Monday, January 30, 2017

Another Court Applies Collateral Source Rule to Attempted References to Affordable Care Act in Civil Litigation Matters

In a recent decision out of the Western District Federal Court of Pennsylvania in the case of Welker v. Carnevale, No. 3:14-cv-149 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 13, 2017 Gibson, J.) (Mem. Op.), the court granted a Plaintiff’s Motion to Preclude the defense from presenting expert opinions and calculations based upon the Affordable Care Act with respect to the Plaintiff’s alleged damages for future life care cost.  

The Plaintiffs, relying upon several decisions from the state and federal courts, asserted that evidence of coverage under the Affordable Care Act is barred by the collateral source rule.  

The defense argued that the collateral source rule is inapplicable to the Affordable Care Act and that the decision cited by the Plaintiff was not binding upon this court.   The Welker court noted that while, to date, Pennsylvania Supreme Court has not weighed on this particular issues, several other courts upheld that calculations related to the Affordable Care Act are barred by the collateral source rule under Pennsylvania law.  The Welker court cited with a “see” signal the cases of Bernheisel v. Mikaya, No. 3:13-cv-01496, 216 W.L. 4211897 (M.D.  Pa. 2016); Cordes v. United States, No. 2:13-cv-547, 215 W.L. 10986360 (W.D. Pa. 2015); Deeds v. Univ. of Pennsylvania Medical Center, 110 A.3d 1009, 1013, reargument denied (2015) appeal dismissed sub. nom.  Deeds ex rel. Renzulli v. University of Pennsylvania Medical Center, 128 A.3d 764 (Pa. Super. 2015).  

While the Welker court agreed that none of these cases were binding upon it, nor was the issue discussed in any great detail in any of those opinions, the Welker court still found the decision to be instructive and was not persuaded that these decisions were wrongly decided.   

In a footnote, the Welker court also noted that the decisions issued in the above cited cases were issued prior to recent political events “which cast the long-turn existence of the ACA into doubt.   The case for excluding calculations based upon the ACA is only stronger now.”  

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  

I send thanks to Attorney Scott Cooper of the Harrisburg office of Schmidt Kramer for sending this case to my attention. 



Pennsylvania Superior Court Addresses Post-Tincher Issues

In its recent post-Tincher decision in the case of High v. Pennsy Supply, Inc., No. 411 MDA 2016 (Pa. Super. Jan. 13, 2017 Ford Elliot, P.J.E., Shogan, J., and Stevens, P.J.E.) (Op. by Stevens, P.J.E.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court addressed the Plaintiff’s claims that the trial court erred in refusing to allow a jury to decide as fact-finder whether wet concrete is a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the consumer pursuant to the standard set forth in Tincher v. Omega Flex, 104 A.3d 328 (Pa. 2014).   The High court reversed the trial court’s decision and remanded for further proceedings.  

As noted by Attorney James M. Beck, a member of the Philadelphia office of Reed Smith law firm and a writer of the excellent drug and device law blog, the court in this matter confirmed that Tincher “significantly altered the common law frame work for strict products liability claims in Pennsylvania.”  

Attorney Beck also noted that this court quoted Tincher’s description of the Azzarello standard as “confusing and impracticable, and in compatible with the basic principles of strict liability.”  

It was also noted that this decision confirmed that a jury should be the decider of the question of whether an alleged defect of a product is “unreasonably dangerous.”  In this regard, the Pennsylvania Superior Court in High stated that “whether a product is in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the consumer is a question of fact that should generally be reserved for the fact-finder.”  

Attorney Beck also noted that the High court’s decision is notable in its statement that the product risks in question is “unknowable” to the objective “average or ordinary consumer” is an essential element of the consumer expectation approach.   This, according to Beck, arguably supports not only the relevance of the state of art at issue, but also that it is a Plaintiff’s burden to prove these elements under the consumer expectation test.  

Attorney Beck also noted that this opinion supports the admissibility of industry standards and products liability cases in post-Tincher matters.   The High court stated in its Opinion that a product’s “compli[ance] with industrial ASTM standards” is an appropriate subject of expert testimony in a products case.  

I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck for bringing this case to my attention along with his analysis of the same.   Please be sure to check out his excellent DRUG AND DEVICE LAW BLOG.

The Majority Opinion of the Superior Court in High can be viewed online HERE.

Judge Shogan's Concurring and Dissenting Opinion can be viewed HERE.

