Blog

Recently, in the case of Buck v. GEICO, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, granted GEICO’s Motion to dismiss Mr. Buck’s insurance bad faith claim for failing to allege a denial of benefits in accordance with 42 Pa. C.S.A. §8371. Mr. Buck was involved in a motor vehicle accident wherein his vehicle collided with a parking bollard. Mr. Buck claimed that the accident was caused by a non-party security officer. He reported the collision to his insurance company, GEICO, and in accordance with the policy, he “provided a full and accurate description of the accident.” Despite Mr. Buck’s claim, and without any further investigation, GEICO determined that the collision was Mr. Buck’s fault.”  Thereafter, GEICO significantly increased Mr. Buck’s insurance premiums. Consequently, Mr. Buck was forced to seek insurance from another company in an attempt to offset the increased premium. Months later, Mr. Buck provided GEICO with surveillance video that showed the collision happened exactly as Mr. Buck initially described it. GEICO acknowledged its receipt and review of the video, but nonetheless determined that it’s liability position regarding the loss would not change. Later, GEICO informed Mr. Buck that it had changed its liability decision and determined that Mr. Buck was not solely responsible for the accident, but was comparatively negligent. Mr. Buck filed an underinsured motorists (UIM) claim against GEICO, and GEICO filed a motion to dismiss the claim on the basis that Mr. Buck did not assert that GEICO denied benefits under an insurance policy as required by Pennsylvania’s insurance bad faith statute, 42 Pa. C.S.A. §8371. In response, Mr. Buck argued that he does not need to allege a denial of benefits to state a cause of action for insurance bad faith under § 8371 and claimed that GEICO’s investigative practices and faulty conclusions based on egregious investigative inaction provided a cause of action under § 8371. Mr. Buck relied on O’Donnell ex rel. Mitro v. Allstate Ins. Co, which states that “ection 8371 is not restricted to an insurer’s bad faith in denying a claim. An action for bad faith may also extend to the insurer’s investigative practices.” 734 A.2d 901, 904 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1999). However, in UPMC Health Sys. v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 391 F.3d 497, 506 (3d Cir. 2004), the Court explained, that O’Donnell merely clarified that “the alleged bad faith need not be limited to the literal act of denying a claim,” but “the essence of a bad faith claim must be the unreasonable and intentional (or reckless) denial of benefits.” Id. Thus, the Court determined that Mr. Buck must allege the denial of benefits to state a claim under § 8371. In response, Mr. Buck argued that GEICO’s investigative practices and faulty conclusions based on egregious investigative inaction effectively denied him the benefits of (1) fair and reasonable treatment upon submission of a claim; (2) the wisdom and experience of a multi-billion-dollar organization standing behind you in your moment of need; and (3) an insurance carrier to pursue your deductible from the actual party at fault. Nonetheless, the Court noted that Mr. Buck did not allege in his Complaint that any of these benefits arose from his insurance policy, or that he was denied those benefits. Accordingly, the Court could not consider Mr. Buck’s assertions in resolving GEICO’s motion to dismiss. The Court explained that even assuming that the bad faith denial of the benefits claimed by Mr. Buck was properly alleged in the Complaint, Mr. Buck’s argument fails because he does not allege the denial of any benefits within the meaning of the statute. “‘ad faith’ as it concern allegations made by an insured against his insurer ha acquired a particular meaning in the law.” Toy v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 928 A.2d 186, 199 (Pa. 2007). Courts in Pennsylvania and the Third Circuit have consistently held that “ plaintiff bringing a claim under must demonstrate that an insurer has acted in bad faith toward the insured through ‘any frivolous or unfounded refusal to pay proceeds of a policy.’” Wise v. Am. Gen. Life Ins. Co., 459 F.3d 443, 452 (3d Cir. 2006). None of the “benefits” that GEICO allegedly denied Mr. Buck concern the refusal to pay proceeds under an insurance policy. Therefore, the Court concluded that because Mr. Buck did not allege a “denial of benefits” within the meaning of § 8371, GEICO’s motion to dismiss was granted. However, Mr. Buck was given the opportunity to file an Amended Complaint.

