The woman gave birth to her first child in 1965 and suffered serious circulation problems within hours of delivery. Her treatment included “cutdown’ procedures on both arms. The cutdown procedures were minor surgical procedures in which small cuts were made in the woman’s arms to permit “dissection’’ of a wein and the insertion of a tube to administer medication and hydration.

For 36 years after the birth of her child, the woman suffered from respiratory problems, shortness of breath, and pain. Over the course of those years, she was hospitalized 16 times for treatment associated with her chronic respiratory problems and pain. In 2000, an echocardiogram showed irregularities in her heart. Further diagnostic testing disclosed that she had a 12to 18-inch tube imbedded in her heart, entwined through several chambers. The tube was so integrated into her heart muscle that it could not be surgically removed,

The woman sued the doctors who were involved in the 1965 cutdown procedures and the hospital where they were performed, claiming that the hospital had failed to establish clear and safe procedures and that the doctors had failed to ensure that all the tubes they had inserted were removed from her body before they discharged her from their care.

On appeal, the woman won her right to take the case to a jury. The doctors and the hospital claimed that the woman’s many hospitalizations since 1965 were possible sources of the tube. However, the woman’s expert witness doctors all testified that none of her post-1965 hospitalizations likely involved the use of a tube as lengthy as the one in her heart. The woman’s experts also noted that the condition of the tube and the extent to which it was embedded in her heart clearly indicated that it had been inside her body for a long period of time. Finally, the experts noted that her chronic health problems after the birth of her child were consistent with the tube’s presence in her body.

Most people discover medical errors very quickly. But in the rare cases where the effects of poor medical care are not identified for years, claimants still have the right to be heard, as long as they seek judicial relief promptly once they have discovered the medical malpractice.

The post Medical Malpractice Claim Allowed After 36 Years appeared first on Leventry, Haschak, & Rodkey, LLC.

The dispute had its beginning in a dredge-and-fill project dating back to 1960. In order to shore up several piers supporting the Betsy Ross Bridge in Philadelphia, governmentagencies dredged and filled the riverbank. When the project was finished, four acres of additional land were exposed in a location where previously the soil had been completely submerged below the low-waterline. The business owned 10 acres that became directly connected to the additional 4 acres.

The business sued in 2010 to confirm that it now owned the entire area on the riverbank, a total of 14 acres. It acknowledged that Pennsylvania law does give the Commonwealth control of riverbeds but it claimed that the law should be changed. Arguing that modern methods of river engineering put riverside landowners at more risk, the business asked the appeals court to modernize Pennsylvania’s river laws. The business also noted that riverbank owners are always at jeopardy of losing large portions of their land to natural river changes and that they are most deserving of a chance to reap the benefits of any enlargement of their land.

The Pennsylvania appeals court rejected the arguments of the business, noting simply that Pennsylvania laws going back to 1810 are clear and that the Commonwealth owns man-made additions to the riverbanks “in trust’ for all of the residents. The court did acknowledge that if an owner’s rights of access to the river are imperiled by newly created riverbanks, those rights will be protected by the COllrtS.

The post Riverbank Ownership appeared first on Leventry, Haschak, & Rodkey, LLC.

The Pennsylvania School Code provides that school-age children are entitled to attend the public school where their parents or physical guardians “reside.” Pennsylvania judges have interpreted the School Code to require actual physical residence. Just owning a

On alternate weekends, they returned to the family home in another county where the father continued to live to be close to his job. The family expected to continue that living arrangement for seven years while the disabled child was enrolled in the school. The Pennsylvania appellate court found that the apartment was a legitimate and actual residence and that the disabled child’s sibling was entitled to public education in the district.

In a similar case, another well meaning mother did not fare as Well. After remarrying following the death of the father of her children, the mother moved into her new husband’s home. The children did not do well in the new school district, and the mother found the school at fault. She returned to the home in a school district does not mean that your children can go to school there; you have to actually live in the home to have the right to send your children to school in that district. If you rent a home and consistently use it as your primary residence, your children are automatically entitled to attend school in that district.

When school districts challenge a child’s entitlement to attend, the courts review the facts closely. In one case, in order to meet the needs of their disabled child, a Pennsylvania family rented an apartment near a private school that the disabled child attended. The mother and her children lived in the apartment; they moved their possessions there and received their mail there.

School district residence disputes usually start when district administrators become concerned about a child’s residence status. Increasingly, the cases involve children living with grandparents or other relatives. The School Code states that when an adult is raising a child and “supporting the child gratis as if it were his [or her) own,” the child is entitled to attend School where that adult lives. No proof of written guardianship or adoption is necessary. But the adult can be required to sign a sworn statement that he or she is a resident of the district, that he or she is supporting the child gratis, that he or she will assume all personal obligations for the child relative to school requirements, and that he or she intends to so keep and support the child continuously and not merely through the school term.

