Philadelphia Injury Lawyer Blog

The purpose of this post from our Philadelphia employment discrimination lawyers is to inform, advise and reassure you, our potential client at Pomerantz Perlberger & Lewis. In EMPLOYMENT, it is illegal to discriminate on the bases of race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, age over 40, sex, sexual orientation, disability, marital status or gender identity. Most importantly and for the most part not as well known, retaliation for asserting your rights because you have been a victim of discrimination is illegal. You will need a Philadelphia injury attorney experienced in employment retaliation lawsuits.

Despite the massive amount of information on the web many individuals who have employment issues are confused as to just what can be done to protect his or her rights. Too often, I receive calls from discriminated individuals who have lost their rights because of their fear of retaliation from an employer who violated their Title VII rights.

Fact: If you file a claim through our firm’s auspices and your employer fires you because you have sought legal advice and representation, whether your concerns of discrimination were correct or not you, are protected and have legal recourse.

Employment discrimination law traditionally had been employer-oriented. Simply put, without an employer no jobs would exist and society law has a vested interest in protecting and promoting the interests of the employer.

I can't tell any of you reading this blog how many times over the last 20 years I have had to tell emotionally upset male and female workers (more often sensitive females) that the boss can be a bastard so long as he is a bastard to everyone equally. Should they be able to get away with that behavior? Well they can to a point.

What can you do to get out of this situation? Primarily a sensible alternative is to look for a new position but in this economy prospects are slim, "a bird in hand is worth two in the bush" is a maxim that in these economic times will serve one well to consider.

There is a short-term remedy that can be taken by you if it's just a matter of time until you find other employment. Filing with either the Philadelphia Commission On Human Relations, The Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, before any action is taken against you if you feel that your job is threatened. Should there be any RETALIATION for your action of protecting your rights you will have one of the very best discrimination actions available.

Continue reading "PHILADELPHA AND PENNSYLVANIA EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION VICTIMS COULD ALSO HAVE A RIGHT TO SUE FOR RETALIATION " »

The Philadelphia employment discrimination lawyers at Pomerantz Perlberger & Lewis thought it important to share the following important information.

The Philadelphia Commission On Human Relations has published a revolutionary document known as the “Gender Identity Guide”. It can be downloaded and reviewed by going to: http://www.phila.gov/humanrelations/pdfs/Gender_Identity.PDF. In short, a person’s gender expression or identity, which runs afoul of the way management stereotypes its employees, may be discriminatory and actionable – i.e., any adverse action against the employee (e.g., termination, harassment, creation of a hostile work environment and failure to accommodate reasonable needs, including bathroom facilities).

Coupled with the recent legal reinterpretation and qualification of protected Title VII rights relating to gender stereotyping discrimination, it is easy to predict that a whole body of law will emerge in the employment discrimination area. One such case, Prowel v. Wise Business Forms, Inc. (discussed below), already sheds light on the sweeping scope of this cause of action.

In Prowel (No. 07-3997), decided on August 28, 2009, the Third Circuit reversed a district court's granting of summary judgment in favor of an employer on a claim of gender stereotyping discrimination. The claim was brought by an admittedly homosexual employee who alleged he was subject to gender discrimination, retaliation because of his effeminate actions and mannerisms. The Third Circuit stated:

"…every case of sexual orientation discrimination cannot translate into a triable case of gender stereotyping discrimination, which would contradict Congress’s decision not to make sexual orientation discrimination cognizable under Title VII. Nevertheless, as long as the employee — regardless of his or her sexual orientation — marshals sufficient evidence such that a reasonable jury could conclude that harassment or discrimination occurred “because of sex,” the case is not appropriate for summary judgment."

Interpretation of the Gender Identity Guide by the Philadelphia gender discrimination attorneys in our firm lead us to believe that the future will be a slippery slope for those employers who will be displaying conservative emotional responses to those employees who do not appear or act in their stereotypical gender roles.