50 years after the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) was adopted, the credit reporting system is still broken, as evidenced by the more than a quarter-million complaints about the three largest credit bureaus submitted to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”). The credit bureaus and the companies that supply them with information still have serious problems in ensuring the accuracy of credit reports and the dispute process meant to fix the reports remains arbitrary and ineffective. “A key reason in the structure of the system is that consumers are the commodity, not the customer of the credit bureaus. When Equifax, TransUnion, or Experian fails to respond to consumers’ problems, we can’t vote with our feet to leave,” said National Consumer Law Center attorney Chi Chi Wu. Americans frequently suffer from credit reporting abuses, such as having their credit files “mixed” with the wrong person, negative information that remains even after court judgments or legal settlements declare that a consumer doesn’t owe a debt, the after-effects of identity theft when credit bureaus and creditors don’t believe the victim, and being labeled as dead when they are alive and breathing. According to a Federal Trade Commission study, out of an estimated 208 million Americans with credit reports, about 42 million consumers have errors on their credit reports, and 10 million have errors that can be life-altering. To make matters worse, the widespread inaccuracies are rarely remedied through the dispute process that Congress required the credit bureaus offer to consumers. Some “furnishers” (creditors or other companies that supply information to the credit bureaus) still conduct antiquated, perfunctory investigations into credit reporting disputes and ignore CFPB guidance on how information provided by the consumer is to be considered. Making matters worse, the credit bureaus still fail to conduct their own independent investigations. They thoughtlessly accept what a furnisher tells them, even when what they are told is contrary to established evidence such as court judgments. So, what are aggrieved consumers to do? When you are the victim of a FCRA violation, you can sue in court. But first, you must go through the formal dispute process with the credit reporting agencies. A call or letter directly to your creditor will not do the trick. While there are options on how to file a dispute, including online, we recommend that you send a letter by certified mail to each offending credit bureau that describes the inaccurate information being reported and encloses all of your supporting documents. Of course, make a copy of exactly what you submit. If the inaccurate information is not fixed during the dispute process, you are then free to file a lawsuit in federal or state court against the credit bureau(s) and/or the furnisher of the false information. The remedies recoverable under the FCRA include all actual damages. For example, inaccurate information in your report could lead a creditor to deny you a car loan or credit card, an employer to refuse to hire you, or a landlord to decide not to rent to you. Actual damages include both economic damages and general damages, including an award for emotional distress type harm when proven. If the violation is determined to be willful on the part of the defendant, punitive damages may also be awarded. Finally, a credit bureau and/or furnisher that violates the statute by reporting false information and failing to acknowledge the merits of your dispute may be ordered to pay your attorneys’ fees. If after filing a good faith dispute with a credit bureau inaccurate information remains on your credit report and continues to cause you harm, please feel free to contact Bordas & Bordas for a free consultation.

Recently, in Raynor v. D'Annunzio, the Pennsylvania Superior Court held that a contempt proceeding represents a “procurement, initiation, or continuation of civil proceedings” as contemplated by the Dragonetti Act. Pennsylvania’s Dragonetti Act creates the following cause of action: (a) Elements of action.--A person who takes part in the procurement, initiation or continuation of civil proceedings against another is subject to liability to the other for wrongful use of civil proceedings: (1) he acts in a grossly negligent manner or without probable cause and primarily for a purpose other than that of securing the proper discovery, joinder of parties or adjudication of the claim in which the proceedings are based; and (2) the proceedings have terminated in favor of the person against whom they are brought. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 8351(a). This case evolved from an acrimonious relationship between opposing counsel in the matter of Sutch v. Roxborough Memorial Hospital, 142 A.3d 38, 79 (Pa.Super. 2016). In Roxborough, Attorney Raynor served as defense counsel for Dr. Jeffrey Gellar and Roxborough Emergency Physician Associates. Appellees were the plaintiff’s counsel, D’Annunzio and plaintiff, respectively. Ms. Sutch, through her counsel, D’Annunzio (and others), filed suit against Roxborough, alleging Roxborough’s failure to obtain a recommended CT scan during a May 3, 2007 emergency room visit resulted in a missed opportunity to diagnose and treat Decedent Rosaline Wilson’s lung cancer. During the Sutch trial, Ms. Raynor and Roxborough were precluded from presenting evidence or argument regarding Rosaline Wilson’s smoking history. D’Annunzio requested an order from the trial judge directing Raynor to inform her witnesses of the ban on smoking, but the court declined to issue an order, stating that Raynor and the witness “knew the rules.” Nonetheless, when asked amount Ms. Wilson’s cardiac risk factors, the witness stated Mr. Wilson’s smoking history. Outside the presence of the jury, D’Annunzio requested that Raynor be held in contempt of court for eliciting the smoking testimony. The witness “did not recall being instructed about the prohibition regarding smoking.” Raynor stated that she did not intend to elicit testimony concerning Ms. Wilson’s smoking history. The court denied D’Annunzio’s request for a mistrial and his request to strike the witness’ testimony. Instead, the court provided a curative instruction. