ARTICLE: 5 Tips to Improve Your Chances for Success at a Mediation

The below article of mine was recently published in the Pennsylvania Law Weekly and is republished here with permission from the publisher.

5 Tips to Improve Your Chances for Success at a Mediation


By Daniel E. Cummins

The current trend in civil litigation matters, especially with more generous, headline grabbing jury verdicts coming down in the time since the pandemic, is that most cases are being resolved by way of nonbinding mediations. Experience shows that taking the following steps in advance of mediations and at mediations can improve one’s chances for a favorable settlement of a matter.

Trust Your Selected Mediator


Whether your mediator has a background as a plaintiff’s attorney or an insurance defense attorney, or both over the course of their career, every mediator worth their salt understands the need to approach a mediation from an entirely neutral perspective. It can be safely stated that most, if not all, mediators take pride in their ability to set aside any preconceived notions with respect to litigation matters and thereby offer the parties a balanced view of the pros and cons of the claims and defense presented.

And so once you have vetted and selected your mediator, you should trust your mediator to conduct a fair review of the file in order to assist all parties in working toward an amicable resolution of the matter.

Zoom Is Just as Effective


In the time since the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of remote meeting platforms, such as Zoom, has become the norm for mediations and arbitrations. Experience advises that virtual mediations are just as effective as mediations that are held in person.

The use of remote means to complete meditations also has the added benefit of reducing the stress on the parties involved. Plaintiffs still get to have their day in court but are able to do so from the comfort of their own home or their attorney’s office. Claims professionals participating remotely will have avoided the stress and expense attendant with being required to travel to be present at an in-person and may thereby be in a more comfortable frame of mind as the negotiations begin.

Whether a mediation is set to take place virtually or in person, the key to your success at a mediation, regardless of the format, is to be fully prepared to present your client’s case at the mediation.

Be Prepared


On the plaintiff’s side of a mediation, the day of the mediation is usually going to turn out to be that client’s one day in court. On the defense side, the mediation is a day for the carrier to try to close another file by way of a reasonable settlement and thereby save on further defense costs. As such, whether counsel is on the plaintiff’s side of the matter or the defense side of the matter, with the attorney serving as the mouthpiece for the client, the client deserves counsel that is fully prepared and knows the file inside and out.

Accordingly, in preparation for a mediation, counsel should expect that opposing counsel will be perusing every page of every document in the file in an effort to prepare for the meeting. As such, the file should be equally thoroughly reviewed on your own side as you never know what opposing counsel may find in the deepest corners of the file that could hurt your client’s case.

For example, a gold mine in this regard includes physical therapy notes in which there is typically a treasure trove of information that could help or hurt either side of the case. It also is advisable to peruse the transcripts of the depositions of the parties and witnesses completed in the case in order to be reminded of the overall tone of the case as you prepare to negotiate on behalf of your client at a mediation.

Perhaps one of the most important parts of preparing for a mediation is immersing oneself into the thought processes of opposing counsel in order to fully anticipate the arguments that opposing counsel will make to the mediator. What will opposing counsel’s arguments be on the liability issues? What will opposing counsel’s arguments be on the prior medical history or causation issues? What will opposing counsel argue relative to the type and extent of the injuries and economic damages alleged? Write down an outline of responses to each of these anticipated arguments so that you are prepared to quickly counter the anticipated arguments from the opposition.

Part of being fully prepared for a mediation should also include a conference with one’s own client or insurance company representative prior to the mediation in an effort to determine what expectations exist and, if necessary, to begin to temper or manage such expectations.

Fully preparing for the mediation will serve to avoid surprises for counsel or the client and may make the process move faster given that you will have all of the necessary information to negotiate at the forefront of your mind and at your fingertips.

Be Sure to Exchange Submissions With the Other Side


In addition to planning to draft a mediation memorandum that is concise and to the point, one should also plan to share that memorandum and the supporting exhibits with the other side. Nothing may further the chances for success at a mediation more than sharing one’s submissions with the other side and requesting that the information being exchanged be shared with the opposing party or the opposing insurance company in advance of the mediation.

It is always wise to draft a mediation memorandum that pointedly, but respectfully, emphasizes the weaknesses of your opponent’s case. Soften the harshness of the presentation of information that is detrimental to the other side by phrasing it in terms of the real world impact of that evidence by noting how a jury may react to that information when it comes out at trial.

To add to the credibility of your submissions, it may also be wise to suggest that you acknowledge and understand the issue with your own case while still attempting to minimize the importance of those difficulties.

The mediation memorandum should also outline the reasons that the opposing party should desire to have the case amicably resolved as opposed to litigated further or tried. Never hesitate to point out that a settlement will save time and expenses and will avoid the uncertainty of a jury verdict.

In terms of supporting exhibits, only provide the mediator with the most pertinent liability documents, photographs, medical records, and economic damages supports necessary to drive home the salient points of your case or defense. A documents dump of voluminous records will be frowned upon by the mediator and will only serve to increase the expenses of the mediation given the extra time it will take for the mediator to wade through the documentation. In this digital age of litigation, the symbolism attendant with a large binder of documents that a big binder equals a big case is no longer relevant.

An attorney’s credibility will be enhanced by that attorney taking the time to pinpoint the most relevant documentation to present to the mediator in advance of the mediation. Should there be additional, more detailed documentation you might wish to share with the mediator, you could always have that ready to show the mediator those documents at the mediation.

Also know and keep in mind that, given that the Rules of Civil Procedure pertaining to discovery are designed to provide for full disclosure and to prevent any surprises at trial, there will likely be no secrets on how you will likely present your case at trial by the time you get to a mediation. As such, there is really no reason not to share your mediation memorandum and supporting exhibits with the other side. As noted above, the sharing of your submissions with the other side will not only highlight to the other side the difficulties they may face with their case, but will also let the other side see and know that you are ready, willing, and able to go to bat for your own client at trial if it comes to that.

Certainly, if you are going to instead keep your mediation memorandum and exhibits confidential from the opposing side and only submit them to the mediator, be sure to give the other side the professional courtesy of a heads up in this regard before the other side submits their materials to the mediator. Otherwise, you could look petty, you may irk the opposing counsel and party, and you may cause the mediation to get off to a bad start by creating negative feelings which, in the end, could hurt or delay your client’s chances for a favorable outcome at the mediation.

Avoid Posturing for the Sake of Posturing


Posturing for the sake of posturing at a mediation is never advisable. Everyone involved in the proceedings can easily see posturing for what it is, i.e., the taking of a stance that bears no reasonable resemblance to a fair and practical evaluation of the case presented. The act of presenting an entirely unreasonable offer or demand at a mediation really serves no purpose and hurts the credibility of the attorney advancing such positions to the detriment of that attorney’s client or insurance carrier.