Continue reading "PHILADELPHIA OPENS UP NEW HORIZONS FOR DISCRIMINATION ACTIONS" »

If you are suffering from severe pain and ongoing disability after surgery, you may need to consult with a Philadelphia injury attorney who is experienced in medical malpractice litigation even while you are still seeking to determine whether you have an injury as a result of the surgery. This is an underlying message in the February 2009 decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Wilson v. Samir El-Daief M.D., 964 A.2d 354 (Pa. 2009). This case demonstrates that Pennsylvania's "discovery rule" presents a complex obstacle course that may trip up even the most diligent patient.

Mary Wilson suffered from constant persistent excruciating pain after her hand surgery and within several weeks her hand contracted into a fist, her right elbow bent inward and her right shoulder drew upward. Despite 20 appointments with her surgeon and his consultant there was no diagnosis given to her that let her know her problems were from a medical mistake that happened during her surgery. Indeed the two doctors did not believe her serious pain and disabling injuries were related to her surgery, so how could she have? When she finally lost confidence in her doctor and sought a third opinion, it was more than two years from the surgery. Exploratory surgery then revealed that her radial nerve had been lacerated. Despite filing suit seven months after this discovery, her case was dismissed by the trial court and the first level appellate court based on the two year statute of limitations. The Supreme Court allowed her appeal and while the opinion reinstated her lawsuit, it was with the burden of proving to the jury that for less than two years before the suit was filed, she did not have either actual or constructive knowledge that she was injured and that the injury was from her surgery, despite using reasonable diligence to find out.

While her suit is "still breathing", proving medical malpractice in a court room is hard enough without the extra burden of proving that the statute of limitations hadn't run before suit was filed. The Supreme Court in footnote 21 in Wilson gives good advice to avoid such a situation. "...this Court has stressed that the timely pursuit of legal representation may be necessary...It is certainly possible that discussions with an attorney may expedite medical diagnosis, since attorneys have access to litigation resources and can supply advice concerning what measures (such as exploratory surgery) will best maximize an injured person's chance of recovery." The dissent which would have allowed the suit as a matter of law, pointed out in footnote 2 that your doctor's self preservation instincts may overcome their duty to you saying: "While it is not in the record, as a matter of common sense, we can divine that Dr. Nutt was appreciative of Dr. El-Daief's referral of this as well as other patients, and was not about to jeopardize the referral relationship by explaining to appellant that Dr. El-Daief's malpractice was the cause of her difficulties."

Continue reading "CONSULT YOUR PHILADELPHIA INJURY LAWYER AS WELL AS YOUR DOCTOR IS THE 2009 LESSON FROM THE PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME COURT IN WILSON V. SAMIR EL-DAIEF" »

The Philadelphia nursing home injury attorneys at Pomerantz Perlberger & Lewis have recently settled two nursing home fracture cases. Both nursing home residents were paraplegic and unable to turn over by themselves in bed let alone walk or transfer by themselves. When they suffered fractures, suspicion arose that the nurses and aides caring for them must have been responsible.

Our attorneys obtained the necessary records by starting suit and doing careful and persistent discovery. We pieced together what actually happened. Nursing Home Resident #1 suffered a fractured knee cap when she fell to floor while being transferred by Hoyer Lift by one nurse’s aide when correct protocol demanded that all transfers be done with the assistance of two of the nursing home staff. The head nurse and aide denied that she fell and tried to cover up the incident. Proof was found in a video that showed only one aide entering the room prior to Resident #1 coming out of the room by wheelchair and by our client’s telling her story that day to a social worker who heard her crying out in pain.

In addition to her knee fracture this poor woman also suffered a Stage IV bed sore. By careful analysis of both the nursing home’s records and inpatient hospital records over a year’s time, an experienced Philadelphia injury attorney in our firm was able to demonstrate that the decubitus ulcer was allowed to go from Stage II to a chronic infected Stage IV ulcer without proper preventative treatment such as regular repositioning and special bedding. The case settled for well over $100,000 despite the fact that Resident#1 suffered from chronic pain unrelated to her knee fracture and bed sore.