To review the Tort Talk post on the trial court's decision in High and to access the trial court's opinion by a Link, click HERE.

Wednesday, January 25, 2017

Pennsylvania Superior Court Affirms Denial of Petition to Open Judgment of Non Pros

In the case of Intech Metals, Inc. v. Meyer, Wagner & Jacobs, No. 374 WDA 2016 (Pa. Super. Dec. 22, 2016 Bender, P.J.E., Ransom, J., Musmanno, J.) (Op. by Ransom, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court found that the trial court properly denied a Plaintiff’s Petition to Open a Judgment of Non Pros and properly entered the judgment of non pros.

The court's decision was based, in part, on the fact that the Plaintiff’s conceded that the docket was inactive from 2006 through 2012.   

The case before the court also showed that the Plaintiff failed to take any proactive role in moving the case forward, which deprived the Defendants of the opportunity to depose and cross-examine essential witnesses prior to their death.  

This matter arose out of litigation between investors and shareholders of a company under claims of professional negligence.   

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this latest Opinion from the appellate court regarding the entry of a judgment of non pros and a denial of Petition to Open for lack of activity may click this LINK.

Source of image:

Monday, January 23, 2017

Intoxication Evidence Ruled Inadmissible By Superior Court

In its recent decision in the case of Rohe v. Vinson, No. 2264 MDA 2015 (Pa. Super. Dec. 28, 2016 Gantman, J., Panella, J. and Jenkins, S.J.), (Op. by Gantman, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled that a Plaintiff in a motorcycle accident case was prejudiced by the trial court’s admission of evidence of the Plaintiff’s alcohol consumption as there were no signs that the Plaintiff was intoxicated at the time of the crash.  

The Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed a Bradford Court of Common Pleas senior judge’s decision to admit into evidence the Plaintiff’s BAC and the fact that the Plaintiff had consumed beers at several different locations on the day of the accident.   The jury in the trial had returned a defense verdict and the Plaintiff appealed.  

On appeal, the Superior Court held that the evidence presented failed to establish a degree of intoxication reasonably demonstrating the Plaintiff’s unfitness to drive even though the Plaintiff admitted to drinking alcohol on the day of the accident.  

The court also noted that the Defendant’s toxicologist expert found that the Plaintiff’s BAC obtained at the hospital within two (2) hours of the crash, was 0.0706%, which was below Pennsylvania’s legal limit.  

The appellate court ruled that, to admit the Plaintiff’s BAC results in this case require additional evidence of conduct of the Plaintiff to suggest intoxication.   The court noted that the Defendant’s toxicologist’s expert’s testimony interpreting the effects of alcohol upon a person with the type of low BAC that the Plaintiff exhibited could not, on its own, constitute the required ‘other’ evidence, where the Plaintiff’s BAC at the time of the blood being drawn was below the legal limit.  

The court also noted that the defense’s expert's opinion that the Plaintiff’s BAC was higher than 0.0706% at the time of the accident and was on the decline by the time he had the blood drawn could not be considered that ‘other’ evidence of the Plaintiff’s intoxication under the facts presented in this case.   The court found that the defense expert’s “relation back” testimony was too speculative and highly prejudicial, particularly where the Plaintiff’s BAC at the time of the blood draw was below the statutory limit and where there was no other objective evidence that the Plaintiff was unfit to drive at the time of the accident.  

As additional support for its decision, the court also noted that there was evidence that the Plaintiff spoke with numerous people following the accident and that none of those witnesses indicated that the Plaintiff displayed any of the classic signs of intoxication.  

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision  may click this LINK..

Source: “Court: Evidence of Plaintiff’s Drinking Inadmissible in Crash Case” by  Zack Needles of the Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Jan. 10, 2017).

To view other prior Tort Talk Blog posts on the issue of the admissibility of intoxication evidence in a civil litigation matter, click HERE 

Friday, January 20, 2017

Judge Gartley of Luzerne County Addresses Service of Process Issues

In her recent decision in the case of Nicholas v. Zolner, No. 2013-CV-9828 (C.P. Luz. Co. Dec. 29, 2016 Gartley, J.), Judge Tina Polachek Gartley of the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas issued a Pa. R.A.P. 1925 Opinion in support of her previous Order sustaining the Defendant’s Preliminary Objections which asserted that the Plaintiff’s case should be dismissed for failing to serve the Defendant with original process.  