Knowing where your endgame may be in terms of a settlement figure, the better approach at a mediation is to make measured moves in the negotiations that signal a willingness to negotiate while still remaining firm on one’s belief as to the proper number for a settlement from the perspective of your client.

In the end, each side should work with the mediator in an effort to tap out the other side’s complete settlement authority and get to the number that perhaps no one is completely happy with but is more than content with to call it a day in order to avoid additional time-consuming and expensive litigation along with the uncertainty of a jury verdict.

Daniel E. Cummins is the managing attorney at Cummins Law where he focuses his practice on motor vehicle and trucking liability cases, products liability matters, and premises liability cases. He also serves as a mediator for the Federal Middle District Court and for Cummins Mediation in these types of cases. He is additionally the sole creator and writer of the Tort Talk Blog at www.TortTalkcom.


Reprinted with permission from the June 4, 2025 edition of the "The Pennsylvania Law Weekly © 2024 ALM Global Properties, LLC. All rights reserved. Further duplication without permission is prohibited, contact 877-256-2472 or asset-and-logo-licensing@alm.com.

Another Court Upholds The Validity of the Household Exclusion

In the case of Erie Insurance Exchange v. Kennedy, No. 10106 of 2024, C.A. (C.P. Lawr. Co. Jan. 27, 2025 Hodge, J.), the court granted a UIM carrier’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and confirmed that a Plaintiff was barred from recovering UIM benefits under the subject policy based upon an application of the household exclusion. In so ruling, the court relied upon the case of Erie Insurance Exchange v. Mione, 289 A.3d 524 (Pa. 2023).

According to the Opinion, two (2) individuals were killed in a motorcycle accident. The motorcycle was insured by Progressive Insurance. Progressive denied coverage for UIM benefits.

The decedents were also insured under a policy issued by Erie Insurance Exchange that had an exclusion for damages sustained by any insured who occupied a vehicle owned by the insured but which was not insured for UIM benefits under the Erie Insurance policy.

The court found that the facts of the case fell under the case of Erie Insurance Exchange v. Mione.

The trial court otherwise noted that the household vehicle exclusion is not enforceable if the insured is seeking to stack the UIM coverage in question with UIM proceeds from another policy in order to circumvent the household vehicle exclusion. Here, however, there was no stacking of UIM coverage involved in the case and the carrier was found to have properly denied UIM coverage under the household vehicle exclusion.

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

Source: The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert, www.Law.com (March 27, 2025).

Source of image:  Photo by Alex Dos Santos on www.pexels.com.

Case Dismissed Due To Lack of Timely Service of Process

In the case of Trinkle v. Herndon, No. 8078-CV-2023 (C.P. Monroe Co. March 25, 2025 Zulick, J.), the court sustained a Defendant’s Preliminary Objections regarding the Plaintiff’s failure to promptly serve a Writ of Summons in a motor vehicle accident case and thereby dismiss the case.

According to the Opinion, following the subject motor vehicle accident that occurred on December 3, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit on December 4, 2023.

The Monroe County Sheriff issued an Affidavit of Return showing that no personal service was made on the Defendant at his/her last known address, which service was attempted on December 28, 2023.

There was then no further docket activity until May 8, 2024 when the Court ordered the Plaintiff to file for special service on or before August 6, 2024 because the docket did not reflect an affidavit of successful service of process.

On September 10, 2024, the Plaintiff’s attorney filed a Praecipe to Reissue the Writ of Summons. The Defendant was served thereafter on September 24, 2024.

The Plaintiff then filed a Complaint on January 14, 2025. The Defendant responded with Preliminary Objections seeking to dismiss the action due to the statute of limitations.

In his Opinion, Judge Zulick provided a detailed review of the law of the statute of limitations and the law regarding proper and prompt service of original process.

The Court noted that the Plaintiff had filed a Writ of Summons on the day that the statute of limitations were set to expire on the end of that day. Looking at the record before it, the Court found that date Plaintiff had failed to demonstrate that a good faith effort was made to complete service.

Plaintiff’s counsel pointed to the fact that he was out of the office for a period of time during 2024 due to medical issues and he also sited an error made by his office staff who thought that the Sheriff’s Affidavit filed on December 28, 2023 showed that service had been completed.

The Court noted that, despite these statements, the Plaintiff was put on notice by the Court’s Case Management Order of May 8, 2024 which specifically advised that service was not complete. That Order also directed the Plaintiff to complete service or file a Motion for Special Service by August 6, 2024. According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff did not comply with those Orders and, as such, the Court found that the Plaintiff failed to prove that the Plaintiff acted diligently in attempting to complete service on the Defendant with notice of the lawsuit.

Consequently, the Court ruled that the case must be dismissed due to the bar of the statute of limitations.

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


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert, www.Law.com (May 14, 2025).

Source of image:  Photo by Pavel Danilyuk on www.pexels.com.

Summary Judgment Denied in Parking Lot Slip and Fall Case

In the case of Coolbaugh v. Sonesta Select Allentown Bethlehem Airport, No. 2023-C-1548 (C.P. Leh. Co. Nov. 13, 2024 Reichley, J.), the court denied a Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment in a case involving an alleged slip and fall in the Defendants’ parking lot.

In denying the motion, the court held that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding the application of the hills and ridges doctrine where a de-icing of the parking lot had occurred approximately twenty-four (24) hours before the Plaintiff’s accident.

According to the record before the court, there was evidence that the Plaintiff fell when temperatures were around freezing and where it had snowed three or four days earlier. The court noted that, where the evidence also indicated that the parking lot had been de-iced approximately twenty-four (24) hours before the Plaintiff’s accident, there was an issue of fact on whether the alleged accumulation of the ice upon which the Plaintiff had slipped was a natural accumulation or not.

Given these issues of fact, the court denied the Motion for Summary Judgment.

The court also denied the Motion for Summary Judgment on the basis of rejecting the Defendants’ argument that they had delegated the snow and ice removal duties to a third party under a contract. The court stated that the record was silent as to whether the moving Defendants had relinquished possession and control of the parking lot during or after the third party had performed snow removal services.

The court additionally noted that there were factual questions regarding the Defendants’ notice of the parking lot’s condition where snowy and ice conditions had been observed in the lot for days or weeks leading up to the Plaintiff’s accident.

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


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert, www.Law.com (April 30, 2025).

Source of image:  Photo by Wolfgang Lutzgendorf on www.pexels.com.

