Blog

Last week, the Oklahoma Supreme Court struck down a state law that capped monetary damages for pain and suffering in personal injury lawsuits at $350,000. The Court ruled that a statute adopted in 2011 which limited non-economic damages in personal injury lawsuits to $350,000 is an unconstitutional special law that treats people who survive injuries differently than those who do not. The state constitution prohibits caps on damages for injuries that cause death, the ruling stated. According to the majority opinion, “by forbidding limits on recovery for injuries resulting in death, the people have left it to juries to determine the amount of compensation for pain and suffering in such cases, and no good reason exists for the Legislature to provide a different rule for the same detriment simply because the victim survives the harm-causing event,” according to the opinion in which five of the court’s nine justices concurred. The underlying lawsuit that prompted the Court’s decision involved a worker whose left arm was amputated at an oil well site when the worker was struck by a boom from a crane in March 2012. An Oklahoma County jury in 2015 awarded the worker and his wife a total of $15 million, including $6 million for pain and suffering. A judge then reduced the jury award on non-economic damages to $700,000 — $350,000 for each of the worker and his wife — in order to comply with the law. This recent decision follows a number of other state high courts, including Georgia and Florida that have rightfully struck down caps on non-economic damages as an unconstitutional violation of all Americans’ right to a trial by jury. The foundation of America’s jurisprudence was built upon the principle that states have the power to establish a constitutional right to a trial by jury in civil cases. Historically, a jury of one’s peers has decided both the question of liability and the question of how much damages to award in tort cases, subject to instructions on the law by a judge. But in the past couple of decades, pro-business, corporate backed legislators have passed laws to arbitrarily cap damages to insulate their corporate constituents from having to pay full and fair compensation for what are often-times the most substantial and life-altering injuries they inflict – not the physical injuries they cause, but the substantial ways in which those injuries change a person’s life forever. State courts are already empowered to reduce excessive verdicts where appropriate in light of the evidence, but caps reduce damages by operation of law, without regard to the specific circumstances of the case. Critics of caps contend that legislatures that pass caps violate the separation of powers by imposing arbitrary damage caps on juries, who function as part of the judicial branch of government. Oklahoma is the latest Court to agree with that sentiment.

It’s a fairly common practice in small towns around the country. You’ll see a city employee marking the tires of parked tires with chalk. Then a little later they’ll check again to see if any of the cars have parked too long. Little did you know, there was a constitutional issue lurking in the shadows--does the chalking of a car’s tire constitute an unreasonable search or seizure under the Fourth Amendment? That question was recently addressed by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Taylor v. City of Saginaw, No. 17-2126. The plaintiff received multiple parking tickets from Saginaw, Michigan, a city of roughly 50,000. In April, 2017, the plaintiff sued under 42 U.S.C. §1983, a federal law authorizing recovery of damages when someone acting for a state or local government commits a constitutional violation. The plaintiff alleged that chalking a car tire, without a warrant, amounted to a violation of the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. The lower court found that a search had occurred, but that it was reasonable under all the circumstances. The plaintiff then appealed to the Sixth Circuit. The first issue addressed by the Sixth Circuit was whether “chalking” a car tire amounted to a search for Fourth Amendment purposes. Historically, a search occurs when someone invades an area in which a person has “a…reasonable expectation of privacy.” Recent cases from the Supreme Court, however, have added other requirements--notably, whether the intrusion, however slight, amounts to a common law trespass. With these factors in mind, the court concluded that the chalking process was, indeed, a search. Marking car tires with chalk may be “low tech,” but it is still done for the explicit purpose of determining whether a car owner has violated a parking ordinance. Because the chalk mark intrudes upon privately owned property and serves an investigative purpose for the city, it is a search. The next issue was whether the search was reasonable. Under