Blog

What to Do After a Truck Accident in West Virginia, Ohio and Pennsylvania A recent trucking accident on I-70 near Wheeling caused serious injuries and brought traffic to a standstill. These kinds of accidents are all too common in West Virginia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, especially on major highways like I-70 and I-79. If you’re involved in a crash with a commercial truck, knowing what to do next is critical for your health and your legal rights. Protecting Yourself Legally and Medically If you’re involved in a truck accident: Call 911 immediately. Document the scene (photos, notes, witness names). Seek medical attention—even if injuries seem minor. Commercial trucking accidents are far more complicated than regular car crashes. The trucking company, driver, and even cargo loaders may all play a role in what happened. That’s why it’s so important to protect yourself early. Truck crashes often involve federal trucking regulations in addition to local laws. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) requires drivers to operate with “extreme caution” in hazardous conditions, a regulation often cited in legal cases. Don’t Navigate This Alone Trucking companies have their lawyers working to limit what they pay. Victims need someone in their corner who understands both state and federal laws across the tri-state region. An experienced attorney can help preserve evidence, negotiate with insurers, and ensure you’re treated fairly.  At Bordas & Bordas, we fight to protect victims and ensure they’re not taken advantage of during this complex process. Learn more about truck accident claims

Fighting for Justice for 40 Years In 2025, Bordas & Bordas is proudly celebrating 40 years, a testament to our unwavering commitment to serving our community and fighting for justice. Since our founding in 1985 by Jim and Linda Bordas, we’ve grown from a small practice into one of the region’s premier personal injury law firms with offices in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Wheeling and Moundsville, West Virginia, and St. Clairsville, Ohio. The story of Bordas & Bordas Attorneys PLLC began with a unique partnership. Linda, a former hospital pharmacist turned lawyer, and Jim, who has been described by many as a giant in the legal profession, combined their expertise and passion for justice to open the doors of Bordas & Bordas upon Linda’s graduation from law school in 1985. Their remarkable record, including never losing a trial together, fueled the firm’s early success. Linda’s medical background proved invaluable, particularly in medical malpractice cases, where she became a leading force, securing landmark verdicts and expanding patient rights. Jim spent his career fighting battles for his clients that others couldn’t or wouldn’t fight. For over four decades, he built a reputation of success through landmark jury verdicts and settlements. In 2000, the Bordas legacy continued with the addition of Jim and Linda’s oldest son, Jamie, who became the firm’s managing partner in 2005. Jim cherished working alongside Jamie, creating a strong bond, and ensuring the firm’s values would endure. Linda remains a partner at Bordas & Bordas and continues to provide guidance and advice as we continue to fight for justice. Our Core Values: The Shield of Bordas & Bordas Our logo, a shield with four quadrants and a central cross, symbolizes what we hold dear: Experience: Four decades of dedicated legal service. Family: A firm built on strong family values and lasting relationships. Community: A commitment to serving and giving back to our community. Results: A proven track record of securing substantial recoveries for our clients. Christian Values: The Cross in the center represents the moral compass that guides our work. Our Commitment to You A lot has changed in 40 years, but one thing remains the same: Our reputation for taking on any opponent in the courtroom. This is backed by years of success and record-breaking results, including numerous multi-million-dollar verdicts and settlements across a wide range of personal injury practice areas. We understand the challenges clients face, which is why our cases are handled on a contingency fee basis. This means clients pay no fee unless we secure a recovery for them. We offer: Free initial consultations. No retainer required. We advance all case expenses. Our work has garnered national attention, with features on programs like 60 Minutes, Inside Edition, and CNN, showcasing our dedication to seeking justice for our clients. Learn more about our results by clicking here. As we celebrate 40 years, we reaffirm our commitment to providing exceptional legal representation and upholding the values that have guided us since 1985. We are grateful for the trust our clients have placed in us and look forward to serving our community for many years to come.