WARNING - NEW LAW - Put That Cell Phone Away While Driving or Face Getting Ticketed

While texting while driving has been banned in Pennsylvania since 2012, a new law that went into effect yesterday, June 5, 2025, bans all cell phone use while driving on the roads of Pennsylvania.

The law, known as “Paul Miller’s Law” (Senate Bill 37), makes it illegal to use a cell phone in your hands while driving. This includes holding your phone to do calls, emails, and texts. The law also prohibits having a cell phone in your hand for browsing the internet or for taking pictures or videos while you are driving.

The law prohibits these activities even when one is stopped at a red light or in a traffic jam.

Under the language of the law, it appears that an overhead bluetooth system can be used to make calls as long as one uses the buttons on the steering wheel and the dash and not by way of pushing buttons on the cell phone.

Under the law, for the first 12 months, the penalty will be a written warning. Starting June 5, 2026, the penalty will be a summary offense with a $50 fine, plus court costs and other fees. The violation carries no points against your license and it is not recorded on the driver’s record for noncommercial drivers. It will be recorded on a commercial driver’s record as a non-sanction violation.

Moreover, if a driver is convicted of both vehicular homicide and driving while distracted, they may be sentenced up to an additional five years in prison.

Under certain exceptions noted in the law, a driver may use a cell phone for emergency purposes. A driver may also use a mobile device if they pull off to the side of the road and stop where a vehicle may safely remain in a stopped position.

Here is a LINK to the summary of the law on PennDOT's website.

LACKAWANNA PRO BONO'S GOLF TOURNAMENT IS THIS UPCOMING MONDAY -- PLEASE REGISTER OR SPONSOR

 

MEDIATION SUCCESS TIP FROM CUMMINS MEDIATION

 

 TIP TO IMPROVE CHANCES 

FOR SUCCESS AT MEDIATION:

DON'T DO A DOCUMENTS DUMP ON YOUR MEDIATOR

TAKE THE TIME TO SELECT THE PERTINENT DOCUMENTS THAT PRESENT THE VALUE OF YOUR CASE IN COMPELLING FASHION

Claims of Fraudulent and Negligent Misrepresentations Asserted Against Dentist Who Claimed Treatments Were Perfect Dismissed

In the case of Marcus v. Hazzouri, No. 2023-CV-5092 (C.P. Lacka. Co. May 27, 2025 Nealon, J.), the court sustained certain Preliminary Objections filed by a Defendant in a dental malpractice case.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff sued her former dentist alleging malpractice and lack of informed consent related to the alleged negligent installation of contra indicated mini-implants that later had to be removed and replaced with conventional implants.

The Plaintiff alleged that the dentist falsely stated that the mini-implants and his dental treatments were “perfect” and “going smoothly.” Based on these allegations, the Plaintiff additionally asserted claims of fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation, as a result of which misrepresentations the Plaintiff was reportedly unable to discovery her injury or the dentist’s negligence until she consulted with and treated with a different dental practice.

The Defendant dentist filed a demurrer to the fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation causes of action on the basis that those claims were duplicative of the Plaintiff’s malpractice claims and informed consent claims and were also unsupported by claims of separate damages.

The court granted the demurrer and noted that the only consequence alleged by the Plaintiff relative to the dentist’s representation involved the Plaintiff’s inability to discovery that the implants had failed due to the dentist’s conduct until the Plaintiff sought and received treatment from another dental group. Accordingly, the court ruled that the Plaintiff’s fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation claims were dismissed as legally insufficient due to the absence of any resultant damages.

However, the court noted that the statements allegedly made by the dentist would remain relevant to the matter in terms of any statute of limitations determination under the discovery rule and the fraudulent concealment doctrine.

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

Source of image:  Photo by Enis Yavuz on www.unsplash.com.

Trial Court Addresses Use of Hearsay Evidence During a Medical Malpractice Trial

In the case of Koesterer v. Thomas Jeffersons Univ. Hosp., Feb. Term 2021, No. 01051 (C.P. Phila. Co. Feb. 13, 2025 Bright, J.), the trial court issued a Rule 1925 Opinion in a medical malpractice case and held, in part, that a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff should be affirmed given that the medical malpractice Defendant did not suffer any prejudice to the point of warranting a new trial where the Plaintiff’s attorney was permitted to briefly cross-examine a Defendant physician with the expert opinions of the Plaintiff’s non-testifying expert in violation of the hearsay rule.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff sued the medical Defendants for professional liability after the Plaintiff’s mother died allegedly as a result of a pulmonary embolism after hip surgery.

At trial, the Plaintiff’s attorney was permitted, over the Defendants’ hearsay objection, to cross-examine a Defendant doctor and the Defendant doctor’s expert with the expert opinions issued by one of the Plaintiff’s non-testifying expert.

In this regard, the trial court pointed out that, immediately before the questioning at issue, the Defendant physician testified that there was a disagreement in the field of medicine regarding the issues raised in the non-testifying expert’s opinion.

Accordingly, the court stated that, while the questioning from the Plaintiff’s attorney briefly drew in an outside hearsay opinion from a non-testifying expert, the trial court found that it was impossible to conclude that the momentary reference would have had an significant impact on the jury’s decision. 

The court also noted that this was essentially the only reference to the opinions of the Plaintiff’s non-testifying expert at trial. Accordingly, in this Rule 1925 Opinion, the trial court asserted that it did not err or abuse its discretion in denying the medical Defendants’ request for a new trial based upon the alleged prejudice in this regard.

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


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert, www.Law.com (April 30, 2025).

ARTICLE (REPRINT): A Mid-Year Tuneup

As we are already at the mid-point of the year, I thought I would republish the below article of mine from the June 30, 2008  edition of the Pennsylvania Law Weekly:

A Mid-Year Tuneup
Ten tips to improve your practice and reduce stress

By

Daniel E. Cummins, Esquire
Pennsylvania Law Weekly
June 30, 2008

There is no better time of year than the month of June, when thoughts are beginning to turn to the salty air and sandy beaches at the shore or the cool breezes and lapping lakefronts in the mountains of Pennsylvania, to take a moment to rededicate oneself to the goal of improving one's practice while at the same time reducing any unnecessary stress. The following tips are suggested in this regard.

ANTICIPATE

By routinely looking ahead 30 to 45 days on the calendars, conflicts and deadlines will never creep up on you and cause unnecessary stress.

In terms of scheduling conflicts, looking ahead and clearing up problems is not only respectful of the schedule of opposing counsel, but can also serve to avoid delays and keep the case moving steadily towards its eventual resolution.