established law, the owner of a car has a diminished expectation of privacy. Cars are mobile and are generally more accessible to the public. Therefore, even without a warrant, a car can be subject to a search as long as there is probable cause supporting that search. Here, however, no probable cause existed. All cars parked in a given area are chalked and then reexamined at a later time. At the time the chalk mark is made, the city has no reason in the world to suspect that a parking violation has actually occurred. It’s only when the employee sees the chalk mark again on his return trip that probable cause even exists. Therefore, the “car” exception does not support the practice of chalking parked cars. The city also attempted to invoke what is popularly known as the community caretaker exception. When the government is acting to protect the public at large from injury or ongoing harm instead of investigating crimes, Fourth Amendment protections may be relaxed. For example, a car may be searched after being impounded--not for investigative purposes but, instead, as part of a general policy for making an inventory and protecting the public from any potential harm. Here, however, no one disputed the fact that the chalking was done for purposes of enforcing the city’s parking ordinance and not for any kind of public safety. Because the city failed to prove that the community caretaker exception applied, the chalking was both unreasonable and unlawful. The ruling in this case applies in every state covered by the Sixth Circuit--Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee. To be honest, I have mixed emotions about the ruling and its impact. I have a bit of a libertarian streak in me. I’m not a fan of any kind of government overreach. But I also have a hard time believing that a harmless, temporary mark on a car tire amounts to a Fourth Amendment violation, especially in light of a long line of cases recognizing that the privacy rights we have in cars are substantially less than in other kinds of property. I also wonder how this ruling will affect Smallville, USA. With the “low tech” option no longer available, cities affected by this ruling will have choices to make that could have budget-busting consequences. Will they be forced to buy parking meters or investigate other new and expensive technologies? The answer for now is unclear. But in the coming days, weeks and months, hard choices will have to be made.

Unfortunately, stories like this are sure to abound as the years progress. A recent Bordas & Bordas, PLLC client was very pleased to find out that we were able to correct a royalty calculation mistake that was going to cost them almost $73,000! A West Virginia couple had recently been contacted by Equinor, formally known as StatOil, and were told that there had been an overpayment in their royalty account of over $80,000! Equinor advised the royalty owners that they would no longer receive royalty checks until that $80,000 payment was recouped. The couple called and emailed and attempted to get explanations for the situation but could seemingly get nowhere. The explanations they did get just didn’t seem to make sense to them. Worried about their rights they contacted Bordas & Bordas, PLLC and I was able to review their documents and reach out to the gas company. After some pointed communications asking for specific reasons why the alleged overpayment had occurred an in-house corporate attorney for Equinor finally wrote back. My questions had prompted a new investigation into the account. Unfortunately, the landowners’ questions alone did not seem to be enough. It was not until an attorney became involved that the gas company took the complaint serious. The gas company attorney explained after the company review that nearly the entire overpayment had been a mistake and the landowners did not owe over $80,000 in overpaid royalties. While there had been a mistake in the calculation of ownership percentages as the production unit changed in size, only about $7,000 in overpayments had occurred! While that is still a substantial amount of money, it is much less than the $80,000 originally claimed by the company. Rather than waiting years to receive their royalties and giving up about $73,000 in income, the family will soon again be receiving their royalty checks. This was possible because the couple questioned what the gas company told them and were willing to reach out to an attorney to have their situation reviewed. If your royalty checks don’t seem right, if the company tells you something that does not make sense please don’t hesitate to contact someone and see if it can be checked out. Whether through greed or neglect it appears that many landowners are being taken advantage of by the gas operators. Don’t let it happen to your family. Make the call and let us see if we can help you out.