Bordas & Bordas is proud to announce the names of the 16 students from schools in Ohio, Marshall and Belmont counties who are recipients of the Bordas & Bordas Anti-Bullying Fighting for Justice Award. The 2025 award recipients: Hayley Hoffer, Barnesville High School Reegan Williams, Bellaire High School Madison Marsh, Bridgeport High School Camden Frye, Cameron High School Dessie Morris, East Richland Christian High School Jadyn Parker, John Marshall High School Zoe Zatezalo, The Linsly School Nathan Luong, Martins Ferry High School Mia Boatman-Salas, Shadyside High School Andrew Roberts, St. Clairsville High School Gianna Parker, St. John Central Academy Emilie Blawut, Union Local High School Josann Frizzell, Wheeling Central Catholic High School Sydney Kobasko, Wheeling Central Catholic High School Ciera Faulstick, Wheeling Park High School Isabelle Thomas, Wheeling Park High School “Congratulations to the senior students who have been named 2025 Bordas & Bordas Anti-Bullying Ambassadors,” said Managing Partner Jamie Bordas. “Nominations from educators and community members highlighted the significant contributions these young adults have made through their actions and attitudes in both their schools and communities.” The award was created in 2014 by Bordas & Bordas founder Jim Bordas and honors each Anti-Bullying Ambassador with a $500 cash prize. The criteria for students nominated includes treating everyone equally, respecting differences in others, and standing up for those who are targeted by others or are discriminated against. “We are proud to recognize these individuals who serve as positive examples for their peers. We wish the Anti-Bullying Ambassadors and the class of 2025 the best of luck in their future endeavors,” said Bordas. Bordas & Bordas is a plaintiff’s litigation law firm with offices in Pittsburgh, Wheeling, W.Va., St. Clairsville, Ohio, and Moundsville, W.Va. The firm’s attorneys practice throughout the region in diverse areas of law and are licensed in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, and Texas.

I was on the West Virginia Secretary of State’s website recently. While on the website, I noticed some interesting tabs.  For instance, if you hit the Secretary’s Desk tab, you can read about the history of the Secretaries of States from 1863 to present.  I found some interesting facts regarding West Virginia. - The first brick street in the world was laid in Charleston on October 23, 1870 on Summers Street. - The nation’s largest and oldest burial ground is located in Moundsville. -  Weirton is the only city in the U.S. that extends from one state border to another. - The 1500 Block of Virginia Street in Charleston is considered the longest city block in the world. - Coal House, the only residence in the world built entirely of coal, is located in White Sulphur Springs. According to onlyinyourstate.com, some strange old West Virginia laws include: - Whistling underwater is prohibited. - Roadkill may be taken home for supper. - For each act of public swearing, a person shall be fined one dollar. - When a railroad passes within 1 mile of a community of 100 or more people in it, they must build a station and stop there regularly to pick up and drop off passengers. - It is illegal to snooze on a train. - A tax of 1 cent is levied for every 16 and 9 ounce containers of coke sold in a store. - A person may not hold public office if he or she has ever participated in a duel. - You cannot walk a lion, tiger or leopard, even on a leash.

Did you know that the original 3 Musketeers candy bars came in packs of three? Neither did I! My youngest son told me that little piece of trivia the other day. Since it was fascinating to me, I decided to do a little research and find out what the history of the 3 Musketeers candy bar was and share that history with you.nnMars, Incorporated introduced 3 Musketeers in 1932. It came in a box and had three mini candy bars in it. One was strawberry, one was chocolate, and one was vanilla. Their marketing department advertised it as a candy bar so big it could be shared with two friends. I guess that’s true if you can find two friends who like vanilla and strawberry candy bars. No one is going to share the chocolate one!nnAn interesting fact is that they stopped producing the strawberry and vanilla versions in 1945. Rationing of sugar began during the war in 1942, and it became too expensive to continue producing all three flavors. Since chocolate was the favorite by popular demand, Mars only continued to produce the chocolate flavor.nnThere have been other flavors of 3 Musketeers over the years in limited editions, such as mint, French vanilla, mocha cappuccino, cherry, raspberry, and orange, but the chocolate version is the only one you see today.nnSince everything is shrinking, I’m pretty sure the size of today’s 3 Musketeers is barely larger than the original mini size. Back then, you paid a whopping 5 cents for all three candy bars. Today’s prices are closer to a dollar for just one. But, as a bonus, there is less fat in 3 Musketeers than in other candy bars – only 7 grams! I say that’s a win-win because if you count fat grams and want a treat, you can never go wrong with chocolate-covered nougat!