In terms of deadlines 30-60 days out on the horizon, it may be advisable to start the first draft of a brief or an arbitration/mediation memorandum whenever time permits. In that way, there will be time to put the brief aside to be researched, edited, and rewritten on a few additional occasions at your leisure as opposed to a last-minute dash to scrap together a superficial document that merely scratches the surface of the issues presented. By starting early on a written product, and revisiting it periodically with additional research and editorial touches, an attorney can guarantee his or her client a thoroughly advocated and a well-written presentation of the client's position to the court.

A MONTHLY GLANCE

Another way to stay on top of each and every file in your practice is to literally “glance” in the file once a month with a portable Dictaphone in hand. An easy way to remember to do this is to set yourself up to automatically complete this task either on the first day or the last day of every month.

While looking at each and every file during a single run-through once a month may sound like a daunting task at first, once you have looked at the file in this manner several months in a row, the status of file will become committed to memory and your review will move more quickly. In fact, by the third or fourth month of completing this monthly glance at the file, it will literally take only a few seconds to look at the correspondence section of each file to determine what has been done and what needs to be done in the file to keep it moving forward in an expeditious manner for the benefit of the client. Additionally, many files that are “hot” and on the front-burner to begin with, will need little or no review.

This method of regularly viewing the file allows the attorney to dictate quick letters to the opposing counsel or the client, or memos to the file, regarding the status of the case and items to be completed. Those letters and memos, in turn, will trigger the responses and further activity necessary to keep the file moving forward in a continual fashion.

A regular course of reviewing each file will also enable the handling attorney to impress others with the attorney's ability to discuss the status of the file off the top of his or her head during a cold telephone call from a client or opposing counsel. Last, but not least, this method of regularly reviewing files may also satisfy one's obligations to stay on top of one's files as may be required under the attorney's legal malpractice policy in any event.

Any thought that this type of a proactive, periodic review of files would be too time-consuming should be tempered with the acknowledgment that much more time is wasted by the reactive method of retrieving and digging through files only at times when updates or other action is required.

RETURN CALLS PROMPTLY

A common complaint of clients and attorneys is the failure of other attorneys to return phone calls promptly or at all. First and foremost, the failure to return a phone call, even from an adversary you can not stand to speak to, is just simply rude.

Obviously, a claim will become stagnant when phone calls seeking the information necessary to move the matter forward go unanswered. In terms of phone calls from clients, attorneys should remain mindful of the ethical duty to keep the clients informed as to the status of their case.

As hard as it may be to return a call to a vexatious adversary, one way to get over the reluctance to return the call is to realize that each communication with that person brings you one step closer to concluding the file and your dealings with that individual. If one simply can not stand any more contact with another individual than is necessary, then at least a response in writing should be offered.

Note also that the quick and consistent return of all phone calls will also serve to earn the attorney the favorable reputation as a courteous and responsive person who is motivated to move the file to its conclusion. One possible added benefit of returned phone calls to clients may also be that the client may call the attorney less as the client may feel updated on their case.

RESPOND TO MAIL

Another way to stay on top of matters and keep them moving is to respond to all mail, whenever possible, on the day it arrives. Immediately responding to mail on the day it arrives will keep the file moving forward in an expeditious manner and prevent matters from falling through the cracks.

Like returning phone calls, a prompt response to a letter is courteous to the sender and also signals that one has a common interest in moving the case towards a resolution.

READ UPDATES

Staying on top of the law will also enable a lawyer to stay one step ahead of opposing counsel. By remaining well-versed in the current status of the law, one will better serve the client and be less uncertain when engaging in legal arguments with opposing counsel.

Rather than passively skimming the case updates in Pennsylvania Law Weekly and the PBA Bar News , a better practice may be to actively committing the changes in the law to memory by typing up a running list of recent cases in one's computer. Another good source of new case law and citations is the blue-covered advance sheets for the Atlantic Second Reporters.

The computer list of saved case citations could be alphabetically broken down in to large topics like “Automobile Law,” “Civil Procedure,” “Dog Bite,” “Evidence,” and the like, with each section being broken down in to subparts in accordance with subheadings that may be found in the headnotes or descriptions stated in the case summaries.

It may also be advisable to read, or at the very least skim, the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure once a year. Not only does this practice refresh one's understanding of the Rules but it may also surprisingly result in new knowledge concerning certain aspects of civil procedure.

Remaining well-versed in the Rules of Civil Procedure and the changes in Pennsylvania case law may enable counsel to stay a step ahead of any opposing counsel and will foster a reputation of one being well-versed in the law and rules of procedure.

ARRIVE EARLY

Obviously it is always a good idea to be on time for any appointment or appearance as a matter of courtesy, as part of the effort to make a good first impression, and to avoid any unnecessary increasing of one's own stress level.

Arriving at least 15-20 minutes early for any meeting will allow for time to get set up and comfortable. By arriving early, one can have all their materials out and arranged on the table in an orderly fashion. This may serve to avoid the sometimes embarrassing situation of the need to scramble through the file in an effort to locate a particular item.

Arriving early will also enable the attorneys to deal with any preliminary issues. Agreements and stipulations can be reached or reaffirmed, thereby streamlining the proceedings.

Perhaps most importantly, by arriving early, an attorney may be less harried and, therefore, calmer going into the session. This will always prove beneficial, particularly if the attorney is in the presence of a client who will be reassured by the confident and composed presence of the attorney.

DON'T TAKE IT PERSONALLY

There may be nothing more important to the practice of law than the principle that decisions to be made should never be motivated by personal feelings or emotions, but rather should always be the result of a sound, objective business-like decision-making process.

All too often, attorneys take the actions and adverse positions of opposing counsel personally and retaliate without first thinking through and formulating an appropriate response on an objective basis and in accordance with the law and facts of the case. Sometimes it is a good idea to trash that hasty and curt first draft of a responsive letter so as to avoid a confirmation that the tone of the litigation will remain extremely adversarial.

It is particularly important to remain objective when evaluating cases for settlement purposes and in engaging in settlement negotiations. Emotions have no place during settlement negotiations but can run high and get in the way of an objective evaluation of a case's range of value.

The pros and cons of a case can not be properly and professionally evaluated if one's judgment is clouded by emotionally charged and negative feelings towards another attorney, that attorney's client, and/or that attorney's case or argument. Where it is difficult to separate one's self from an emotional assessment of the value of a case, it may be wise to run the case by another attorney or, even better, a lay person for a fresh and objective viewpoint.

Last but not least, litigating attorneys should also never take on the emotional trappings of their clients or let such emotions get in the way of an objective application of the law to the facts of the case at hand. In addition to being advocates, attorneys are also expected to be counselors for their clients always at the ready to counsel them towards an amicable resolution of the issues presented.

