A summary of recent decisions of Board of Pennsylvania (September 2006)

decisions Court of Pennsylvania

1 Civil Litigation

1.1. Car Insurance

1.1.1. “Cars for Hire

Supreme Court

1.1.2. Arbitration uninsured motorist and underinsured

Superior Court

f Hartford Ins. Co. v. O’Mara, 2006 PA Super 236 (29 August 2006)

Holding: Under the Uniform Arbitration Act of 1980, when the application or the construction of an insurance policy provision at issue, the dispute falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the arbitrator. The court, the jurisdiction only if the applicant has involved a determination as: (1) against a constitutional order, law or regulation, (2) public policy, or (3) not acceptable.

Insurance Co. v. Nationwide f Schneider, 2006 PA Super 219 (17 August 2006)

Holding: § 1733 of MVFRL is the priority for recovery of underinsured motorist benefits, but neither mentioned nor requires the exhaustion of limits. If the insured settles a claim against a policy of settlement agreement clause, the insurer must demonstrate that its interests are threatened.

1.1.3. Subrogation

* Supreme Court

Wirth v. Aetna U.S. Health Care f, No. 28 EAP 2005 (22 August 2006)

Holding: Under the Law on Health Maintenance Organizations Pennsylvania, 40 PS § 1560 (a) a health care organization is exempt from compliance with the Anti-occurrence of the Pennsylvania Financial Responsibility Act engine.

1.2. Claims for medical malpractice

1.2.1. MCAR Law

* Superior Court

f McManamon v. Washko 2006 PA Super 245 (31 August 2006)

Holding: Medical Care Availability and Reduction of errors of law not to injuries that were caused by medical malpractice.

1.3. Sovereign Immunity

1.3.1. Property and exceptions sidewalks

Court Commonwealth *

Reid f v. City of Philadelphia, No. 1572 CD 2005 (August 3, 2006)

Holding: A road through a village, a street is named the Commonwealth are still part of the community. If someone is injured on a sidewalk next to a municipal designated highway, the municipality the sidewalk and the sidewalk is therefore in the “right of passage” of a road through the town to own analysis of state immunity in the context of political subdivisions Tort Claims Act .

LoFurno f v. Garnet Valley School District, No. 2082 CD 2005 (3 May 2006)

Holding: A belt sander designed for land that is not wired or fixed to the floor or a system of collecting dust is screwed, well, not a unit under the exception to the government Property political subdivision immunity Tort Claims Act.

2 Civil Procedure

2.1. Call

2.1.1. Conflicts between the federal and Pennsylvania statutes

* Superior Court
f

James Trombetta v. Raymond Financial Services, Inc., 2006 PA Super 229 (22 August 2006)

Holdings: 1.The standard of review of an arbitral award under the Uniform Arbitration Act of Pennsylvania, not by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) displaced.

2 Control standards under the FAA does not replace the standards of the Pennsylvania arbitration review if the standards of Pennsylvania Review the purpose of thwarting the underlying FAA as are control standards is a procedural mechanism for judicial resolution of controversies based on the underlying arbitration agreement was executed according to the FAA to . facilitate

3 Common standards of assessment in control rights to the purposes and principles of the FAA. Pennsylvania law governs the question of whether the parties to a de novo review of the courts of first instance in accordance with the contractual agreements imposed.

4 de novo review clauses are included in the arbitration agreements unenforceable as a matter of law in Pennsylvania.

Joseph v. f Advest, Inc., 2006 PA Super 213 (8 August 2006)

Holding: The provision of the Federal Arbitration Act allows a Party three months challenge an arbitration award is procedural rules. challenge within 30 days of the Pennsylvania (under the Uniform Arbitration Act or common law arbitration) awards these appeals and complaints lodged are more than 30 days after the entry of the award are untimely.

2.2. The ability to sue

* Superior Court

f George Stash & Sons Co. v. New Holland Credit, LLC, 2006 PA Super 206 (2 August 2006)

Holding: the fictitious name provides that a company that fails to register its fictitious name should not be allowed to sue in a court of Pennsylvania. Where, as here, a natural or legal person knows the identity of the persons with whom he deals, he can not claim to sue lack of capacity to under the fictitious name.

2.3. Collateral Source Article

* Superior Court

v. Simmons f Cobb, 2006 PA Super 222 (16 August 2006)

Holding: The rule includes the source of the guarantee is not a plaintiff from introducing evidence of the receipt of benefits for people with disabilities to safety. Instead, the found rule of safeguards intended to protect crime victims, for the payment of a source of security should not diminish the damages otherwise recoverable from the wrongdoer. In this case, the plaintiff wanted to present evidence of receipt of SSD benefits.

2.4. Forum non conveniens

* Superior Court

Wright v. Aventis Pasteur f, Inc., 2006 PA Super 203 (2 August 2006)

Holding: In determining whether a case under 42 Pa.CSA § 5322 (e) on the basis of forum non conveniens, have examined the trial court dismissed two important factors: (1) of your choice the applicant’s response will not be disturbed only for reasons of weight, and (2) No action shall be dismissed unless there is another forum available to the applicant. As the Superior Court recognizes – “The apparent trend in the last forum non conveniens decisions … dismissal of the cases, Pennsylvania, where another forum is.” This decision differs from

2.5. Interim Appeals

2.5.1. In general,

* Supreme Court

Pridgen v. Parker Hannifin Corporation f, No. 8 & 9 EAP 2005 (22 August 2006)

Holding: An order by the trial court “guarantee order” under Pa.RAP 313 – as a matter of law and justice – must present the following three factors:

1 The decree shall state clearly and ensure the main cause of the action;

2 The law in question is too important to check, must be denied and deep rights in the public policy that involve roots of the particular dispute at hand and

3 The question is that if it is postponed until the final review in the case, the claim irretrievably lost.

1.1.1. Trade Secrets

* Superior Court

f Crum v. Bridgestone, 2006 PA Super 230 (23 August 2006)

Holding 1: This notification contains the same operation command to ensure that Pridgen (above).