WHEELING, W.Va. – Bordas & Bordas is pleased to welcome nominations for the 2025 Anti-Bullying Fighting for Justice Award. The award was created in 2014 by Bordas & Bordas founder Jim Bordas and honors senior students in each high school in Ohio, Marshall and Belmont counties. The criteria for students nominated includes treating everyone equally, respecting differences in others, and standing up for those who are targeted by others or are discriminated against. The winners of the award are deemed Anti-Bullying Ambassadors and receive a $500 cash award. “We are thrilled to continue recognizing these outstanding young leaders who are making a positive impact on their schools and communities,” said managing partner Jamie Bordas. “The Anti-Bullying Fighting for Justice Award celebrates kindness, empathy, and the courage to stand up for what is right.” Senior students may be nominated by peers, teachers, coaches or community members. To nominate a senior student from your community, visit bordaslaw.com/antibullyingaward. The award will be presented at the end-of-year award ceremony at each of the recipients’ schools. The deadline for nominations is Monday, March 31.

PITTSBURGH, PA. – The law firm of Bordas & Bordas has donated a total of $26,000 to the Ronald McDonald House Charities of Pittsburgh in conjunction with their Pittsburgh Steelers partnership for the 2024-25 season. The firm started the Sacks for Kids campaign in 2015 and a donation of $500 goes to the Ronald McDonald House Charities of Pittsburgh and Morgantown for every sack made by the Steelers defense, including the pre-season, regular season and postseason. The Steelers ended the 2024-25 season with a total of 52 sacks. Over the history of this partnership, Bordas & Bordas has now contributed over $300,000 to Ronald McDonald House Charities of Pittsburgh and Morgantown. “The Sacks for Kids program is more than just a fun way to watch the Steelers. It’s about being able to help make a difference in the lives of families in need during a difficult time. This year, we’re celebrating ten years of giving back, and we’re proud to have donated over $300,000 to the Ronald McDonald House throughout our time with the program,” said managing partner Jamie Bordas. The Ronald McDonald House Charities of Pittsburgh and Morgantown is a charity designed to help families with children being treated in a medical center. The Ronald McDonald House organization has local chapters in 62 countries and regions. It provides housing and meals at no cost so families can focus on care and togetherness rather than worry about the rising costs of hotels and travel. “Although we were disappointed in the season coming to an end like many Steelers fans, writing this check is a good way for us to end the season because we know that it will help a lot of families,” said Bordas. On January 4, marketing representative Olivia Silverio presented Eleanor Reigel, CEO of Ronald McDonald House Charities of Pittsburgh and Morgantown, with a check as part of the Sacks for Kids partnership with the Pittsburgh Steelers. Two families staying at the House joined them. Photo: (Pittsburgh Steelers)

Bordas & Bordas’ Scott Blass presented Oglebay Foundation President and CEO Eriks Janelsins with a $10,000 check representing proceeds from the 2024 Bordas & Bordas Amateur Golf Classic. Thank you again to all Bordas & Bordas Amateur Golf Classic sponsors and participants! The $10,000 donation will go towards supporting Access to the Parks scholarships, an Oglebay Foundation program providing low-income Ohio County children and an accompanying adult with free year-round admission to all the activities at Oglebay and Wheeling Park!