VOLUNTEER

In addition to assisting clients with their legal matters, an attorney may also obtain personal gratification and improve the image of the practice as a whole by taking on pro bono cases within the scope of their expertise wherever possible.

Equally gratifying is the participation in volunteer activities in the community. In addition to benefiting local charities and communities, volunteer efforts also have the added benefit of networking and free advertisement. By participating in charitable activities, one can not only possibly gain some exposure with the general public but may also serve to improve public image of all attorneys.

SCHEDULE 'ME' TIME

It should also be kept in mind that lawyers are not just lawyers. They may also be identified as mothers, fathers, friends, musicians, artists, or sports enthusiasts, etc. An effort to be good in all aspects of life outside of the law results not only in a sense of accomplishment but also makes for a more fulfilling existence.

Whenever possible, a balance between work and life outside of work should be sought and encouraged. An attorney who spends most or all of his waking hours in the practice of law runs the significant risk of burning out and losing touch with who else they are.

It is important to schedule so “me” time on a daily, or at the very least, several times a week basis. It is only common sense that attorneys who strive to expand their life outside of the practice of law, in terms of their hobbies, recreational activities, physical fitness, and in exploring creative outlets, are more apt to have a higher level of productivity at work as well.

It is also noted that engaging in some of the proactive tips noted above may provide the comfort the comes with knowing that one's files are updated and moving ahead so as to allow counsel to be more willing to let go of work issues and more fully enjoy one's free time.

VACATION

Similarly, when the above proactive tips for file monitoring and updating are utilized, one may be able to go away on vacation with the comfort and security of knowing that there is a lesser chance that a “fire” will arise that could serve to dampen one's enjoyment of the vacation or even cause the trip to be cut short.

Obviously, the practice of law can be an extremely stressful 24/7 profession. Spending and enjoying more time away from the practice and one's home base can serve as a release from the pressures of work and lessen one's overall stress level. This, in turn, could result in a healthier lifestyle. A more healthy lifestyle, in turn, may render one a more productive and efficient attorney. In the end, all aspects of life, both in and out of work, will benefit.

As difficult as it may sometimes be, it should be kept in mind that the practice of law is but one dimension of our short lives.

Efforts to realize a more healthy and balanced life by spending more quality time with your family and friends outside of and away from work will add life to one's years during our short time on this planet. Again, it is only common sense that a well-rounded lifestyle that includes regular vacationing may also result in one becoming a more productive and effective attorney in the end.''

Daniel E. Cummins is a partner in the Clarks Summit, PA law firm of Cummins Law.  He additionally provides mediation services through Cummins Mediation.  He is also the sole creator and writer of the Tort Talk Blog found at www.TortTalk.com. 

Source of top image:  Photo by Matheus Bertelli on www.pexels.com.

Reprinted with permission from the July 26, 2024 edition of the Pennsylvania Law Weekly (c) 2024 ALM Global Properties, LLC.  All rights reserved.  Further duplication without permission is prohibited, contact 877-256-2472 or asset-and-logo-licensing@alm.com.

STILL TIME TO REGISTER FOR LACKAWANNA PRO BONO'S GOLF TOURNAMENT AND CLE

 

Statutory Employer Test Applied in the Context of the Provision of Professional Services

In the case of Smith v. Supportive Concepts for Families, Inc., No. 21-2038 (C.P. Berks Co. Jan. 25, 2025 Nevius, J.), the court addressed a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by a provider of outpatient psychiatric services in a case in which the Plaintiff alleged that she was assaulted by a patient during a psychiatric medical examination.

The Plaintiff was attacked when she visited a group home owned and operated by the Defendant. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant knew of the assailant’s violent pre-disposition but failed to adequate safeguard against harm.

In significant part, the Defendant relied upon the statutory employer defense in its Motion for Summary Judgment. The court noted that there was no dispute that, at the time of the incident, the Plaintiff was an employee of the separate entity that sent her to this facility to complete the medical examination. 

Nevertheless, the Defendant in this case was asserting immunity as a statutory employer of the Plaintiff pursuant to the five (5) part test set forth in the case of McDonald v. Levinson Steel Co., 302 Pa. 287, 153 A. 424 (Pa. 1930).

The court in this Smith case noted that the McDonald factors are under current review in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The court refused to speculate on whether or not the statutory employee test would survive that Supreme Court review. The court instead applied the McDonald factors to arrive at its decision to deny the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

Notably, this court noted that the Defendant did not provide any authority for the application of the McDonald factors in the context of the provision of professional services. The court noted that the McDonald test is typically used in connection with construction cases.

The court in this Smith case also noted that, in any event, the Defendant had not offered sufficient evidence to establish that it met all of the factors of the statutory employer test.

As such, the Motion for Summary Judgment was denied.

The court additionally denied the defense arguments set forth under the assumption of the risk doctrine and relative to the alleged exculpatory release involved in the case.

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


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert, www.Law.com (April 23, 2025).

Philadelphia Trial Court Rules in Favor of Transfer of Med Mal Case to New Jersey Under Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens

In the case of Duxbury v. Reconstructive Orthopedic Assoc., June Term, 2023 No. 1031 (C.P. Phila. Co. Feb. 10, 2025 Bright, J.), the trial court issued a Rule 1925 Opinion in support of its decision to transfer this medical malpractice case under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

The Plaintiffs sued the medical Defendants for professional liability arising out of alleged negligence in the treatment of the Plaintiff’s complaints of back pain.

The trial court noted that it had ruled in this fashion where weighted reasons supported the dismissal of this Philadelphia County case and the re-filing of the action in New Jersey, which was where the Plaintiff received medical treatment and where the Plaintiff’s medical providers, medical records, and most potential witnesses were located.

While certain Defendants had their principal place of business and corporate headquarters in Philadelphia, and while one of the Defendant physicians was licensed to practice in Pennsylvania and had certain other connections to the state of Pennsylvania, the court found that other factors weighed more heavily in the decision to dismiss the matter and ordered that the case to be refiled in New Jersey.

The trial court noted that it had granted the Defendant’s motion and directed that the action refiled in New Jersey.

In this Rule 1925 Opinion, the trial court requested the appellate court to affirm the trial court Order dismissing the matter under the doctrine forum non conveniens.

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


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert, www.Law.com (April 30, 2025).

Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas Transfers Case to Centre County as Proper Venue

In the case of Pickering v. Associated Realty Prop. Mgt., Inc., Oct. Term 2023, No. 0613 (C.P. Phila. Co. Nov. 22, 2024 Bright, J.), the court issued a Rule 1925 Opinion in support of its granting of a Motion to Transfer of Venue be upheld in this wrongful death action involving a case in which the appellant’s decedent fell down a defective trash shoot in a building owned and/or operated by several of the Defendants.