Holding 2: Under § 757 (b) turnaround (2d) of Torts and the law of Pennsylvania to determine whether information on the status of trade secrets, the court must take into account the following factors:

1 The extent to which the information is known outside the company;

2 The extent to which those parties the information of employees and others in the business, and

3 The scope of the measures to protect the confidentiality of the information. The command must be separated and security for the cause of action.

For a court to determine whether a protective order if necessary in Pa.R.Civ.P. is 4019 (a) (9), the standard should embrace both discovery (1) the relevance and necessity, and (2) There must be a balance against evil. Once established, a party that the information sought is a trade secret, it is for the plaintiff to show by sufficient evidence that there is an urgent need for the information and the need outweighs the harm from disclosure.

1.1. Default Judgement

* Superior Court

State Farm Insurance Co. v. Barton f 2006 PA Super 210 (August 7, 2006)

Holding: After a sensitive that it was filed, even if premature, a verdict can not default occurred because the defendant is not in default.

1.2. Regulation

Court Commonwealth *

Brannam f v. Reedy, DC No. 2590 2005 (14 August 2006)

Holding: An inquiry is necessary when one party denies the existence of an agreement on dispute settlement and its binding effect, and is the appropriate procedure, even if it is a written agreement signed by an attorney if claims , that have no authority to bind defending his client. It also faces a hearing in which one would be abolished by judicial decision or forced by court order. A hearing must take place, even if the trial court “intimate knowledge” of the facts has, after a hearing, because consideration of a trial court of facts is not a substitute for a complete file. A hearing must be held also, notwithstanding the filing of a petition and answer, even if no party requests.

1.3. Transfer of the Federal Court before the State Supreme Court

Falcone to f Insurance Company of Pennsylvania, 2006 PA Super 241 (30 August 2006)

Holding: After 42nd Pa.C.S.A. § 5103, can a party a case to federal court to the appropriate state court if the federal court has no jurisdiction in diversity. The filing of the federal government will apply the state statute of limitations for the filing. To comply, a party must promptly furnish a certified copy of the final decision of the Federal Court and argument for a Pennsylvania court or administrative district. A party, not with the law by filing a new complaint before the Constitutional Court.

2 Unemployment Compensation

2.1. Reason needy and force them to quit smoking

Court Commonwealth *

Brunswick Hotel f & Conference Center, LLC v. Unemployment Benefits Board of Review), No. 464 CD 2006 (August 23, 2006)

Holding: tackling health care represents a substantial change in working conditions and serves as an overriding need for a claimant and his work that the applicant is entitled to the benefit of leaving unemployment.

3 Workers’ Compensation

3.1. Appellate review

* Supreme Court

f v. Mower Council Workers’ Compensation Appeals (Monaghan Township), No. 58 MAL 2006 (3 August 2006)

Holding: The court of the Commonwealth (and probably the Workers ‘Compensation Appeals Board) can not replace the assessment of the facts and the credibility of the witnesses of the Workers’ Compensation judge good evaluations. This reverse order summarily CURIAM Opinion of the Court of the Commonwealth, because the findings of fact and credibility is solely in the province of the Workers’ Compensation Judge.

3.2. Hearing Loss responsibility of the employer /

Court Commonwealth *

f Hayduk v. Council Workers’ Compensation Appeals (Bemis Co., Inc.), No. 230 CD 2006 (August 11, 2006)

Holding 1: If an employer (Company A) acquires the assets, but not the debts of another company (Company B), including the facilities where the plaintiff worked, and expressly excludes purchase one of the Workers’ Compensation liabilities of Company B “, which prior to purchase assets, the company A is not responsible for any work-related hearing loss occurred prior to the purchase of company B.

Holding 2: Under section 306 © (8) (iv) of the Workers’ Compensation Act, hearing tests for hearing loss, you need to work to standard OSHA. It is paid by the employer, it can be determined however, to an occupational deafness, due to a previous employer. Where, as here, the employer does not meet this burden, he remains responsible for all damages to a claimant to hear compensation.

3.3. Impairment assessment tests

* Supreme Court

Dowhower f v. Council of Workers’ Compensation Appeals (Capco Contracting, Inc.), No. 542 MAL 2003 (11 August 2006)

Holding: The Supreme Court held the application for refund of appeal and, without doubt, the question of whether an employer for a review of the cuts before the deadline apply for 104 weeks in section 306 (a.2) (1) of the Act, the Workers’ Compensation.

3.4. Physical Tests

Court Commonwealth *

Knechtel v. f Council Workers’ Compensation Appeals (Marriott Corp.), No. 140 CD 2006 (August 24, 2006)

Holding: Pursuant to Act § 314 (a) of the Workers’ Compensation if the doctor cared for by an employee, an employer to request a physical examination, the employee is entitled to costs of the employees have a doctor of your choice to participate in this post. Participation is limited to participation and observation.