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury awarded $190,000.00 to Ms. Such.  Following the verdict, D’Annunzio requested a new trial and sanctions against Raynor in the form of the costs associated with the trial. The court granted a new trial, the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed, and upon remand, the trial court scheduled a contempt hearing. At the conclusion of the contempt hearing, the trial court sanctioning Raynor in the amount of $946,195.16. While the appeal to the Superior Court was pending, D’Annunzio entered judgment on the contempt Order and issued writs of attachment, executions in attachment, and summons upon various garnishees, which had the effect of freezing Raynor’s personal and law firm bank accounts and placing a lien upon Raynor’s home. The Superior Court stayed all existing execution and garnishment actions, as well as any future proceedings in the case, thereby permitting D’Annunzio access to the bank accounts. Later, the Superior Court reversed the trial court and vacated all sanctions and judgments taken thereon. The Superior Court’s central holdings were 1) Raynor could not have intentionally violated an order to instruct the witness not to mention smoking because no such order existed, and 2) no evidence of record existed to prove that Raynor colluded with the witness in an effort to flout the in limine ruling barring testimony about smoking. Raynor filed the instant claim alleging: 1) violation of the Dragonetti Act, 2) common law wrongful use of civil proceedings, and 3) abuse of process. The crux of the Complaint is that D’Annunzio knew the requests for sanctions and contempt were wholly unsupported by facts and law, yet they nevertheless pursued sanctions and contempt for the vindictive purpose of destroying Raynor’s professional livelihood and personal life. D’Annunzio argued, inter alia, that Raynor failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted because moving for sanctions or contempt does not constitute “procurement” under the Dragonetti Act. D’Annunzio also argued that he was not “a party” to the underlying action; therefore, Raynor did not have standing to sue him under the Dragonetti Act. The trial court sustained D’Annunzio’s preliminary objections and dismissed Raynor’s complaint, and Raynor appealed to the Superior Court. The Superior Court determined that the trial court committed an error of law, and held that a contempt proceeding in this case following the remand of the record by this court does represent a “procurement, initiation, or continuation of civil proceedings” as contemplated by the Dragonetti Act. More specifically, the Court determined that a motion seeking a finding of contempt and a request for sanctions is, separate and distinct from post-trial motions alleging trial court error filed in the underlying lawsuit for the purposes of the Dragonetti Act, tantamount to the filing of a civil lawsuit. “In a fashion similar to a civil lawsuit, the parties exchanged pleadings, and the trial court held a hearing, issued an adjudication of contempt, and imposed sanctions.” Moreover, the Court held that it was of no import, however, that D’Annunzio was not original parties to the underlying medical malpractice lawsuit that gave rise to the request for a finding of contempt and sanctions. The Court held that because D’Annunzio was a defendant in the contempt proceedings that gave rise to the Dragonetti cause of action and was the party against whom sanctions were imposed, Raynor had standing to sue D’Annunzio under the Dragonetti Act. The Superior Court however agreed with the trial court erred when it sustained the preliminary objections in the form of a demurrer to Raynor’s common law wrongful use of civil proceedings. While this case was pending, in Villani v. Seibert, 159 A.3d 478 (Pa. 2017), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that the Dragonetti Act is constitutional and that attorneys may be found liable for wrongful use of civil proceedings claims. Therefore, the Dragonetti Act subsumes any common law wrongful use of civil proceedings claim. Finally, the Superior Court agreed with the trial court when it sustained D’Annunzio’s preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer to Count III of their complaint, which alleged abuse of process. The common law cause of action for abuse of process “is defined as the use of legal process against another ‘primarily to accomplish a purpose for which it is not designed.’” Rosen v. American Bank of Rolla, [] 627 A.2d 190, 192 (Pa.Super. 1993). To establish a claim for abuse of process it must be shown that the defendant (1) used a legal process against the plaintiff, (2) primarily to accomplish a purpose for which the process was not designed; and (3) harm has been caused to the plaintiff. Abuse of process is, in essence, the use of legal process as a tactical weapon to coerce a desired result that is not the legitimate object of the process. Thus, the gravamen of this tort is the perversion of legal process to benefit someone in achieving a purpose which is not an authorized goal of the procedure in question. Werner v. Plater-Zyberk, 799 A.2d 776, 792 (Pa.Super. 2002). However, a defendant cannot be held liable for abuse of process when the defendant “has done nothing more than carry out the process to its authorized conclusion, even though with bad intentions.” Shaffer v. Stewart, 473 A.2d 1017, 1019 (Pa.Super. 1984). Here, the Superior Court agreed with the trial court that even if a plaintiff in an abuse of process cause of action can establish that a defendant was consumed with hatred for plaintiff, he still has not created a genuine issue as to whether the primary purpose of the suit was anything other than carrying the process to its authorized conclusion.