In this matter, the trial court sustained the Defendants’ Preliminary Objections to venue in Philadelphia County and transferred the case to Centre County where the accident occurred.

The court noted that there was no evidence to establish that any of the Defendants regularly conducted business in Philadelphia County for purposes of venue. 

More specifically, the court noted that one of the Defendants had only made eight (8) sales in Philadelphia County over a seven (7) year period. That Defendant had approximately $73,000.00 of total sales in Philadelphia County over the $45 million dollars that the company had made over the seven (7) year period.

As such, the court found the record confirmed that none of the Defendants’ contacts with Philadelphia were regular or habitual enough to make Philadelphia proper venue for this cause of action. As such, the trial court requested the Superior Court to affirm its decision to transfer venue to Centre County where the Plaintiff’s cause of action arose.

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


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert, www.Law.com (April 2, 2025).

Superior Court Addresses the Quality-Quantity Test for Proper Venue Over a Corporation in a Given County

In the case of Mendoza-Colon v. Luscomb, Inc., No. 65 MDA 2024 (Pa. Super. April 10, 2025 Bowes, J., Olson, J., and Stabile, J.) (Op. by Olson, J.), the Superior Court ruled that the trial court had erroneously granted a transfer of venue motion rather than first ordering venue-related discovery where the evidence indicated that the Defendants offered business services to the county where the case was initially filed.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff was a resident of Lancaster County who sued Defendants who had a principal place of business in Lycoming County. The Plaintiff also asserted that one of the Defendants also conducted business in Luzerne County.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff alleged that she was tasked by her employer with driving her delivery truck to one of the Defendants’ locations in Lycoming County. After the Plaintiff arrived and her truck was loaded, one of the improperly stacked boxes fell on the Plaintiff’s hand, causing injuries.

Although the defendant was primarily located in Lycoming County and although the accident happened in Lycoming County, the Plaintiff filed suit in Luzerne County. The Defendants filed Preliminary Objections to venue and requested that the case be transferred from Luzerne County to Lycoming County.

In support of their Preliminary Objections, the Defendants argued that venue was improper in Luzerne County and that the only proper venue was Lycoming County, the location of Gary’s Furniture only place of business. The Defendants noted that no party was a resident of Luzerne County and it was additionally asserted that Gary’s Furniture had never conducted business in Luzerne County.

In response, the Plaintiff asserted that Gary’s Furniture offered free delivery within fifty (50) miles of its retail store, and noted that parts of Luzerne County were within that fifty (50) mile radius.

The trial court ordered a transfer of the venue from Luzerne County to Lycoming County.   

The Pennsylvania Superior Court vacated the trial court’s transfer of venue order and remanded the case for further proceedings. 

The appellate court reviewed the law of venue under Pa.R.C.P. 2179 applicable to corporations.  The Superior Court noted that the determination of whether a corporation  "regularly conducts business" in a particular county depends on the "quality" and "quantity" of the business conducted in a given county.

The Superior Court held that offering free delivery to residents to Luzerne County constituted a furtherance of the Defendants’ business activities that satisfied the “quality” prong of the “regularly conducts business” test.

The Superior Court also held that this evidence was sufficient to warrant the granting of the Plaintiff’s request for venue-related discovery to ascertain the extent or “quantity” of the Defendants’ business activities in Luzerne County. As such, the case was remanded.

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


Source: The Legal Intelligencer State Appellate Case Alert, www.Law.com (April 28, 2025).

Court Upholds Assault and Battery Exclusion in Liability Policy Related To Shooting Incident

In the case of The Farmers Fire Ins. Co. v. S.W. Krauss, LLC, No. 2023-CV-5087 (C.P. Lacka. Co. May 12, 2025 Gibbons, J.), the court granted a liability carrier’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings based upon an assault battery exclusion contained in the subject policy relative to a shooting incident that occurred on the insured’s premises.

According to the Opinion, this matter involved an injured party who suffered a gunshot wound after gunfire was exchanged between unidentified individuals who were engaged in an dispute.

President Judge James A. Gibbons
Lackawanna County

The carrier for the landowner filed a declaratory judgment action and asserted that coverage was barred under the assault and battery exclusion contained in the policy. After reviewing the policy as compared to the facts alleged in the underlying civil litigation Complaint, the trial court here agreed and granted the carrier’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.

The trial court also rejected the injured party’s efforts to create issues of fact based upon affirmative defenses raised in the injured party’s New Matter responses to the declaratory judgment Complaint. In this regard, the trial court noted that there were boilerplate allegations in the New Matter pleadings and no factual allegations in support of the same.

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

New Trial Ordered Based on Application of Open and Obvious Doctrine in Premises Liability Case

In the case of Janik v. Zoological Society of Philadelphia, No. 1590 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super. April 22, 2025 Panella, P.J.E., Lane, J., and Stevens, P.J.E.) (Op. by Panella, P.J.E.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled that the trial court correctly granted a new trial after recognizing its error in failing to instruct the jury on the open and obvious doctrine where the trial evidence created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether a reasonable person would have recognized an architectural feature as a potential hazard.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff was walking in the Philadelphia Zoo’s Big Cat Falls exhibit when his left foot struck the bottom of a decorative boulder, which allegedly caused him to fall and sustain injuries.

The Plaintiff filed suit alleging that the Zoo was negligent in placing the decorative boulder adjacent to the walkway because it created a dangerous or defective condition.

The Defendant’s pre-trial Motion for Summary Judgment asserting that the boulder was an open and obvious condition was denied. At trial, the trial court denied the Zoo’s Motion for a nonsuit on the same grounds. The jury then returned a verdict in favor of the Plaintiff.

On appeal, the Zoo asserted that the trial court erred in denying the Motion for Summary Judgment and denying the Motion for a Nonsuit, and in excluding jury instructions on the open and obvious doctrine. Other issues were also raised in the post-trial motions.

In its post-trial Opinion, the trial court felt that a new trial should be granted given its own errors, in part, in failing to admit certain evidence and in failing to instruct the jury on the open and obvious doctrine.

Relative to the issue of the open and obvious doctrine, the Superior Court agreed that there were issues of fact presented at trial that should have compelled the trial court to instruct the jury on that doctrine.

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


Source: The Legal Intelligencer State Appellate Case Alert, www.Law.com (May 6, 2025).

