abscess or epidural collection. Del Grosso underwent emergency surgery on a deep cervical abscess the next day, after Rabinowitch expressed ongoing concerns about spinal cord compression. Del Grosso became paralyzed in the arms and legs, and lost bowel, bladder and sexual function.

If you or a loved one has been injured as a result of a medical mistake, contact Philadelphia medical malpractice lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.