Resident #2 suffered a fractured hip, needing open reduction internal fixation with a rod when she fell out of bed when being turned for bed bathing. Again there was only one aide when there should have been two, one on each side of the bed. The bed rail failed to lock and our poor client was pushed off the side of the bed. She remained on the floor with a broken hip for over an hour before adequate help arrived. Again careful examination of records showed that this was not the first time the bed rail had gone down unexpectedly. The case settled for close to six figures.

Continue reading "PHILADELPHIA NURSING HOME INJURIES – FRACTURES" »

In what will be viewed by Philadelphia area medical malpractice lawyers as a welcome or dreaded decision, depending on whether the reader is a Philadelphia injury attorney for the plaintiff or for the defense, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has clarified who can testify as an expert on causation in nursing home and hospital negligence cases.

In a 4-2 majority opinion, the Court in Freed v. Geisinger Medical Center and Healthsouth Corp., made it clear that the strict standards for expert testimony in a professional malpractice case under the MCare Act apply only when opinions are rendered against physicians.

In Freed, the majority written by Justice Debra Todd held that a person “need only possess greater expertise within the ordinary range of training, knowledge, intelligence, or experience” to qualify as an expert witness. Therefore, a nurse could offer her opinion that the care rendered by nurses was negligent, as it fell below the standard of care in the nursing profession AND that the negligent nursing care was the cause of injury and harm to the plaintiff.

In so ruling, the High Court expressly overruled the 1997 case of Flanagan v. Labe that had precluded such testimony as allegedly violative of the intent of the Legislature in promulgating the nursing licensing statute. This precedent was argued to be necessary in order to follow the dictates of the MCARE Act. Justice Todd declared that the express limitations of the MCARE Act had to be strictly construed and, since its language was limited to liability against physicians, it could not be extended to nurses in a case involving nursing care. Nevertheless, in a footnote Justice Todd emphasized that the current decision did not permit a nurse to act as an expert witness in medical professional liability cases against physicians.

This is an important case and will hopefully instruct the Bench and Bar on who may as an expert witness in a professional liability case and the strict construction that must be applied to the limitations imposed by the MCare Act in medical malpractice cases brought in Philadelphia and throughout Pennsylvania against physicians.

The Philadelphia injury lawyers at Pomerantz Perlberger & Lewis have been handling medical malpractice cases for decades and are here to evaluate your potential cases with free consultations, make an experienced review of appropriate records and secure appropriate expert witnesses to help you win your case throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

Filing of Philadelphia medical malpractice lawsuits has decreased 54% according to a recent report from the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts. While this at first glance might appear worrisome, it has a silver lining, if you or someone you know has a med mal claim. One, since insurance rates for doctors are not rising due to this drop in filings, there is less likelihood that any cap will be placed on pain and suffering awards in Pennsylvania. Two, the claims that are being brought have the imprimatur of Certificates of Merit and will be considered more carefully as being valid claims by defendants. Still to warrant filing suit it is probably necessary that the victim of the malpractice has suffered either a permanent injury or death.

Lawyers are right to carefully examine claims for medical negligence. The cost of bringing such claims is very high, with the need for expert reports and testimony. If you bring your claim to the experienced Philadelphia medical malpractice attorneys at Pomerantz Perlberger & Lewis, you can be assured that it will be carefully investigated and if accepted vigorously and competently litigated and if necessary tried before a jury.

Our Pennsylvania medical negligence lawyers have achieved multi-million dollar verdicts. We have recently settled a medical malpractice case for one of our clients for more than $2 million dollars. Be assured that while the number of cases filed has gone down, good cases as determined by an experienced Philadelphia injury lawyer can both be settled and won in court.

Continue reading "PHILADELPHIA MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ATTORNEYS FILING FEWER LAWSUITS" »

For decades, Pennsylvania product injury lawyers have had to deal with confusing law about who can recover for injuries when a product causes injury due to defective design. Because the appellate courts have been restrictively vague, our Philadelphia and other Delaware Valley clients who were injured by products, such as bicycles, helicopters, automobiles, machinery and equipment, or consumer goods, had to resort to negligence theories with foreseeable zones of danger unless they were the actual purchasers.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled yesterday (4/21/09) in Berrier v. Simplicity Manufacturing that bystanders could recover under strict products liability theory and that it was error for the trial court to grant summary judgment because the injured plaintiff was not the intended user or purchaser. There was a genuine issue of fact over whether an alternative design would have prevented the injuries. In that case, a four-year old was injured when a lawn mower operated by her grandfather, went over her foot which was eventually amputated. The lawn tractor’s design was claimed to be defective and was unreasonably dangerous.