PLEASE SUPPORT LACKAWANNA PRO BONO

 

Certain Insurance Information Rule Inadmissible in a Post-Koken Auto Accident Lawsuit

In the case of Gilmore v. Erie Insurance Company, No. CV-2023-1140 (C.P. Wash. Co. April 23, 2025 Neuman, J.), in an Order without Opinion, the court granted a Defendant’s Motion In Limine filed in a post-Koken matter and thereby precluded the Plaintiff from introducing into evidence, any evidence or testimony regarding the amount of the tortfeasor’s liability limits, the amount of the premiums that the Plaintiff paid to his own UIM carrier, or that the Plaintiff’s UIM limits amounted to $300,000.00.

The rationale of the court was that the admission of such evidence would be overly prejudicial to the Defendant UIM carrier.

Again, there is no Opinion issued. This decision was by way of Order only.

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

I send thanks to Attorney Joseph Hudock of the Pittsburgh law firm of Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Rauch, P.C. for bringing this case to my attention.

Source of above image: Photo by Nikitaxnikitin on www.pexels.com.

Superior Court Overturns Trial Court's Allowance of Amendment of Complaint During Trial To Add Claim of Punitive Damages

In the case of Bernavage v. Green Ridge Healthcare Group, LLC, No. 1576 MDA 2023 (Pa. Super. May 19, 2025 Bowes, J., Olson, J., and Stabile, J.)(Op. by Stabile, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the entry of a compensatory damages award by a jury after a medical malpractice trial but vacated the jury's award of punitive damages after finding that the trial court erred by allowing the Plaintiff to amend the Complaint during the trial to add the claim for punitive damages.

According to the Opinion, the underlying case involved two (2) trials, one under compensatory damages aspect of the case and a second, later trial limited to consideration of whether punitive damages should be awarded against the Defendants.

It was noted that, during the course of the first trial, the Plaintiffs moved for a directed verdict on the issues of negligence and recklessness. At that time, the Plaintiff also made a request to file an Amended Complaint to conform the evidence elicited at trial to the pleadings. The request for a directed verdict was denied but the Plaintiff was allowed to file an Amended Complaint to add allegations of recklessness and to include a claim for punitive damages. The court also severed the issues related to the punitive damages claim to be resolved at a second, later trial with a different jury.

After the jury in the first trial entered an award in favor of the Plaintiff, the pleadings were reopened by the trial court and the parties proceeded to conduct punitive damages discovery prior to the second trial.

There was then a second trial at which the jury entered an award of punitive damages.

Following the punitive damages trial, the Defendants filed various post-trial motions and, eventually, this appeal. A central issue on appeal was whether the trial court abused its discretion in allowing, in the middle of a trial and after the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations, the Plaintiff to amend the Complaint to add allegations of recklessness and the claim for punitive damages.

The Superior Court ruled that the amendment of the Complaint to allow for claims of recklessness was not barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The main rationale for the appellate court’s decision in this regard was that recklessness and gross negligence are not to be considered distinct causes of action separate and apart from claims of ordinary negligence.

However, the appellate court did find that the trial court’s decision, during the course of trial, to allow the Plaintiff to add a claim for punitive damages was improper as that resulted in an unfair surprise to the Defendants at that late hour of the case.

The appellate court noted that the record revealed that the Plaintiffs did not pursue a claim of recklessness during the course of discovery and only introduced the concept of recklessness for the first time during the course of the trial.

The Superior Court noted that the Plaintiff’s failure to develop the specific theory of recovery in the form of recklessness during the course of discovery was not, in this case, a mere technicality subject to being cured by an amendment of the Complaint to conform to the evidence at any point.  Rather, the Superior Court noted that the record in this case revealed that the Plaintiff had developed a theory of liability at trial that was substantively different from the theory developed by the Plaintiff during the course of discovery and as alleged in the original Complaint.

The Superior Court additionally noted that the Plaintiff had solicited the word “reckless” from witnesses during the course of a trial, which witnesses, in the eyes of the Superior Court, could not be expected to understand the legal significance of that term. The Superior Court noted that the witnesses’ use of the word “reckless” in their testimony was of no legal significance until the trial court subsequently permitted the Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint in which recklessness was then alleged for the first time.

Accordingly, the appellate court found that this matter did not involve simply an amendment of the pleadings in order to conform the Complaint to the evidence produced at trial. Rather, the Superior Court viewed this matter as involving an introduction of a new theory of recovery at a late date in the proceedings, which action was of the type that is frowned upon by the courts and which often results in a violation of the statute of limitations.

While the court found that the statute of limitations did not serve to bar the addition of a claim of recklessness under this set of facts and given that recklessness is only considered a state of mind in regards to a negligence claim, the Superior Court found that the unfair surprise to the opposing party from the late amendment served as grounds that should have compelled the trial court to deny permission to amend the Complaint. 

The Superior Court concluded that unfair surprise existed in this case “where a negligence Plaintiff, without explanation, withholds the precise theory of recovery until the latest possible time.” 

The court noted that, if, as the Plaintiff asserted, the facts of the Plaintiff’s original Complaint were sufficient to support a recklessness theory of recovery, then the Plaintiff should have developed that theory during the course of discovery. The Superior Court noted that, while it ascribed no motive to the Plaintiff in this case, it felt that, to reach a different conclusion, would be to invite negligence plaintiffs to withhold their theory of recovery, whether it is a negligence, gross negligence, or recklessness claim, until the last possible minute for the specific purpose of creating an unfair surprise to the opposing party. 

For these reasons, the Superior Court concluded that the trial court abused its discretion in permitting the Plaintiff to amend their Complaint during the course of trial to add a claim for punitive damages.

As such, the Superior Court affirmed the jury’s verdict relative to the award of compensatory damages but vacated the second jury’s award of punitive damages. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

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


I send thanks to Attorney Joseph T. (“Jody”) Healey of the Scranton, PA law firm of Cipriani &Werner for bringing this case to my attention.

Federal Court Applies Choice of Law Analysis

In the case of Karabec-Studer v. Avis Rent A Car System, LLC, No. 23-CV3828 (E.D. Pa. March 28, 2025 Kenney, J.), the Eastern District Federal Court completed a choice-of-law analysis in deciding a Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the Plaintiff’s claims for punitive damages under claims that the Defendant negligently rented a vehicle with issues.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff rented a car from Avis and was involved in a motor vehicle accident while traveling through Pennsylvania. The Plaintiff more specifically alleged that the Defendant negligently and recklessly rented them a car with inadequate tire tread. The Plaintiff rented the car in the state of Virginia. 

The Defendant moved for partial summary judgment on the punitive damages issues.

After reviewing the choice-of-law factors, the court concluded that Virginia’s punitive damages law, including that state's cap on damages would apply.