J.F., a minor, was left in a persistent vegetative state due to a defective and unsafe Aisys CS2 anesthesia system (“Anesthesia System”) used during surgery at Shands Jacksonville Medical Center (“Shands”) in Jacksonville, Florida. Datex, a subsidiary of General Electric Company (collectively referred to as “GE Defendants”), manufactured the Anesthesia System, and Crothall Healthcare, Inc. (“Crothall”), an independent entity, serviced the Anesthesia System. Plaintiff sued the Defendants in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. The GE Defendants filed preliminary objections, asserting that the trial court lacked general and specific personal jurisdiction over them.nnGE was incorporated in New York and headquartered in Massachusetts. Datex was a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in Wisconsin. The Anesthesia System was designed and manufactured in Wisconsin and sold to Shands by Datex in Florida. However, the invoice that was sent by Datex to Shands indicated that payment for the Anesthesia System was to be sent to the GE Defendants’ bank, located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The trial court entered an order sustaining the GE Defendants’ preliminary objections and dismissing them from the case.nnCrothall, which was headquartered in Pennsylvania, filed a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens. The trial court entered an order granting the motion and dismissing the complaint without prejudice to Plaintiff refiling in Florida or another appropriate jurisdiction.nn“A corporate defendant’s activities within the Commonwealth ‘may give rise to either specific or general jurisdiction.’” Merino v. Repak, B.V., 286 A.3d 1249, 1256 (Pa. Super. 2022). General jurisdiction exists in “situations where a corporation’s connections are ‘so continuous and systematic as to render them essentially at home in the forum State,’ allowing for jurisdiction over causes of action unrelated to in-state activities.” Hammons v. Ethicon, Inc., 240 A.3d 537, 555 (Pa. 2020). Specific jurisdiction applies where there are “more limited connections with a state which restrict jurisdiction to causes of action ‘where there is an affiliation between the forum and the underlying controversy.’” Id. nnIn Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., 600 U.S. 122 (2023), the Supreme Court of the United States addressed 42 Pa.C.S. § 5301(a)(2)(i), and held by registering in Pennsylvania, the foreign corporation voluntarily consents to suit in the Commonwealth in order to avail itself of the opportunity to do business in Pennsylvania. However, in this case the Superior Court determined that Plaintiff waived any argument on general jurisdiction as it was not raised in the trial court. Trigg v. Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh of UPMC, 229 A.3d 260, 269 (Pa. 2020).nnPennsylvania courts have relied on the following three-part test to determine whether specific jurisdiction exists in a particular case:n Did the plaintiff’s cause of action arise out of or relate to the out-of-state defendant’s forum-related contacts? Did the defendant purposely direct its activities, particularly as they relate to the plaintiff’s cause of action, toward the forum state or did the defendant purposely avail itself of the privilege of conducting activities therein? Would the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the nonresident defendant in the forum state satisfy the requirement that it be reasonable and fair? Hammons, 240 A.3d at 556.nnHere, the only Pennsylvania related activity or occurrence averred was the existence of a bank lockbox located in Pittsburgh, PA. The Superior Court found no evidence showing that the GE Defendants purposefully sought Pennsylvania as the locale where it would receive payment on the Anesthesia System, and the payments directed to Pennsylvania had no relation to the allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint; therefore, the Court concluded that the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion in granting the GE Defendants’ preliminary objections as to personal jurisdiction.nnFinally, when assessing whether to disturb the plaintiff’s choice of forum, the trial court must consider private factors, including,n the relative ease of access to sources of proof; availability of compulsory process for attendance for unwilling, and the cost of obtaining attendance of willing, witnesses; possibility of view of the premises, if view would be appropriate to the action; and all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive. McConnell v. B. Braun Medical Inc., 221 A.3d 221, 227 (Pa. Super. 2019).nnThe court must also consider factors affecting the public interest, including thatn administrative difficulties follow for courts when litigation is piled up in congested centers instead of being handled at its origin. Jury duty is a burden that ought not to be imposed upon the people of a community which has no relation to the litigation. There is an appropriateness, too, in having the trial . . . in a forum that is at home with the state law that must govern the case, rather than having a court in some other forum untangle problems in conflict of laws, and in law foreign to itself. Id. at 227-28.nnUpon review, the Superior Court agreed with the trial court’s decision to dismiss Croththall from the suit on the basis of forum non conveniens because J.F.’s injuries were sustained in Florida, all identified potential witnesses reside outside Pennsylvania, the Anesthesia System remains in Florida along with potentially other relevant evidence, and Florida law likely applies to this dispute. Moreover, the Court determined that Crothall had provided evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion that the key witnesses it would present at trial were based in Florida and would testify, consistent with the company’s defense asserted in its answer that Crothall had insufficient involvement with the Anesthesia System to be found liable for J.F.’s injuries.nnThe Court’s opinion in Kennedy v. Crothall Healthcare, Inc., 2024 PA Super 177 (August 9, 2024) can be accessed here.

