Philadelphia Injury Lawyer Blog

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 " »