This past Wednesday, a jury delivered a verdict of over $80 million in damages against Bayer, formerly Monsanto, to a California man who alleged that his exposure to Roundup weed killer, that he used on a large swath of land in Sonoma County, caused his development of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma cancer. The jury valued the man’s injuries and damages at over $5 million and assessed an additional $75 million in punitive damages against Bayer, in part on the basis of internal documents that Monsanto has known about the risks of glyphosate in its Roundup product for decades and chose not to divulge the information about the dangers of its product to American consumers. While Bayer continues to hold fast to the company line that glyphosate is not carcinogenic, Wednesday’s verdict is the second in as many cases to go to verdict to result in a multi-million dollar verdict for the injured parties, lending additional weight to the science demonstrating a causal link between exposure to glyphosate and the development of cancer. Several national and international agencies, , including the International Agency for Research on Cancer and the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment., have concluded that the evidence is sufficient to classify Roundup’s active ingredient, glyphosate, as a probable cause of cancer in humans. alt="" width="1200" height="628" />On the heels of this decision, another Roundup trial began this week in California. On Thursday a jury heard opening statements alleging that decades of spraying the weed killer caused a married couple's aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma in the third Roundup case to go to trial. And hundreds more cases are pending throughout the country, with more than 600 cases pending in California alone. While Bayer and Monsanto may continue to dispute the science, thus far, the American public has spoken loudly and clearly on their thoughts about whether exposure to glyphosate causes cancer. If you believe you have contracted cancer from exposure to Roundup or glyphosate, you should contact an experienced attorney to explore a potential claim.

In 2019, it seems like arbitration is everywhere you look. If you take a new job, rent a truck, or buy a new cell phone, it’s almost certain there’s an arbitration clause lurking in the shadows. But that may be changing. Like many employers, Google required its employees to resolve any work-related disputes through arbitration. Recently, however, Google was rocked by allegations that some of its executives had been guilty of sexual harassment. Victims couldn’t sue for recovery, and the private nature of the arbitration process kept these allegations out of the spotlight. When 20,000 Google employees walked out in protest, the issue of sexual harassment came to the forefront--and, with it, the issue of forcing victims into arbitration. Google responded by repealing its arbitration policy for sexual harassment cases. Not long after, Google went a step further by repealing the policy for all disputes involving its full-time employees. Google is not the first company to roll back forced arbitration. Other large companies, like Microsoft, Uber, Adobe and Intuit, have done the same thing. Could this be a trend? Will other companies see the wisdom of repealing a policy widely considered unfair and oppressive? Only time will tell. But we may not have to wait. On February 28, the organizers behind the Google walkout appeared with Democratic lawmakers as they introduced a new bill to impose a nationwide ban on forced arbitration in the workplace. Senator Richard Blumenthal, one of the bill’s sponsors, acknowledged what Google had done voluntarily, but added: “We’re not willing to wait for corporate America to do the right thing. This kind of injustice has to end for the sake of everyone in the workplace, men and women.” Hopefully, the momentum we’ve already seen in the private sector will spur Congress to act. Forced arbitration deprives honest, hard working Americans of their full legal remedies. It’s especially harmful in the employment setting, where an employee’s livelihood and future may be hanging in the balance. Congress should move this bill quickly and end workplace arbitration once and for all.

Gout is a common type of arthritis that causes intense pain, swelling, and stiffness in a joint. It usually affects the joint in the big toe. It is the most common form of inflammatory arthritis in men, and although it is more likely to affect men, women become more susceptible to it after menopause. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report that 8.3 million were affected by gout between 2007 to 2008. The number of medicines to treat gout is limited. Uloric (Febuxostat) is a prescription medicine, offered in the United States under license by Takeda Pharmaceuticals America, Inc., used to lower blood uric acid levels in adult patients with gout. On February 21, 2019, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), after a months-long investigation into the mortality risk associated with taking Uloric, has now mandated that Takeda update its prescribing information to contain a “Black-Box Warning” for increased risks of heart-related deaths and cardiovascular side effects. Studies showed that “in patients treated with Uloric, 15 deaths from heart-related causes were observed for every 1,000 patients treated for a year compared to 11 deaths from heart-related causes per 1,000 patients treated with allopurinol for a year.” The FDA has also limited the approved use of Uloric as a second line drug. This means that it may now only be prescribed after allopurinol (Zyloprim), another gout medicine, either proves ineffective or the patient experiences severe side effects (usually a serious skin reaction). A “Black-Box Warning” is the strictest warning put in the labeling of prescription drugs or drug products by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) when there is reasonable evidence of an association of a serious hazard with the drug. It is basically a warning with a black box around it, hence the name. It is intended to make sure that users see and understand that a drug can be dangerous. Patients should seek emergency medical attention right away if they experience the following symptoms while taking Uloric: chest pain; shortness of breath; rapid or irregular heartbeat; numbness or weakness on one side of the body; dizziness; trouble talking, or sudden severe headache. If you or someone you know is currently taking Uloric you should discuss your continued use of Uloric with your health care professional. Do not stop taking Uloric without first talking to your health care professional. If you or someone you knows has suffered any side effects involving Uloric, or any other medicine, you should also report those to the FDA MedWatch program. Finally, if you or someone you know has taken Uloric and suffered a heart attack or stroke you may be entitled to compensation and should contact a lawyer. https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/ucm631182.htm.