In order for attorneys to be able to practice law they must have (1) graduated from law school (2) passed the bar examination and (3) satisfied any character and fitness requirements a state may have including passing the MPRE - the ethics exam. The main question then comes, what is the bar exam and how hard is it to pass? Is it the same in every state? I have taken three states’ bar exams and each experience has been totally different as each exam had different state specific areas of the law that must have been learned by the examinees. Nonetheless, there is one portion of the exam that remains constant throughout the United States. The MBE or the multistate bar exam is a standardized 200 question multiple choice exam that lasts a total of 6 hours and is conducted on the second day of the exam. This exam tests examinees on the black letter law rather than state specific material. However, the other portions of the exam will differ greatly depending on which state exam you are taking and whether they administer the “UBE” exam or a state specific exam. What is the UBE? The UBE stands for the Uniform Bar Examination which consists of not only the MBE, but also the MEE, the multistate essay exam, as well as the MPT, which is the Multistate Performance Test. In sum, state specific law is not tested when a state utilizes the UBE. The benefit of the UBE for a test taker is that if one passes the UBE you have reciprocity with the other states that administer the UBE – which enables you to obtain licensing in these states much quicker and easier than if you were required to take another bar exam. West Virginia has now adopted the UBE and Ohio will be doing so in 2020. However, Pennsylvania retains its state specific examination. Having now taken the West Virginia, Ohio and Pennsylvania bar exams prior to the UBE being administered, I can say that the most important aspect of preparing for the exam is learning how the state specific information is tested, and what topics of the state law are tested. For example, Pennsylvania tests examinees on tax law as well as DUI law. West Virginia previously tested on family law and wills and trusts. Ohio on the other hand, does not test on the subjects of tax or family law, but does test on commercial papers and other secured transactions. Thus, no bar examination is alike and it is imperative that one learn what subjects are being tested on the essay portion of the exams so as to not forget to review a certain area of law that may show up. Additionally, examinees have to practice endurance and timing in preparing for the bar exam. Generally, examinees only have a certain amount of time to answer each question or essay and thus, timing is important as well. Moreover, most bar exams last at least 2-3 days and therefore it is important to practice under the same timing constraints which will allow you to experience the art of focusing for at least six hours a day on these issues being tested on the and to block out whatever else may be on your mind. Lastly, and most importantly, although the bar examination is a tiring experience, it is important that bar examinees do not dwell on the exam after it is over as it may take as long as three to four months afterwards until examinees learn their fate on the exam. Although it is a stressful process, the reward of achieving a successful result is worth the wait. I hope this overview gave you some insight into the bar exam and the differing exams that exist across the country!

Last month I gave warnings to injured persons as to why it was never too late to hire an attorney. So, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. This month I intend on warning attorneys about a potential danger in their job. I hope to warn attorneys on the perils of using social media. Several cautionary issues of the same involve the following: 1. Posting a Social Media Profile Posting a profile on social media when it is used to “promote the lawyer or law firm's practice” is advertising. See,' e.g., Guidelines for Networking Sites, FLA. BAR STANDING COMM. ON ADVER. (Apr. 16, 2013). Just posting a profile of only contact information and qualifications can implicate the Rules. See, e.g., Quick Facts About Legal Ethics and Social Networking, VIRGINIA STATE BAR,  (“Statements made on social networks about a lawyer's services may be subject to the advertising rules.”). There are two common issues for lawyers when creating a profile for social media sites: (1) information cannot be false or misleading (i.e., it cannot contain “a material misrepresentation of fact or law”), Id., and (2) the attorney must not claim he or she is an expert or has a specialty without appropriate justification and possibly disclaimers. See MODEL RULES OF PROF'L CONDUCT R. 7.4 (2013). For example, under MR 7.4, an attorney may not necessarily state on his profile that he “specializes in patent law,” even if patent law comprises the majority of his practice. That statement could imply that he is in fact certified to practice before the USPTO. If he is not a member of the Patent Bar, this statement would violate MR 7.4. 2. Blogging or Posting the Law Blogs and other posts about the law are considered to be mostly educational and not advertising, even if they end up generating business. See generally Phila. Bar Ass'n Prof'l Guidance Comm., Formal Op. 2010-6, 7 (2010). In general, as long as the primary purpose of posting information is not to encourage retaining the lawyer, this posting is permitted. N.Y. State Bar Ass'n Comm. Prof'l Ethics, Formal Op. 899. 