By so ruling, the Third Circuit predicted that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, as other states had done, would adopt section 2 of the Restatement (Third) of Torts, replacing the old 402A standard, extending strict liability to the manufacturer or distributor of a defectively-designed product to any foreseeable person, not just the purchaser or ultimate user.

This decision is good news! The Philadelphia product liability attorneys at Pomerantz Perlberger & Lewis have successfully handled hundreds of design and manufacturing defect cases, both under negligence and products liability claims. Our lawyers have fought for the rights of injured plaintiffs and welcome this fair and long overdue decision making it clear that a bystander or any foreseeable person should be able to recover for his or her injuries.

Continue reading "PA. PRODUCT LIABILITY INJURY LAW - GOOD NEWS FOR INJURED BYSTANDERS" »

Women diagnosed with Osteoporosis in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and throughout the United States must become aware of dangers of long term Fosamax use. Fosamax is a bisphosphonate drug made by Merck that is used in the treatment of Osteoporosis. The problem is that long term use, four years or more, especially when taken by women who are also on hormone replacement therapy is causing osteonecrosis leading to serious femur fractures.

The Philadelphia product liability and drug injury attorneys at Pomerantz, Perlberger & Lewis LLP are currently bringing suit against Merck for a woman who now is confined to a wheel chair in a nursing home due to a series of femur (thigh bone) fractures that could not be adequately repaired. Once an active “young for her age” vibrant woman, our client now suffers from chronic pain and disability.

It is believed that long term use of Fosamax causes a loss of blood flow to the bone, leading to death or necrosis of the bone tissue and consequently fractures. This was first discovered in cancer patients undergoing dental procedures who suffered jaw fractures. However there are now numerous cases of femur fractures occurring when there was no accident. In the case of our plaintiff, she was simply standing when her leg collapsed. It is ironic that a drug touted to strengthen bone will weaken one of the thickest and strongest bones in our bodies causing collapse.

Continue reading "Philadelphia Drug Injury Attorney Update - Femur Fractures From Long Term Fosamax Use" »

People in Philadelphia and everyone injured by the use of a drug in the Delaware Valley where Pomerantz Perlberger & Lewis LLP practice regularly should know of the decision by the Supreme Court of the United States decided yesterday.

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court rejected the drug industry's attempt in the case of Wyeth v. Levine to limit the rights of plaintiffs to bring products liabilty against drug manufacturers and suppliers. Wyeth wanted the courts to rule that, because the FDA approves a drug and its warning labels, state law was pre-empted (impotent and powerless) to allow claims for injuries suffered by use of the drug. If successful, it would have made it impossible to sue for damages caused by a defective drug or inadequate warnings. The drug industry was optimistic it would win because the Supreme Court had already ruled that FDA approval of a medical device prevented lawsuits claiming injuries from a defectively designed device or the warnings accompanying it (Riegel v. Medtronics).

Laws have gradually moved over the last few decades from a tendency to protect consumers to a protection of big business. Defendants have relentlessly whittled away at the rights given consumers in the '60s and '70s. But now -- surprisingly and most satisfyingly, the Supreme Court has said "NO" to big business! The lawyers at Pomerantz Perlberger & Lewis have had broad experience over decades representing plaintiffs injured by defective products and inadequate warnings. We are happy that the door has not been closed upon you!

A twelve person jury in the U.S District Court in Philadelphia on January 16, 2009 awarded $2.5 Million to Mr. Jerry Kurchner against Temple University Hospital and the operating surgeon, Dr. Harbison arising from their medical malpractice that led to the death of Mr. Kurchner's seventy-four year old wife.