The court sustained the Defendant’s Preliminary Objections after finding that the Plaintiff failed to file the Writ of Summons upon the Defendant as required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and Lamp v. Heyman, 366 A.2d 882 (Pa. 1976) and its progeny. 

The Plaintiff filed an appeal from that decision and Judge Gartley issued this Pa. R.A.P 1925 Opinion to outline her reasoning to the Pennsylvania Superior Court.  In her Opinion, Judge Gartley provides a detailed analysis of the rules surrounding proper service of process.  

Judge Tina Polachek Gartley
Luzerne County
The court not only found that the Plaintiff failed to complete service but also rejected the Plaintiff’s argument that the party Defendant was put on notice of the lawsuit because the Plaintiff was in contact with the Defendant’s insurance company prior to the lawsuit being filed.    

Judge Gartley noted that the Superior Court has held that notice to an insurance company or its attorney of the filing of a lawsuit is insufficient to toll the statute of limitations when there has been no good faith effort to serve the actual Defendants.  

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

The prevailing defense attorney in this matter was Attorney Stephen T. Kopko of the Foley, Comerford & Cummins insurance defense law firm in Scranton, Pennsylvania.  

Wednesday, January 18, 2017

Judge Terrence R. Nealon of Lackawanna County Addresses "No-Duty Rule"

In his recent decision in the case of Barrett v. Chervanka, No. 14-CV-5175 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Dec. 8, 2016 Nealon, J.), Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas denied a Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment based upon the “no-duty rule” and the alleged actions of any duty on the part of the Defendant bowling lane operator.  

According to the Opinion, a minor Plaintiff’s injury allegedly resulted from a minor Defendant’s release of her bowling ball from the runway approach alignment dots, located twelve (12) feet before the prescribed foul line and the Defendant’s failure to observe the minor Plaintiff who was positioned at the foul line as the minor Defendant was releasing his bowling ball. 

Judge Nealon noted that, under the “no-duty” rule, the operator of an amusement facilities owes no duty of care to protect its business invitees against risks that are common, frequent, expected, and inherent in the amusement activity.   Here, the court found that, although the sport of bowling involves certain apparent risks, the minor Defendant’s conduct and its associated hazards were not found to be common, frequent, and expected risk that are inherent in bowling.   Accordingly, the court found that the bowling lane operator had not established that the “no-duty” rule bars the Plaintiff’s claims.  Consequently, the court denied the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

Monday, January 16, 2017

Judge James M. Munley of Federal Middle District Court Addresses UIM Statute of Limitations

In the case of Legos v. Travelers Cas. Co. of Conn., 3:16-cv-1917 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 19, 2016 Munley, J.), Judge James M. Munley addressed the issue of the statute of limitations in a UIM case.

According to the Opinion, the third party case Release was signed in March 2012.  The settlement monies were received by the Plaintiff in April 2012. 

The Plaintiff’s UIM suit was filed in April 2016. 

The insurance company argued that the statute of limitation expired because the UIM claim had to be filed within 4 years of the date of the Release. 

The insured asserted that the statute of limitations was met because suit was filed within 4 years of when the settlement monies were received. 

Judge Munley ruled that issues of fact remained about when the insured recognized the third party was an underinsured motorist.  As such, the carrier’s motion to dismiss was denied.

Anyone wishing to review this Opinion may click this LINK.

I send thanks to Attorney Scott Cooper of the Schmidt Kramer law firm in Harrisburg, PA for bringing this case to my attention.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Agrees to Address Important UM/UIM Statute of Limitations Issue

In a recent Order, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed to consider the issue of whether an unopposed demand for arbitration is enough to toll the statute of limitations for bringing an uninsured motorist claim that is subject to mandatory arbitration, or does a petition need to be filed with the Court to protect the statute.  

This Order was handed down in the case of Erie Insurance Exchange v. Bristol, No. 439 MAL 2016 (Pa. Dec. 29, 2016).  

The Pennsylvania Superior Court previously ruled in this matter that the statute of limitations on an uninsured motorist claim had not been tolled despite the parties corresponding about the mandatory arbitration and even selecting arbitrators.   The Superior Court's decision upheld the trial court’s ruling from the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, which had granted summary judgment in favor of the UM carrier.  

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this Supreme Court Order may click this LINK.

Source: “Supreme Court to Mull UM Arbitration Preservation”  By:  Max Mitchell of the Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Jan. 10, 2017).  