3. Posting About Professional Successes When advertising professional successes, if the announcement requests future business or intimates that a lawyer could deliver an equally successful result for a new client, the ethics rules on advertising would apply. Under MR 7.2, a communication is considered an advertisement when it “involves an active quest for clients.” MODEL RULES OF PROF'L CONDUCT R. 7.2 cmt. 1 (2013). Once a communication becomes an advertisement, not only must it comply with MR 7.1 such that it is truthful, not misleading, and not likely to create unjustified expectations in the mind of a client, but it also must comply with the additional notice requirements of MR 7.2. MODEL RULES OF PROF'L CONDUCT R. 7.2 (2013). An important additional fact is that a lawyer's services don’t need to cost anything for a communication to be considered advertising. If a lawyer offers a free consultation or offers services for free, according to at least one state, upon signaling “availability for professional employment,” he is advertising. Cal. State Bar Comm. Prof'l Responsibility & Conduct, Formal Op. 2012-186. 4. Specifically Soliciting Business Advertising messages over social media sent beyond a lawyer's circle of “followers,” “friends,” and “connections” (and not to a current or former client or family member) are subject to the rules governing solicitations. MR 7.3 specifies the protocol for the situation when a lawyer sends messages out to recipients that have not specifically opted in to receive them. Under the Rules, communication that falls under the solicitation requirements must not only comply with all the requirements of verifiability and veracity but must also be specifically labeled “Advertising Material” and must not be delivered as a “real-time” contact. MODEL RULES OF PROF'L CONDUCT R. 7.3 (2013). 5. Breaching client confidentiality MR 1.6 states that “ lawyer shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent ....” MODEL RULES OF PROF'L CONDUCT R. 1.6(a) (2013). Even though the person is his client, the lawyer is required to preserve even public information about the case under MR 1.6. MODEL RULES OF PROF'L CONDUCT R. 1.6 cmt. 3 (2013) (“The confidentiality rule, for example, applies not only to matters communicated in confidence by the client but also to all information relating to the representation, whatever its source. A lawyer may not disclose such information except as authorized or required by the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law.”). This is especially difficult to comprehend when the same information might be tweeted, without any ethical violation whatsoever, by a reporter, a bystander, or even another lawyer from a different firm attending the trial, but whom is not part of the case. The lawyer must secure informed consent from his client before he may post. See id. To share information related to the case that would be of interest to a lawyer’s followers, friends, and contacts, he could get informed consent from his client to make known the specific information or he could comment on the underlying legal theories that his case challenges or represents. As long as he is careful about revealing actual facts, a lawyer may post a fair amount of information. Helen W. Gunnarsson, Friending Your Enemies, Tweeting Your Trials: Using Social Media Ethically, 99 ILL. B.J. 500, 502-03 (2011). 6. Checking up on Jurors Social media can pose a danger when a lawyer is trying to research jury members for his own benefit. Social media provides an opportunity for an attorney to learn more about potential jurors. Not only can an attorney get a broader picture of the person but also check the accuracy of the potential juror's responses. Most courts are not too concerned about using publicly-available information, although even in those instances a lawyer should be concerned that (1) the juror must not be able to know about the research, and (2) if counsel uncovers an inconsistency between what a juror stated in voir dire and what is on his social media site, counsel must report the inconsistency to the court. See N.Y. Cnty. Comm. on Prof'l Ethics, Formal Op. 743 (2011) (citing N.Y. RULES OF PROF'L CONDUCT R. 3.5(d)); Ass'n of the Bar of the City of N.Y. Comm. on Prof'l & Judicial Ethics, Formal Op. 2012-2 (2012); Oregon State Bar Ass'n, Formal Op. 2013-189 (2012). As a practical matter, it is easy for an attorney to hide his presence on Facebook and Twitter because an account holder does not see visitors to his public feed. Facebook doesn't let people track who views their profile. Third-party apps also can't provide this functionality. However, it tracks and reports the names and titles of any visitors to a profile. If an attorney intends to research a juror, he should make sure his own privacy settings on the site or app are set to hide his visits. Under Model Rule 3.5 a lawyer may not “(a) seek to influence a ... prospective juror ... by means prohibited by law” or “(b) communicate ex parte with such a person during the proceedings unless authorized to do so by law or court order.” MODEL RULES OF PROF'L CONDUCT R. 3.5 (2013). Hopefully, all of the above will advise an attorney who reads this blog of the potential ethical dangers of using social media. These are just a few of the possible things that could lead to an ethics violation. Thus, to all lawyers, be cautious next time you intend to use the internet as part of your job.