The court otherwise denied the Motion for Partial Summary Judgement after finding that there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether or not the Defendants recklessly disregard the probability that their conduct would result in injury to the Plaintiffs. The court noted that the record indicated that the tire treads were below the Defendant’s standards as well as the legal limits regarding the same.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Federal Case Alert, www.Law.com (April 24, 2025).

Trial Court Reaffirms that Plaintiffs May Plead Recklessness With Reckless Abandon

In the case of Kafley v. Breneiser, No. 24-CV-3508 (C.P. Lacka. Co. April 24, 2025 Gibbons, J.), the court overruled Preliminary Objections filed by the Defendant to claims of recklessness asserted in a rear-end motor vehicle accident case. 

President Judge James A. Gibbons
Lackawanna County

In this decision, President Judge James A. Gibbons of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas confirmed the current status of the law that allows Plaintiffs to plead recklessness in any given case so long as allegations of negligence are likewise asserted. 

In this regard, the court relied upon the Pennsylvania Superior Court decision of Monroe v. CBH2O, LP, 286 A.3d 785, 799 (Pa. Super. 2022).

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

Discovery Sanctions Entered Against Defendant Who Was Not Cooperating With Discovery Requirements

In the case of Jones v. STR8 FROM US, LLC, No. 2:24-CV-05370-GJP (E.D. Pa. April 23, 2025 Pappert, J.), the court entered a sanctions Order against the defense in a motor vehicle accident matter where the Defendant driver refused to speak with his defense counsel that were hired by the Defendant’s insurance carrier, refused to respond to the discovery requests and deadlines, and refused the efforts to complete his deposition.

After discovery Orders were entered, the Plaintiffs moved for sanctions pursuant to F.R.C. 37(b) related to the Defendant’s continued failure to obey the court’s discovery Orders.

In assessing the justification of any discovery sanctions, the court applied what is known as the Poulis factors, which are a series of six (6) separate factors that a trial court should review and apply before granting an award for sanctions. In this regard, the court cited the case of Poulis v. State Farm, 647 F.2d 863, 868 (3d Cir. 1984).

Judge Pappert noted that Rule 37 authorizes courts to sanction conduct that obstructs the completion of discovery. After reviewing the matter before him, Judge Pappert granted sanctions and precluded the Defendant from testifying at trial or offering evidence concerning how the car accident involving the Plaintiff occurred and/or who was at fault. 

The court also noted that, after reviewing the Poulis factors, it was also appropriate to strike all of the Defendant’s affirmative defenses that did not pertain to the issues of causation or damages.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.


Source: Article – “Judge Hobbles Trial Defense After Client Refuses To Cooperate With His Lawyers” By Riley Brennan of The Legal Intelligencer (April 24, 2025).

Quoted in National Article Analyzing Recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court Decision on a Medical Malpractice Decision of Note

Was recently quoted in an nationally circulated article entitled "Pa. Mental Health Rejection Suits Could Rise, Atty Says" by Y. Peter Kang that appeared in the national online publication of Law360.

The article reviewed a recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision in the case of Matos v. Geisinger Medical Center in which that Court addressed the extent to which an injured party may pursue a medical malpractice claim against medical providers who rebuffed an individual who wished to voluntarily submit themselves for mental health treatment who then thereafter end up injuring another person or themselves.

The article is not freely accessible online. To the extent you may wish to read a portion of the article please do not hesitate to contact me at dancummins@cumminslaw.net.

The Tort Talk write up of this decision is forthcoming.

Eastern District Federal Court Transfers Personal Injury Case to Western District Federal Court

In the case of Seidman v. Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc., No. 2:24-CV-06033 (E.D. Pa. March 21, 2025 Weilheimer, J.), the Eastern District Federal Court granted a Defendant’s Motion to Transfer a products liability case filed by a Pittsburgh Plaintiff who treated for his injuries in Pittsburgh to the Western District Federal Court.

In this case, the Plaintiffs initially filed the lawsuit in state court venue that was within the Eastern District Federal Court venue. The Defendants removed the case to federal court. The court initially noted that the Eastern District Federal Court had venue and jurisdiction to review the Motion to Transfer given that the case had been properly removed to its attention.

Moving on to the merits of the Motion to Transfer, the court noted that, when a Plaintiff chooses to file a lawsuit outside of their home forum, the Plaintiff’s choice will receive less difference. The court noted that the facts of the matter had nothing to do with the Eastern District Federal Court. The court also noted that the convenience of counsel is not irrelevant factor in addressing whether or not to grant a Motion to Transfer.

The court also noted that jury duty should not be imposed upon the people of a community who have no relationship to the litigation.

For all of these reasons, the Eastern District Court granted the Motion to Transfer this matter to the Western District Court.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK. The Court's companion Order can be viewed LINK.


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.

PLEASE SPONSOR OR REGISTER FOR LACKAWANNA PRO BONO'S GOLF TOURNAMENT

 

ARTICLE: Use of Exhibits in Opening Statements: Win Your Case Before Any Witness Even Takes the Stand

 

Here is a LINK to an article of mine that appeared in the May/June 2025 edition of The Pennsylvania Lawyer Magazine published by the Pennsylvania Bar Association.  

The article is entitled "Use of Exhibits in Opening Statements is Allowed" and analzyes the recent decision by Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas in the case of Webb v. Scranton Quincy Hosp. Co., LLC.  

In his Opinion in the Webb case, Judge Nealon laid out, for the first time, the law that supports the use of exhibits during Opening Statements in personal injury matters.  

Gone are now the days where lawyers could only utilize exhibits during Opening Statements if the opposing counsel has no objection to the same.  Now there is law that can support a desire to utilize exhibits during an Opening even if the opposing counsel objects.

I send thanks to Patricia Graybill, editor of The Pennsylvania Lawyer Magazine for agreeing to publish this article.

PLEASE SUPPORT LACKAWANNA PRO BONO

 

Court Confirms that Wrongful Death Claims are Derivative to Underlying Liability Claims

 In the case of Byers v. Finishing Systems, Inc., No. 1:20-CV-02110 (M.D. Pa. March 31, 2025 Wilson, J.), the court granted summary judgment in a wrongful death case arising out of a products liability claim.

According to this Opinion, the Court had previously granted summary judgment to the Defendants on certain claims but did not grant summary judgment on the Plaintiff's Wrongful Death claims because the Defendant had not ask for it in the motion.

In this decision, the Court treated the more recent filings presented by the defense as adding a request for summary judgment on the Plaintiff's Wrongful Death claims.

The court noted that, where all substantive negligence claims had been dismissed in a given matter, the Plaintiff’s wrongful death claim also necessarily failed as matter of law.  The court affirmed that wrongful death claims are derivative of other substantive causes of action.  

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

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.