Eastern District Federal Court Denies Motion to Sever and Stay Bad Faith Claims in Post-Koken Matter

In the case of Zinno v. GEICO¸ No. 16-792 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 21, 2016 Baylson, J.), the court denied the carrier’s Motion to Bifurcate the breach of contract and bad faith claims in this UIM case. The court also denied the carrier’s Motion for a Stay of the discovery on the bad faith side of the claim.  

The court denied the motion after finding that factors pertaining to the convenient to the parties, avoidance of prejudice, or efficiency did not warrant the bifurcation of the two (2) claims or the request for a stay of discovery.   

Anyone wishing to review this decision, may click this LINK.

I send thanks to Attorney Lee Applebaum of the law firm of Fineman Krekstein & Harris for bringing this case to my attention through his Pennsylvania and New Jersey Insurance Bad Faith Case Law blog.  

Thursday, January 12, 2017

Judge Minora of Lackawanna County Addresses Requests for Multiple Out-of-Town IMEs

In his recent Opinion and Order in the case of Christian v. Weis Markets, Inc., No. 2015-CV-4288 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Dec. 8, 2016 Minora, J.), Judge Carmen D. Minora of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas denied a Defendant’s Motion to Compel a Plaintiff to undergo two (2) independent medical examinations by two (2) separate orthopedic surgeons, one a hand specialist and the other a sports medicine specialist.   Both of the IME doctors were located outside of Philadelphia and this matter involved a Lackawanna County litigation.  

In his Opinion, Judge Minora emphasized that Pa. R.C.P. 4010(a)(2), which rule pertains to “Physical and Mental Examination of Persons,” provides for “a,” meaning one, physical exam.  The court did also note that Pa. R.C.P. 4012 may provide more flexibility to the court and allow for discretion to order additional examinations where appropriate.  

But multiple IMEs were not found to be warranted in this case. In somewhat colorful language, Judge Minora noted that “[a]n injured Plaintiff is not a piƱata to be poked and prodded until the candy comes out.”  

Overall, the court found that commonsense, judicial economy, and the minimization of cost and expenses, and the protection of a Plaintiff’s right to privacy and vision by Pa. R.C.P. 4010(a) compelled the court to allow the defense only one (1) comprehensive omnibus independent medical examination to address all of the Plaintiff’s alleged injuries flowing from all of her parts of anatomy.   The court further indicated that the defense could select a doctor from either Lackawanna or Luzerne County to perform the examination.  

 Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


I send thanks to Attorney Scott Cooper of the Harrisburg, Pennsylvania law firm of Smith Kramer for bringing this decision to my attention.  

Make Choices to Make 2017 a Less Stressful Year

Here is a LINK to a blog post entitled "7 Ways Lawyers Can Handle Stress and Avoid Attorney Burnout" from the Legal Productivity Blog.

The post provides some good tips for keeping it all in balance--make time for exercise, close your eyes, clear your mind and meditate for a few minutes everyday, meet with friends for lunch.

Getting up off your butt more often is also recommended.  An easy way to do this is to stand up whenever you are talking on the phone at your desk.

Another good tip is to get rid of, or decline, troublesome clients--they are not worth the stress they cause and, in most cases, are never satisfied in any event.  To the extent you can't follow this advice, make a point to stand your ground and demand the respect (and payment) you are entitled to from the client.

Also, the post recommends making sure you don't skimp on vacation time.  We at the beginning of the year now--look at your calendar and plan those 2017 vacations or long weekends now while the calendar is a clean slate.

The post also recommends shifting your focus on the practice of law.  Think back to why you wanted to become a lawyer and feed off of that in your practice going forward

Tuesday, January 10, 2017

Motion to Sever and Stay Post-Koken Bad Faith Claim Denied in Northumberland County

In what may be the first decision of its kind out of Northumberland County, Judge Hugh A. Jones denied a UIM carrier's Motion to Sever and Stay a Bad Faith claim in the case of Kerchoff v. Donegal Ins. Group, No. 16-CV-1266 (C.P. Northumberland Jan. 4, 2017 Jones, J.).

This Post-Koken matter involved bad faith and breach of contract UIM claims asserted following a motor vehicle accident.

Attorney Valeen Hykes of the Frackville, PA law firm of Michael J. O'Connor & Associates, LLC was the primary attorney for the Plaintiff in this matter.  I send thanks to Attorney David A. Miller of the same firm for bringing this decision to my attention.