Voir dire is actually an old French phrase. Roughly translated, it means “to speak the truth.” It is used to describe the process of questioning potential jurors to see if they are harboring any bias, prejudice or interest that would disqualify them from serving. In most states, the judge decides how the voir dire questions will be asked. For example, the judge may have the attorneys submit questions in writing and then the judge will ask the questions. Other judges let the attorneys themselves ask the questions. Either way the jurors are under oath and must answer the questions fully and truthfully. The point of the voir dire process is to test the jurors to see if they can be fair and impartial. Campaigns by the insurance industry have convinced some people that lawsuits are largely frivolous, and that lawsuit abuse is responsible for rising insurance premiums. Obviously, it is important to identify jurors who cannot decide the case fairly because of preconceived ideas like these. It’s also important to learn if jurors have ties to the insurance industry (through their work experience, business dealings, etc.) that would prevent them from being fair to accident victims. Voir dire gives attorneys the opportunity to explore these potential sources of bias. If a potential juror’s answers suggest that they can’t be fair, the attorney can ask to have that juror stricken. Attorneys also have the right to strike a certain number of jurors without having to give any reason for striking them. Ideally, this process insures that the jurors who actually hear the case are fair, honest and impartial. It’s one of the ways that our Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial is fully protected.

Advances in modern equipment have increased the importance of what is now known as “End of Life Decision Making.” Our wishes about how we would like to be treated in the event we are in a coma, unable to make decisions for ourselves, or terminally ill, need to be made carefully and with great understanding of the potential consequences. If you have recently had a loved one in the hospital, particularly an older person, you may have heard the expression “DNR.” DNR stands for “do not resuscitate.” It’s important to have a good understanding what this means or serious mistakes can occur. The best summary I have seen of a DNR was stated this way: “If I die, don’t bring me back with the electric shocks and, artificial respiration and a ventilator. But, don’t kill me.” Just because a person decides that their wishes are to be DNR doesn’t mean they want to die! It certainly doesn’t mean healthcare providers should not take good care of them. Many people decide that cardiopulmonary resuscitation, accomplished through chest compressions or shocks to the heart to restart it, or artificial ventilation and mechanically assisted breathing, are experiences they simply don’t wish to have. They may agree to a “DNR” in order to make it clear that they don’t want their life to be saved from a heart attack or a respiratory arrest through those intense treatments. But there is a long distance from being DNR and wanting to die. A person may want to live a long time, despite being DNR, and people are entitled to good care and careful attention from doctors, nurses, and hospitals to make sure they are not harmed, even if they are “DNR.” When you get into end-of-life decision life decision making for people who no longer wish to go on living, an entirely different set of questions arise. Then we talk about hospice care, the withdrawal of life-sustaining measures, and even assisted suicide. Those issues and decisions will be the subject of further blog posts later on. But for present purposes, it’s enough to learn this all important fact, that just because a person is DNR doesn’t mean they don’t want to live, and it doesn’t mean they aren’t supposed to be taken care of just as well as anybody else. If you have questions about end-of-life decision making, it makes sense to consult your doctor, and your lawyer, to make sure all the terms and issues are understood by you while you have time to think of things. That way, if, for whatever reason, you are not able to make the decision for yourself later on, you’ll at least have made the decision with sound advice while you were able to do so.