Johnson & Johnson suffered another blow to its claims that its talcum powder products are safe this week, when a jury in the Oakland California Superior Court determined that asbestos-contaminated Baby Powder was a “substantial contributing factor” to Terry Leavitt’s mesothelioma and delivered a $29.4 million damages verdict in her favor. Mesothelioma is an aggressive, terminal cancer of the internal organs, and the jury’s verdict this weak is the latest in a string of high-profile jury determinations that J&J’s talcum powder products are hazardous to human health. Investigations from the New York Times and Reuters uncovered evidence suggesting that, for decades, J&J, knew that some of its talcum powder products could be tainted by asbestos, a carcinogenic mineral that the National Cancer Institute has linked to lung, laryngeal and ovarian cancer, as well as mesothelioma. In 2018, a jury delivered a $4+ billion damages verdict to a group of women who claimed that asbestos in J&J’s talc products caused their ovarian cancers. In 2016, the company was ordered to pay $55 million to a woman who claimed she got ovarian cancer from J&J’s talcum powder. As with these other high-profile verdicts rendered against it, Johnson & Johnson tells TIME magazine that it plans to appeal and continues to maintain that its Baby Powder does not contain asbestos or cause cancer. But that position becomes increasingly harder to credibly defend with verdict after verdict being delivered for cancer victims. While J&J argues that a jury verdict is not a scientific determination on whether talcum powder causes cancer, these verdicts are not being rendered upon junk science, because U.S. courts are all charged with a gatekeeping function to screen the science behind such claims and prohibit any poorly conducted studies or methods from being introduced into evidence. One of the driving factors behind these favorable plaintiffs’ verdicts is J&J’s internal documents that demonstrate decades of knowledge and concealment by J&J about the hazards of its talcum powder products. The battle over whether talc causes cancer will continue into 2019 as more and more cases will certainly be presented for jury determination. If you believe that you may have contracted cancer from talcum powder products, you should contact an experienced attorney right away to explore your rights.