Anyone wishing to review this Order only may click this LINK.

Preclusion of Conclusory Expert Opinion Leads to Summary Judgment in Products Case

In the case of Nobles v. Staples, Inc., 2016 Pa. Super. 240 (Pa. Super. Nov. 8, 2016 Solano, Bowes, Ott, J.J.) (Op. by Solano, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the entry of summary judgment in a products liability case based, in part, on the exclusion of expert testimony offered by the plaintiff.

Here, the court agreed that the product defect opinion offered by the plaintiff’s expert was entirely conclusory.   According to the record before the court, the expert merely looked at the picture and did not examine either the product at issue that allegedly failed, or any exemplar product.   No defect, other than the fact that the product allegedly broke, was identified by the expert.  

The court ruled that an argument that a product broke and, therefore, must be defective, is improper res ipsa loquitur  evidence dressed up as an expert opinion.   The court ruled that, without any proper expert report, the mere breaking of a product was not established to be a malfunction that could support a malfunction theory of liability.  

The court also noted that the exclusion of any expert testimony on any alleged defect warranted the dismissal of the action.  

Anyone wishing to review this decision may click HERE.

I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention. 

Thursday, January 5, 2017

Summary Judgment Granted Under Hills and Ridges Doctrine

In the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas case of Creoruska v. Burger King, No. 1880 EDA 2016 (C.P. Phila. Co. Aug. 15, 2016 Anders J.), the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of a property owner after finding that the owner is not liable for a slip and fall that occurred on newly fallen snow and ice.   The court ruled that liability was precluded under an application of the Hills and Ridges Doctrine.  

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff alleged that, when she arrived at a Burger King restaurant, it had begun to snow but accumulation was very light.  By the time the Plaintiff left the restaurant, the snow had accumulated several inches.  As the Plaintiff was walking through the snow to her car in the parking lot, the Plaintiff fell near the curb between the sidewalk and the lot.  

The court ruled that, under the Hills and Ridges Doctrine, the property owner was not liable for slip and fall accidents caused by the accumulation of snow and ice creating generally slippery conditions, unless the owner had unreasonably permitted the snow and ice to accumulate into “hills and ridges” that created a substantial obstacle to travel.  

Here, there was no testimony of any hills and ridges in the parking lot because the snow was still falling at the time of the incident and had only accumulated a few inches.  

The court also ruled that the Defendant was entitled to summary judgment because, even if there were hills and ridges creating an obstacle to her path, Plaintiff could still not identify what caused her to fall.   The court felt that allowing the case to proceed would invite the jury to impermissibly speculate as to the cause of the Plaintiff’s fall.  

The trial court also ruled that the third party snow removal contractor’s snow removal contract did not impose liability upon that Defendant despite the Hills and Ridges Doctrine.  

The court distinguished this matter from cases where the liability was imposed upon a snow removal contractor because the contract mandated treatment prior to the snow fall.  

Here, there was no contractual duty upon the snow removal contractor to undertake any pre-treatment measures prior to the snowfall.  Rather, the contract only called for the contractor to remove snow after it had fallen.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may contact me at 


Source:  “Digest of Recent Opinions.”  Pennsylvania Law Weekly (December 6, 2016)

Wednesday, January 4, 2017

Judge Nealon of Lackawanna County Addresses Expert Witness Issues In Med Mal Case

In the case of Grizzanti v. Chiavacci, et al., No. 2011 - CV - 5649 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Jan. 3, 2017   Nealon, J.), Judge Terrence R. Nealon addressed several pre-trial issues in a medical malpractice case arising out of the allege failure of the defendant physicians to properly treat vascular injuries allegedly related to the plaintiff's fractured leg.

On one issue, the court found that the qualifications of vascular surgeon were sufficient to allow that expert of the Plaintiff address the standard of care applicable to an orthopedic surgeon pursuant Section 512(e) of the MCARE Act in this case where it was asserted that vascular surgery and orthopedic surgery were related fields of medicine with respect to the type of injury alleged.

The court also found that the Plaintiff could present both a vascular expert and an orthopedic expert as witness at trial as their testimonies were deemed to be corroborative as opposed to needlessly cumulative expert testimony where each expert would approach the issues presented from the viewpoint of their own specialties.