Resolution of legal issues depends upon many factors, including variations of facts and interpretations of Pennsylvania law, This newsletter is not intended to provide legal advice on specific subjects, but rather to provide insight into legal developments and issues. The reader should always consult with legal counsel before taking action on matters covered by this newsletter.

The post Residences and School Districts appeared first on Leventry, Haschak, & Rodkey, LLC.

After reviewing the records priwately without disclosing them to

the lawyers in the case, the trial judge agreed with the woman in regard to the gynecology record but found that the emergency room visit, a mental health event, was discoverable. The woman appealed.

The appellate court first held that the question was immediately appealable, prior to trial. Most lawsuits cannot be appealed before trial; in rare instances, though, pretrial appeals on narrow issues are permitted. The appellate court found that public policy strongly favors the privacy of mental health records and noted that pretrial appeals are sometimes necessary to protect that privacy,

But the court went on to require the disclosure of the mental health record. Acknowledging that the privacy of mental health records is essential to maintaining public confidence in mental health treatment, the court stated that the woman had put her own mental health at issue by claiming that the accident had caused her anxiety and an inability to enjoy life normally or to engage in daily functions. The court also noted that the trial judge had given the woman the option of dropping her claims about her anxiety and adjustment problems, but that she had refused. Because the woman had made her mental health an issue in the case, she had to produce the mental health record or suffer a dismissal of her case.

The appellate court cautioned that claims for humiliation, mental anguish, pain, and shock do not open the door to the discovery of mental health records. Only claims that clearly assert mental health suffering caused by the accident or incident will trigger the obligation to disclose mental health records and, in deciding disclosure issues, the courts will always honor privacy as much as possible. Records of involuntary mental health commitments will be given more privacy than will records of voluntary outpatient treatment.

The post Mental Health Records in Court appeared first on Leventry, Haschak, & Rodkey, LLC.

After finishing the delivery of furniture to a private home, the deliveryman returned to the moving van with his supervisor. He placed his clipboard in the van and then, on a sudden impulse, ran across the driveway and jumped up to grab the rim of a basketball hoop, Because the hoop was wet from rain, his hands slipped and he fell backWard and hit his head on the driveway surface, sustaining serious and permanent head injuries.

The janitor completed a morning of dormitory cleaning at a state college and walked across the campus to eat lunch at a campus-run restaurant. On the way, he impulsively jumped down a flight of 12 stairs, later admitting that he had been thinking for several weeks about whether he could successfully jump down the whole flight of stairs.

Scope of Employment

Initially, both employers denied workers’ compensation coverage to their employees, claiming that the men’s actions were outside of the scope of their employment, rendering the injuries non compensable. After filing formal claims and appealing, the furniture deliveryman was successful in recovering benefits, but the college janitor was not.

Generally, workers are entitled to wage and medical benefits only for injuries sustained “in the course and scope of employment.’ Small, temporary departures from work to administer to personal comforts or convenience do not break the course of employment. Nor do “intervals of leisure” operate to take an employee outside of the course of his or her employment, as long as the intervals remain “inconsequential and innocent.”

Recognizing that all productive employees take short breaks, Pennsylvania’s workers’ compensation laws do not strictly scrutinize an employee’s conduct at the precise time of an injury. Instead, where an employee is at the workplace or, when traveling, the employee is substantially engaged in the employer’s business, the employee is deemed to be working. Traveling employees are given more leeway than are employees who work at a stationary work site, because traveling employees need to find food and bathrooms and the nature of their work engages them in varied activities.

As to the furniture deliveryman, the court awarded him wage and medical benefits, finding it significant that the injured man’s supervisor testified that he was not troubled or offended by the man’s brief attention to the basketball hoop. The court also stressed that the deliveryman’s conduct was not reckless or inherently dangerous since basketball is an ordinary pastime.

As to the college janitor, the court denied all benefits for several reasons. First, because the janitor was on a lunch break and completely unrestricted during the break, the court found that his activities were “wholly foreign to his employment.” Additionally, the court noted that “the premeditated, deliberate, extreme, and inherently high-risk nature” of his jumping down an entire flight of stairs was sufficient to remove him from the course and scope of his employment even if he had not been on a lunch break. The court noted that a coworker testified that several weeks before the incident, the janitor had told her that he thought he could jump down the flight of stairs. She testified that she had replied that “the point was not whether he could make the jump, but where he would land.’

Employers are understandably frustrated when an employee receives benefits for an injury incurred on a break or while engaged in horseplay. Conversely, employees expect employers to accept the fact that everyone takes mini breaks during the workday to refresh and renew concentration and energy. The nature and length of a departure from duties will ultimately make a huge difference in whether an injury is compensable OT mot.

Employers who want to increase their protection against injury claims from horseplay can issue clear Written directives banning horseplay; where such a rule exists and is clearly communicated to employees, it can serve as a defense against horseplay injuries.

The post “Horseplay” and Workers’ Compensation appeared first on Leventry, Haschak, & Rodkey, LLC.