There’s an old Scottish saying: “may you live in interesting times.” That one seems tailor-made for our legal profession in the current political environment. Never before have so many issues related to criminal, civil, and constitutional law been in the news, in different ways, and with a different cast of characters every day. Just a couple of weeks ago, for example, the issue of witness intimidation got out front and center for all of America to see. Witness intimidation is something one generally associates with the prosecution of hardened criminals. It brings to mind threats, often involving violence, against a person who is expected to testify against a criminal defendant. The mafia and gangs are famous for enforcing a code of silence via witness intimidation. The law defining witness intimidation; however, is much broader and encompasses much more than just threats and violence. Any attempt to coerce or even “corruptly persuade” a person with relevant information against testifying completely and truthfully in an ongoing criminal, civil, or congressional proceeding commits a serious felony. 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b). That’s why it was extremely surprising to see none other than U.S. Congressman Matt Gaetz send the following tweet on the evening of Michael Cohen’s congressional testimony before the House Oversight Committee. The above tweet is textbook witness intimidation. Gaetz explicitly threatens Cohen with the exposure of unseemly details about his private life on the day before Cohen was well-known to be preparing to testify about crimes committed by the President of the United States while Cohen was his attorney. The ruthless attack on Cohen’s wife and his family and Gaetz’s implication that he was in possession of information intending to show that Cohen had had been unfaithful to his wife and therefore should fear to testify was remarkable. Within 48-hours, the Florida Bar (of which Gaetz is regrettably a member), opened an investigation into his actions. Attorneys are held to an even higher standard than mere compliance with criminal law when it comes to avoiding the appearance of interfering with ongoing legal proceedings. Of course, the public commission of a felony unambiguously violates a lawyer’s code of ethics. Curiously, Gaetz’s supposed trap never sprung at the hearing itself, but follow through is not required to make a threat a violation of the federal witness tampering statute. It would be a straightforward matter for a grand jury to indict Gaetz based on his grotesque threat directed at Cohen even before the testimony occurred. Some have raised the possibility that Gaetz could raise the US Constitution’s “speech and debate clause” as a defense to a witness tampering charge. Indeed, Gaetz hinted at some kind of constitutional defense by suggesting that he was engaged in the “marketplace of ideas” when he threatened Cohen. Such constitutional defenses are unlikely to succeed. First of all, it is straightforward that witness tampering, like conspiracy, extortion and other crimes that are committed primarily with words does not constitute free speech that is protected by the US Constitution. Moreover, the speech and debate clause, which protects congressmen from being charged criminally for their statements on the floor of the US House or the US Senate only extends to the official performance of a congressman’s duties. It is unlikely that a court would find that tweeting threatening remarks towards witnesses are part of a congressman’s duties. It’s a remarkable commentary on how far the country has come in a couple of years that a congressman can openly commit a crime in full view of the public and for some reason expect to get away with it. But at the same time, Gaetz’s unbelievable action turned out to be like the 10 th most scandalous story in a day’s news. The West Virginia Bar Association recently had to remove, that is “disbar,” a former Chief Justice of the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals based on his conviction for felonies involving misuse of government funds and false statements to investigators. By any measure, Gaetz’s crime is much more serious than what Alan Loughry did. Threatening a witness in an effort to prevent his truthful and complete testimony in a matter affecting the Presidency of the United States should certainly land Mr. Gaetz in prison for longer than Loughry. https://twitter.com/SethWageWar/status/1102712751313498112?s=20

West Virginia workers received a win a few weeks ago from the Honorable Jennifer Bailey, Kanawha County Circuit Judge, who issued an opinion in a case before her striking down key components of West Virginia’s 2016 Right-To-Work Legislation. “Right-To-Work” is an Orwellian set of model laws cooked up by corporate “think tanks” and pushed hard for passage in State legislatures by corporate lobbyists that is designed to bust unions, suppress wages and basically keep the vast majority of a workers’ economic productivity flowing into corporate coffers. Corporate lobbyists finally got enough legislators on their side in 2016 to pass “Right-To-Work” in West Virginia. The issue before Judge Bailey was whether employees who join a unionized workplace have to pay some form of dues, even where they don’t join the union. Union representatives argued that right-to-work laws unfairly take union property, because employees who don’t join receive the benefits of collective bargaining without providing financial support to help pay for the personnel and effort required to gain those benefits in the first place. Judge Bailey agreed, writing that “The new law will require unions and union officials to work, to supply their valuable expertise and to provide expensive services for nothing. That is, in a word, arbitrary.” Judge Bailey recognized that the fees collected by unions “essentially function as taxes on collective bargaining members for the costs of ‘legislative’ and governmental services.” She also concluded that prohibiting a union from collecting such fees “takes money from the union, and derivatively from its members, and essentially gives it to free riders. In fact, those who do join or stay in a union would be paying a penalty for the privilege because their dues would have to be raised to underwrite the union’s services provided to the free riders.” Working West Virginian’s have struggled for centuries with the issue of labor exploitation, and the passage of “Right-To-Work” was a grievous insult to the hard-working people of this State, that will exact a major toll on West Virginia’s workforce, and the State at large, in service of a few well-connected beneficiaries, for years to come so long as it remains in effect. And Judge Bailey’s decision will hardly be the last word on this issue. In fact, the supporting “right-to-work” legislators are likely apoplectic with outrage in the wake of her decision and will be gearing up to pass even more draconian barriers on an honest wage next chance they get. But, for now, it is refreshing to read Judge Bailey’s well-reasoned, logically practical decision that shines at least a little light on the darkening clouds of West Virginia’s labor market.