If you own a car in WV, OH or PA, state law requires that you carry liability insurance in certain minimum coverage limits. Most folks are aware of that fact. What folks often forget, however, are the other coverages that frequently appear in their auto insurance policies. One such often-overlooked coverage is medical payments, or “med pay” coverage. Simply put, med pay coverage serves to reimburse anyone who is riding in a covered automobile, and while riding in that automobile suffers an injury that requires medical treatment. You send your medical bills in to your insurance carrier, and assuming they are found to be reasonable and related to the accident that caused the injury, the insurance company will send you a check. It’s as simple as that. The maximum available med pay coverage can range from $500 up to $50,000 or more. What’s more, it isn’t expensive. It’s something I always recommend that my clients take advantage of. Even for folks who are covered by health insurance, med pay coverage can be very beneficial. Even where health insurance applies, how many times have you received a hefty bill from the hospital for co-pays or charges that aren’t covered by your policy? In almost every case, there is going to be a charge that you are responsible to pay. In that circumstance, and again assuming your treatment arose from an injury suffered while riding in a covered automobile, the med pay coverage can be a big, big help. There is, however, a little “hitch” you need to be aware of, and it’s happening more and more frequently these days. Let’s assume you are injured in an accident that is your own fault. You are taken to the emergency room, and a battery of tests is run. MRI exams, CT scans, X-Rays, the whole nine yards. You are discharged to go home, with a hospital bill that totals $7,500. If that hospital turns that bill into your health insurance company, they are going to be paid something around half of the total charge. That’s the deal hospitals negotiate with health insurance companies, and they are not allowed to bill you for the difference between what they charge and what your health insurer will pay. Of course, the hospitals would prefer to come up with a way to collect 100% of their charges up front. That’s where your med pay coverage comes in. In more and more cases, hospitals are sending their bills to your med pay carrier FIRST, before they submit to the health insurer. Why? Because they have no deal to accept a reduced price from the med pay carrier. In the case above, if their bill for treating you is $,7500, and you have sufficient med pay coverage limits, the hospital will collect the entire $7,500. They bill your health insurance company, and they collect half. They bill your med pay carrier, they collect 100%. Not hard to figure which way they want to go. So, here is the problem. Let’s say your hospital bill is $7,500, but your med pay coverage is only $2,000. The hospital first bills your auto carrier, collects the entire $2000 available under your med pay, and then submits the balance of $5,500 to your health insurer. You have an 80/20 health policy, so you owe a little over $1000 of the balance. Normally, you could use your med pay coverage to cover that. But in the case at hand, the hospital already exhausted your med pay benefits. If the hospital had billed your health insurer first (as you undoubtedly expected them to do), you would end up paying nothing yourself. But when they bill your med pay first, you are going to have to make that entire balance payment out of your own pocket, a difference of over $1,000. How can you avoid such a result? Contact your auto carrier as soon as possible after the accident, and advise them, IN WRITING, that any benefits available under your med pay coverage are to be paid directly to you. Should you have any questions about med pay or any other auto insurance coverages, feel free to contact any of the attorneys here at Bordas & Bordas.

If you find yourself in the unfortunate predicament of being involved in a car wreck caused by another motorist, you may well find yourself in yet another unfortunate predicament when you attempt to obtain compensation for your injuries and damages. Namely, if the person who caused the wreck has insurance, that insurance company is not likely to do anything to try to reasonably, fairly, promptly and objectively settle your claim until and unless you file a lawsuit. The insurance company knows that if you file a lawsuit, you cannot name the insurance company in the suit. Rather, you have to name the person driving the vehicle that caused the wreck. Thus, what if you are involved in an accident in your neighborhood that is caused by one of your good friends or, for that matter, one of your relatives. Because the insurance company of your friend and/or relative knows that you don’t want to have to sue anyone to get your case reasonably resolved, let alone your friend or relative that caused the wreck, you will take pennies on the dollar for the value of your claim. It is unfortunate, but it is reality. When you file a lawsuit as a result of a wreck caused by a third person, you can only sue the person that caused the wreck, not that person’s insurance company. Indeed, if the case goes to trial, the jury is never told that the person who caused the wreck has insurance. Even though some jurors might recognize that insurance is most likely involved, they will have no idea how much insurance is available. Insurance companies intentionally try to mislead juries into thinking that the person who caused the wreck is going to be financially ruined by any verdict returned. It would be nice if juries were allowed to know that the vast majority of individuals who are sued have insurance to pay for any judgment that is returned. Unfortunately, the rules of evidence do not allow that to occur and that is not likely to change.

Even before you sign a contract to have an attorney represent you on a legal claim, you may have documents that relate to your claim and potential lawsuit. These could include accident or police reports, medical records and bills, or even notes that you have taken yourself to document what happened. Once you do meet with an attorney, you will encounter even more documents. You will typically receive a copy of your fee and representation agreement with your attorney and some initial information about how your case will proceed. As the lawsuit progresses, your lawyer will send you additional documents providing updates on the case or requesting information from you. Sometimes it can seem overwhelming to receive these letters and papers, but there are ways to keep everything organized and simplify the paperwork aspect of a lawsuit. The most important thing to do when you receive a letter or other document from your attorney is to read it carefully. This may seem obvious, but it is essential that you read the documents entirely and make sure that you understand them. If you do not understand, you should call your lawyer for clarification. Even if you think that you know what the letter is going to say, read it thoroughly because it might contain a request for you to call your lawyer, appear somewhere, or collect and provide information to the law firm. Once you have read the letter you’ve received carefully, and followed through with any requests contained in the letter, you may be tempted to throw the letter away. Instead, you should keep all of the documents that your lawyer sends you until your case is resolved. Keep all papers related to your case together, in one secure location that you will not forget about. Bordas & Bordas will give you a folder during your initial meeting with your lawyer for you to store documents related to your case. Anytime you receive documents, you should place them in the folder. That way you will have everything handy for meetings with your lawyer or to review anything that has happened in your case. In addition to keeping your documents organized and in one location, you should make sure that others are not able to go through those documents. Communications between you and your lawyer, including letters, are confidential and covered by the attorney-client privilege, and that privilege can be jeopardized if others become a part of the communications. Of course, if your spouse or other family member is a part of the lawsuit, that is fine for them to look at the letters, and there are other circumstances where it is fine for you to show the documents to outside people, such as your doctor, but in general, these documents should be kept to yourself. If you are ever questioning whether it is OK to show someone else documents related to your case, always ask your lawyer.