Judge Nealon also ruled that the requirement under Pa. R.C.P. 4003.5(c) for the production of pre-trial expert reports was applicable only to expert opinion developed or acquired in anticipation of litigation or trial, and inapplicable to the Plaintiff's treating physician's opinions formulated prior to the filing of suit.

As such, the defense motions in limine were denied,

Anyone wishing to review this Grizzanti Opinion issued by Judge Nealon may click this LINK.

Check Out These Law Practice Management Blogs

With a fresh New Year upon us, you might be looking for tips on improving the business side of your practice of law.

Here is a LINK to a Top 10 List of Blogs on Running a Law Firm put out by the Legal Productivity Blog.

Of the blogs listed on that Top 10 List, I have checked out and liked the following to the point that I subscribed by email to their continuing updates:

-Attorney At Work Blog

-Divorce Discourse Blog (not about divorce...just written by a divorce lawyer)

-Lawyerist Blog

-My Shingle Blog

-Solo Practice University Blog

Monday, January 2, 2017

Tort Talk as a Research Tool

Most Tort Talkers receive their Tort Talk info by way of email. If you are not already an email subscriber to Tort Talk and would like to become one (it's FREE!), please go to Tort Talk at and insert your email address into the Email Subscription box in the upper right hand corner of the blog and follow the instructions to complete the process.

Once you are up and running, you will automatically receive the updated posts added to Tort Talk (1-3 per week) on notable cases and trends in Pennsylvania Civil Litigation Law.

If you have ever had the situation where you thought "I know I've seen a recent case on Tort Talk on this issue," this blog post is for you.

Tort Talk is not only a way to get updates on new cases and trends, it can also serve to kickstart your research if you actually go to the Tort Talk site at On the site itself there are a number of research tools to help you find the case(s) or article(s) you are looking for.

Note that Tort Talk is NOT an exhaustive legal research site--you should always supplement your research on your issue presented elsewhere to ensure that you have a thorough review of the area of law in question.  Also, any case you find should be Shepardized to see if there has been any more recent, adverse rulings.

Here are the Tools available on Tort Talk:

Search This Blog Box

The "Search This Blog" Box in the upper right hand column of the site allows readers to type in search terms or key words to look for posts on that particular topic. By typing in your search term in the white box (delay damages, limited tort, slip and fall, or a case name, etc.), you will be sent to a page that will list each Tort Talk post that covers that topic. You can then click on each post that comes up to read further.

Post-Koken Scorecard

You can always access the Post-Koken Scorecard to check on the status of decisions in your county on Post-Koken issues by looking and scrolling down the far right hand column of the blog and clicking on the date under the Label "Post-Koken Scorecard."

Facebook Discovery Scorecard

You can always access the Facebook Discovery Scorecard to check on the status of Pennsylvania decisions on Facebook Discovery issues by looking and scrolling down the far right hand column of the blog and clicking on the date under the Label "Facebook Discovery Scorecard."


Also further down on the right hand column of the blog is a section called "Labels," which is another tool that you can use to find cases or articles on a specific topic.  The topics, or Labels, are listed in alphabetical order.  By clicking on the Label that's specific to your research ("Bad Faith," "Limited Tort," "Future Medical Expenses," etc.) you will be sent to a page that list each and every Tort Talk post that touches upon that topic. You can then click on each blog post title to read further.

My Published Articles

Down in the middle of the right hand column of the blog is also a box under the Label "My Published Articles" in which are listed some of the most recently published articles of mine that have been posted online at the website. If you are looking for older articles you can always click on the JDSupra box to go to that site where a full listing of the articles can be accessed and searched.

I note that the Pennsylvania Law Weekly does not allow me to post my articles on the JDSupra site as that site is considered a competitor. However, I am permitted to post my Law Weekly articles on Tort Talk which I have done since I started the blog. You can find those articles by typing in key words or terms into the Search this Blog box. Please also feel free to email me directly for a copy of any of my articles that you may be looking for(


Last but certainly not least, down on the right hand column is a list of "Links" I have created to other sites, including my Firm's website and other online professional profiles that I have created along with links to some other legal and non-legal-related websites that may be of interest.

Thanks again for reading Tort Talk and thanks to all who have provided tips on breaking news and cases of note. I am grateful for your interest and support.  Please feel free to send me a copy of any notable decisions you may generate in your practice for possible highlighting here on Tort Talk.

If I should be able to you help out in any way, please do not hesitate to contact me at