To solve the legitimate problem of the shortage of experienced truck drivers, the trucking industry is pushing to put teenaged truck drivers behind the wheel. This has many people concerned since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has recently issued data that fatal collisions involving trucks are at the highest rate in 29 years. The question becomes, does adding teenage drivers into the trucking industry cause more issues on our public roadways? What does hiring these teenagers to drive these massive, unpredictable vehicles mean to others traveling on the same roadways? The American Trucking Associations (ATA) estimates that the trucking industry today is short about 50,000 drivers, significantly up from a shortage of 36,000 only two years ago. One way to solve this problem, according to trucking industry lobbying groups like the ATA, is to lower the interstate truck driving age requirement from 21 to 18. The push from the trucking industry for the right to hire younger drivers has already yielded proposed legislation. In March of 2018 a bill was proposed that would allow 18-year-old commercial vehicle drivers to cross state lines while hauling freight. Some in the trucking industry believe hiring teen drivers is dangerous. Research has consistently shown that drivers between the ages of 18 and 25 are more likely to cause a crash than any other age group. A 2018 study recently conducted concluded that teen drivers are four times more likely to cause a wreck than an adult driver between 20 and 30 years old. Even some trucking industry lobbying groups believe the industry is going too far by trying to put drivers fresh out of high school in the cabs of 80,000-pound commercial vehicles. Even though teenaged truckers aren’t allowed to haul interstate freight yet, the truck driver shortage has already led to growing ranks of inexperienced and undertrained drivers behind the wheels of big-rig trucks. Many trucking companies have loosened their hiring practices and cut corners on training, which trucking safety experts agree is one factor fueling the continuous year-over-year rise in deadly truck wrecks. If you or someone you love suffered injuries in a truck crash, especially if the trucking company hired an inexperienced or dangerous driver, the attorneys at Bordas & Bordas, PLLC are advocates for trucking accident victims. Please give us a call with any questions.

Each year millions of youths in schools and communities across the country hurt themselves or others through verbal, physical and digital means. The 2017 CDC’s Youth Risk Behavior Study found that 21% of high school student are bullied on school property each year in Pennsylvania. That same study found that 17.3% of high school students are electronically bullied each year in Pennsylvania. These incidents cause youths to experience emotional trauma and physical injury, mental health or wellness issues, stress or anxiety, and/or feelings of being unsafe and/or bullied. All too often, the outcome results in self-harm, suicide, or homicide. The facts show that in the majority of these acts, youths and /or adults were witnesses to threats, warning signs, or signals, especially on social media, but did not report or intervene to help the youth at risk. 80% of school shooters told someone of their violent plans. 50% told more than one person. 70% of people who complete suicide tell someone of their plans or give other warning signs. There are many reasons why youth and adults don’t say something when they see a warning sign or signal: they don’t understand or know how to recognize warning signs or signals; don’t believe the treat to be true because “they would never say it publicly if they really meant it”; don’t want to be labeled, stigmatized, or threatened as a “rat”, “snitch” or “tattle-tale”; didn’t know who to tell; or thought someone else would say something. On June 22, 2018, governor Wolf signed the Safe2Say Something Anonymous Reporting Law. This law establishes a system whereby people can make anonymous reports of behaviors that present concerns in public and non-public schools. The Safe2Say Something Anonymous Report System teaches youth and adults how to recognize warning signs and signals and report such conduct or concerns BEFORE it is too late. By allowing anonymous reporting the act provides a tool for students, staff, parents, and communities to report unsafe, potentially harmful, dangerous, violent or criminal activities in a school entity or a threat of such activities in a school entity