Mrs. Kurchner underwent an elective laparoscopic hernia repair. Unfortunately, Dr. Harbison perforated her bowel during the April 29, 2004 surgery. The defendant admitted on cross-examination that he elected not to re-examine the bowel at the end of the operation. Both the plaintiff and defense experts agreed that the failure to re-examine was a breach in the standard of care. After the procedure into the weekend when Dr. Harbison was away, the doctors at the hospital failed to properly interpret her clinical signs & symptoms, and her lab results. The two bowel perforations were only found four days later – when fecal material poured out of the laparoscopic port sites on May 4, 2004. By that time all attempts to save her life would prove unsuccessful. She still suffered for eight months from the devastating sepsis and other complications from her consequent fecal peritonitis.

The case tried by Pomerantz Perlberger & Lewis' lead counsel, Norman Perlberger with assistance by his partner, Eliot H. Lewis lasted five days. After the jury's decision on February 3, 2009, Judge Rufe molded the verdict to include delay damages. The verdict, expected to be appealed, now stands at $2,859,794.52..

To get help form an experienced Philadelphia injury attorney, call us today at 215-569-8866.

It was a warm night in Philadelphia outside a fraternity house on a university campus, when our client was approached by a group of youths looking to make trouble. Racial slurs, ethnic intimidation by a group of men from New Jersey, Abington and Northeast Philadelphia, was followed by an assault and battery by just one of the youths. It left our client lying on the sidewalk bleeding and psychologically scarred.

This was a case that no Philadelphia lawyers were interested in because normally criminal behavior is uninsurable in Pennsylvania, New Jersey or anywhere else, for that matter. The assailant and his buddies were students of adult age with no independent assets of their own. Proving that our client had been a victim of an assault and battery would have been easy. A verdict would be won in the Philadelphia Courts against the hitter but recovering a single penny or any sufficient amount more than the medical bills would leave the injured young man little hope that any Philly lawyer would take on such a case without being handsomely paid in advance to pursue such litigation without much hope of a financial recovery.

The lawyers at Pomerantz, Perlberger and Lewis, however, came up with a novel legal approach when they sued for NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF MENTAL DISTRESS. The theory was that the men who had been part of the intimidation but had not struck a single blow were negligent in standing around and intimidating the victim and by participating had negligently influenced the assaulter by participating in the intimidation.

By suing on a theory of negligence against the group members other than the assaulter, the rarely pursued homeowners’ insurance coverage of the negligent, non assaulting conspirators was able to be invoked. This enabled the Philadelphia injury lawyers at Pomerantz Perlberger & Lewis to secure a six figure out-of-court settlement.

Starting in 1990, because of a personal interest in bicycling, members of the firm entered into a partnership with legendary bicycle tandem master builder, Steve Bilenky of Philadelphia. At the time, although our firm had been involved in product injury cases in the Delaware Valley, we had never litigated a bicycle defect injury case.

A number of well known Philadelphia firms had already begun to refer cases to our firm and it was our association with Bilenky Cycle Works that caused another well known Philadelphia firm to refer us a case that they thought had problems, but hoped that we could find a theory to successfully challenge the giant corporations who manufactured and distributed the bike responsible for the serious injuries of the plaintiff.

As a rider myself and a mechanically- inclined enthusiast, I saw immediately that the pulley braking system used by the manufacturer was an accident waiting to happen. Consultation with Bilenky confirmed that my assessment was correct.

At the time of this incident, Shimano Industries of Japan had never lost a case in court and refused to offer a single dime when confronted with the evidence and expert advice and reports that we had generated with consult from other experts. To prepare for trial, in addition to Bilenky, our firm engaged a metallurgist from Delaware County, a design engineer from Oregon, also a bicyclist and a judge on the bicycling racing circuit. A fourth expert was found in California who was a consultant to bicycle manufacturers throughout the United States and who had seen the same design defect and brake failure on the West Coast.

All of this worked out as our firm tried the case before a jury and obtained $13.5 Million, which was then the largest verdict in a products liability case in Pennsylvania.

The relationship with the Philadelphia manufacturing operation of Bilenky Cycle Works continues today. If you need help contact one of our Philadelphia accident lawyers and he will be happy to assist you in evaluating your potential case.