When you hire a lawyer, and file a civil lawsuit, you will generally be given various deadlines that are initially set through the court before which your case is pending in what is called a “scheduling order.” Scheduling orders vary in content from court to court, but will all generally contain, at minimum, a date for the trial of your case, a date for a pre-trial conference in your case, and a date when the discovery in your case must be completed. Your lawyer should inform you of relevant dates set by the scheduling order in your case as soon as possible, so that you can mark your calendar and plan to be available for events that you must attend, such as the trial. During the course of your case, there may be other dates that you will need to be available, too, such as for a deposition, for an independent medical examination, or for mediation. Your lawyer’s office should communicate with you to set those date and should also remind you periodically of upcoming dates in your case that you must be aware of. However, sometimes dates in your case will change. There can be a number of reasons that this could happen, but sometimes it may seem confusing or frustrating to you when deadlines are pushed back or case events are cancelled on seemingly short notice. Here are some of the typical reasons that the dates in your civil lawsuit can change. The court may enter a new scheduling order that changes the previous trial date, pre-trial date, and other deadlines. As your case progresses, your lawyer may discover new facts or issues that can change some of the claims in your lawsuit or the types of information that will need to be gathered during discovery. The same can happen for the defendant. Either side may decide at some point as the lawsuit progresses that it should file various motions with the court asking the court to rule on certain issues, for example, ordering the other side to produce documents or information in discovery or add or dismiss certain claims or parties from the case. At times, these issues may be complex and require the court to reevaluate the time permitted to the parties to complete adequate discovery and prepare for trial, and the court may determine that more time is needed and move back the trial date and other case deadlines. Sometimes a party may specifically request that the court does this, or the parties may reach an agreement that more time is necessary and jointly ask the court to do this. If you learn that the scheduling order in your case has been changed, and the trial or other dates have been moved, you can always ask your lawyer for an explanation of why that happened and how this will affect your case. While it may seem frustrating to wait longer for your trial or have your case continue longer than you originally expected, most of the time, such changes are for the best in your case and your lawyer can explain why. There may be a stay entered in your case. At times, there may be what is called a “stay” entered in your case. This is a court ruling that essentially presses pause on the lawsuit while some other issue is resolved that greatly affects your case. Oftentimes, a stay occurs because an issue in your lawsuit has gone up on appeal to a higher court. There are other reasons for a stay as well. A stay can be one of the most frustrating things from the perspective of a plaintiff in a civil lawsuit because it is unclear when it will be over and when your case may be able to get back on track toward trial, but asking your lawyer to explain the reasons for the stay can help you better understand the issues in your case that need to be resolved before the case can proceed. Additionally, it is important to remember that just because a stay has been entered in your case does not mean that your lawyer has forgotten about your case or stopped working on it. Your lawyer should continue to review your file and conduct other work that will help them be prepared to pick right back up where they left off once the stay is lifted. Human events simply happen. Sometimes lawyers, judges, or others involved in your case get sick, have family emergencies, or have something else come up that necessitates rescheduling a case event. While every effort is made to keep case events as scheduled, there may be times where your deposition, mediation, or a court hearing may need to be postponed or rescheduled. Sometimes that reason may be because of you, such as if you were unexpectedly called to tend to a family emergency or if you were too ill to leave your house. Communication between your lawyer and you is essential in this type of situation, and this is one of the reasons it is important that your lawyer always have a reliable telephone number or email address to contact you. These are some of the typical reasons that the deadlines or dates in your civil lawsuit may change, but there can be others as well. Any time that you have a question about what is going on in your case, or why something has happened or changed, you should contact your attorney and ask. It is your case, and your lawyer is there to help your feel as comfortable as you can with what is happening and be able to plan for all of the important dates.