J.F., a minor, was left in a persistent vegetative state due to a defective and unsafe Aisys CS2 anesthesia system (“Anesthesia System”) used during surgery at Shands Jacksonville Medical Center (“Shands”) in Jacksonville, Florida. Datex, a subsidiary of General Electric Company (collectively referred to as “GE Defendants”), manufactured the Anesthesia System, and Crothall Healthcare, Inc. (“Crothall”), an independent entity, serviced the Anesthesia System. Plaintiff sued the Defendants in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. The GE Defendants filed preliminary objections, asserting that the trial court lacked general and specific personal jurisdiction over them.nnGE was incorporated in New York and headquartered in Massachusetts. Datex was a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in Wisconsin. The Anesthesia System was designed and manufactured in Wisconsin and sold to Shands by Datex in Florida. However, the invoice that was sent by Datex to Shands indicated that payment for the Anesthesia System was to be sent to the GE Defendants’ bank, located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The trial court entered an order sustaining the GE Defendants’ preliminary objections and dismissing them from the case.nnCrothall, which was headquartered in Pennsylvania, filed a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens. The trial court entered an order granting the motion and dismissing the complaint without prejudice to Plaintiff refiling in Florida or another appropriate jurisdiction.nn“A corporate defendant’s activities within the Commonwealth ‘may give rise to either specific or general jurisdiction.’” Merino v. Repak, B.V., 286 A.3d 1249, 1256 (Pa. Super. 2022). General jurisdiction exists in “situations where a corporation’s connections are ‘so continuous and systematic as to render them essentially at home in the forum State,’ allowing for jurisdiction over causes of action unrelated to in-state activities.” Hammons v. Ethicon, Inc., 240 A.3d 537, 555 (Pa. 2020). Specific jurisdiction applies where there are “more limited connections with a state which restrict jurisdiction to causes of action ‘where there is an affiliation between the forum and the underlying controversy.’” Id. nnIn Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., 600 U.S. 122 (2023), the Supreme Court of the United States addressed 42 Pa.C.S. § 5301(a)(2)(i), and held by registering in Pennsylvania, the foreign corporation voluntarily consents to suit in the Commonwealth in order to avail itself of the opportunity to do business in Pennsylvania. However, in this case the Superior Court determined that Plaintiff waived any argument on general jurisdiction as it was not raised in the trial court. Trigg v. Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh of UPMC, 229 A.3d 260, 269 (Pa. 2020).nnPennsylvania courts have relied on the following three-part test to determine whether specific jurisdiction exists in a particular case:n n n Did the plaintiff’s cause of action arise out of or relate to the out-of-state defendant’s forum-related contacts? n n n Did the defendant purposely direct its activities, particularly as they relate to the plaintiff’s cause of action, toward the forum state or did the defendant purposely avail itself of the privilege of conducting activities therein? n n n Would the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the nonresident defendant in the forum state satisfy the requirement that it be reasonable and fair? n n n Hammons, 240 A.3d at 556.nnHere, the only Pennsylvania related activity or occurrence averred was the existence of a bank lockbox located in Pittsburgh, PA. The Superior Court found no evidence showing that the GE Defendants purposefully sought Pennsylvania as the locale where it would receive payment on the Anesthesia System, and the payments directed to Pennsylvania had no relation to the allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint; therefore, the Court concluded that the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion in granting the GE Defendants’ preliminary objections as to personal jurisdiction.nnFinally, when assessing whether to disturb the plaintiff’s choice of forum, the trial court must consider private factors, including,n the relative ease of access to sources of proof; availability of compulsory process for attendance for unwilling, and the cost of obtaining attendance of willing, witnesses; possibility of view of the premises, if view would be appropriate to the action; and all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive. n McConnell v. B. Braun Medical Inc., 221 A.3d 221, 227 (Pa. Super. 