without having to worry about any type of retaliation or being bullied and made fun of by being labelled a snitch, a rat or a tattle-tale. The hope is that this will allow more people to feel comfortable reporting things they hear and see that are of concern. Upon receipt of an anonymous report, analyst in the crisis center gather as much information to assess and evaluate the tip. Tips are categorized by immediacy and severity. The analyst forwards the report to a school entity’s crisis team, law enforcement dispatch, and other organizations where appropriate. Once the report is received, the school entity and local law enforcement are charged with assessing, intervening, and taking appropriate protective action with the at-risk individual before they get to the point of hurting themselves of others. Hopefully this new law will prevent individuals from hurting themselves or others, by getting help before they make a decision that effects the rest of their life and the lives of others. Vossekuil, B., et al., 2002. https://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/preventingattacksreport.pdf Robins, E., et al., 1959. https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.49.7.888

Each year millions of youths in schools and communities across the country hurt themselves or others through verbal, physical and digital means. The 2017 CDC’s Youth Risk Behavior Study found that 21% of high school student are bullied on school property each year in Pennsylvania. That same study found that 17.3% of high school students are electronically bullied each year in Pennsylvania. These incidents cause youths to experience emotional trauma and physical injury, mental health or wellness issues, stress or anxiety, and/or feelings of being unsafe and/or bullied. All too often, the outcome results in self-harm, suicide, or homicide. The facts show that in the majority of these acts, youths and /or adults were witnesses to threats, warning signs, or signals, especially on social media, but did not report or intervene to help the youth at risk. 80% of school shooters told someone of their violent plans. 50% told more than one person. 70% of people who complete suicide tell someone of their plans or give other warning signs. There are many reasons why youth and adults don’t say something when they see a warning sign or signal: they don’t understand or know how to recognize warning signs or signals; don’t believe the treat to be true because “they would never say it publicly if they really meant it”; don’t want to be labeled, stigmatized, or threatened as a “rat”, “snitch” or “tattle-tale”; didn’t know who to tell; or thought someone else would say something. On June 22, 2018, governor Wolf signed the Safe2Say Something Anonymous Reporting Law. This law establishes a system whereby people can make anonymous reports of behaviors that present concerns in public and non-public schools. The Safe2Say Something Anonymous Report System teaches youth and adults how to recognize warning signs and signals and report such conduct or concerns BEFORE it is too late. By allowing anonymous reporting the act provides a tool for students, staff, parents, and communities to report unsafe, potentially harmful, dangerous, violent or criminal activities in a school entity or a threat of such activities in a school entity without having to worry about any type of retaliation or being bullied and made fun of by being labelled a snitch, a rat or a tattle-tale. The hope is that this will allow more people to feel comfortable reporting things they hear and see that are of concern. Upon receipt of an anonymous report, analyst in the crisis center gather as much information to assess and evaluate the tip. Tips are categorized by immediacy and severity. The analyst forwards the report to a school entity’s crisis team, law enforcement dispatch, and other organizations where appropriate. Once the report is received, the school entity and local law enforcement are charged with assessing, intervening, and taking appropriate protective action with the at-risk individual before they get to the point of hurting themselves of others. Hopefully this new law will prevent individuals from hurting themselves or others, by getting help before they make a decision that effects the rest of their life and the lives of others. Vossekuil, B., et al., 2002. https://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/preventingattacksreport.pdf Robins, E., et al., 1959. https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.49.7.888