2019).nnThe court must also consider factors affecting the public interest, including thatn administrative difficulties follow for courts when litigation is piled up in congested centers instead of being handled at its origin. Jury duty is a burden that ought not to be imposed upon the people of a community which has no relation to the litigation. There is an appropriateness, too, in having the trial . . . in a forum that is at home with the state law that must govern the case, rather than having a court in some other forum untangle problems in conflict of laws, and in law foreign to itself. n Id. at 227-28.nnUpon review, the Superior Court agreed with the trial court’s decision to dismiss Croththall from the suit on the basis of forum non conveniens because J.F.’s injuries were sustained in Florida, all identified potential witnesses reside outside Pennsylvania, the Anesthesia System remains in Florida along with potentially other relevant evidence, and Florida law likely applies to this dispute. Moreover, the Court determined that Crothall had provided evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion that the key witnesses it would present at trial were based in Florida and would testify, consistent with the company’s defense asserted in its answer that Crothall had insufficient involvement with the Anesthesia System to be found liable for J.F.’s injuries.nnThe Court’s opinion in Kennedy v. Crothall Healthcare, Inc., 2024 PA Super 177 (August 9, 2024) can be accessed here.

Wheeling, WV – Bordas & Bordas is proud to announce that four of its attorneys have been selected for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America® 2025 edition. This prestigious honor, which highlights the top 5% of practicing lawyers in the United States, recognizes legal professionals based solely on peer review by their colleagues within the same practice areas and geographic regions. “We are incredibly honored to have four of our attorneys recognized by The Best Lawyers in America®,” said Jamie Bordas, Managing Partner at Bordas & Bordas. “This recognition is a testament to our firm’s dedication, expertise, and commitment to providing exceptional legal representation to our clients.” The Bordas & Bordas attorneys included in The Best Lawyers in America® 2025 edition are: Jamie Bordas: Personal Injury Litigation – Plaintiffs Scott Blass: Medical Malpractice Law – Plaintiffs, Personal Injury Litigation – Plaintiffs, Product Liability Litigation – Plaintiffs Geoff Brown: Personal Injury Litigation – Plaintiffs, Product Liability Litigation – Plaintiffs Tom Anderson: Employment Law – Individuals, Litigation – Labor and Employment Jamie Bordas, managing partner of Bordas & Bordas since 2005, has been recognized by The Best Lawyers in America® for the past 10 years. He spearheads Bordas & Bordas’ operations across multiple states and jurisdictions. An extremely accomplished litigator, Bordas has concentrated on the negotiation and resolution of the firm’s most complex and significant cases, including mass tort settlements of $36,500,000 and $18,500,000 and a single plaintiff settlement of over $18,000,000. In 2019, he served as lead counsel for a plaintiff at trial and presented the Oral Argument before the West Virginia Supreme Court in a case that resulted in a $16,922,000 verdict against Walmart. The verdict is believed to be one of the largest, if not the largest, verdicts in the history of Wood County, West Virginia, on behalf of a single plaintiff. He has also obtained a $10 million verdict in an insurance bad faith case in Belmont County, Ohio. Bordas works on cases involving diverse areas of law, including insurance bad faith, toxic torts, personal injury, medical malpractice, oil and gas cases, business litigation and more. He has frequently been invited to speak to groups of attorneys on techniques applicable to trial skills, negotiation, mediation and resolution of cases because of his reputation for getting the best possible results for his clients. He has led the firm’s expansion into Pittsburgh and the rest of Western Pennsylvania and the opening of the firm’s Gateway Center offices in Pittsburgh. Geoff Brown, a partner at Bordas & Bordas, also celebrates his tenth consecutive inclusion to The Best Lawyers in America® list. He concentrates his work on the firm’s complex litigation and medical malpractice cases. He has obtained major jury verdicts not only in medical malpractice, but also in cases of stockbroker negligence, workplace injury, and wrongful death. Brown has earned a reputation for comprehensive preparation and attention to detail in theses demanding areas of law. He has obtained multi-million-dollar verdicts in West Virginia and Ohio. Brown has also been involved in Bordas & Bordas’ business litigation department and has handled multi-jurisdictional contract disputes involving Fortune 500 companies and representation of individuals before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) arbitration panel. Scott Blass has been on The Best Lawyers in America® for 14 consecutive years. Blass has been litigating complex civil cases for over 30 years. He has obtained seven-figure verdicts on behalf of his clients in diverse areas of the law, including verdicts of over $4 million in a product liability case, $8 million in an auto accident case, $1.4 million in an insurance bad faith case, and $5.7 million in a medical malpractice case. Blass has also represented the families of oil and gas workers killed in fires/explosions and obtained settlements of $19 million and $19.5 million. He has been recognized as one of the foremost insurance bad faith and insurance coverage lawyers in West Virginia. Tom Anderson has been recognized by Best Lawyers in America annually since 2019. Tom focuses his practice on helping individuals who have been injured or discriminated against in violation of state and federal laws, as well as matters of employment law, personal injury, medical malpractice, premises liability, and commercial law including seven-figure verdicts in cases of racial discrimination and retaliation, wrongful discharge and invasion of privacy, along with cases of product and premesis liability. This past April, Tom served as trial counsel in a trial that saw a jury in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania return a verdict of $20,500,000 against American Home Patient/Lincare in a racial discrimination case arising out of its State College, Pennsylvania location. The law firm of Bordas & Bordas has a long history of serving communities in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. The firm’s team of experienced attorneys offers a wide range of legal services, including those recognized by The Best Lawyers in America®. “We remain committed to providing our clients with the highest quality legal representation possible,” said Jamie Bordas “Being recognized by The Best Lawyers in America® is a reflection of our continued commitment to excellence.”

Bordas & Bordas is proud to announce the names of the 13 students from schools in Ohio, Marshall and Belmont counties who are recipients of the Bordas & Bordas Anti-Bullying Fighting for Justice Award. The 2024 award recipients: Marah Bethel, Barnesville High School Janyah Johnson, Bellaire High School Campbell Kropka, Bridgeport High School Coy Angel, Cameron High School Garrett Mayle, Central Catholic High School Ava Blake, John Marshall High School Peyton Florence, The Linsly School Kyndahl Richardson, Martins Ferry High School Landon Prickett, Shadyside High School Makenna Moran, St. Clairsville High School Nevada Lucas, St. John Central Academy Carson Phillips, Union Local High School Rylin Russell, Wheeling Park High School “Congratulations to the senior students who have been named 2024 Bordas & Bordas Anti-Bullying Ambassadors,” said Managing Partner Jamie Bordas. “Teachers, guidance counselors, coaches and community members submit nominations sharing the positive acts of kindness demonstrated by these young adults. We are pleased to continue recognizing those who are modeling how to treat others, and making a difference in their schools and community.” The award was created in 2014 by Bordas & Bordas founder Jim Bordas and honors each Anti-Bullying Ambassador with a $500 cash prize. The criteria for students nominated includes treating everyone equally, respecting differences in others, and standing up for those who are targeted by others or are discriminated against. “We wish the Anti-Bullying Ambassadors and the class of 2024 the best of luck in their future endeavors,” said Bordas. Bordas & Bordas is a plaintiff’s litigation law firm with offices in Pittsburgh, Wheeling, W.Va., St. Clairsville, Ohio, and Moundsville, W.Va. The firm’s attorneys practice throughout the region in diverse areas of law and are licensed in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, and Texas.