Blog

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!

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.

Having the name James Casey Heneghan I have been identified as an Irishman many a day. It is a heritage that I take pride in. My grandparents were born in Ireland and came to the “new country” when they were all in the teens or early twenties. Each couple came all the way here to meet the other, having not set eyes on each other while growing up in the Emerald Isle. All four were laborers: a plumber, a gardener, a maid and a house cleaner. For them, it was important that their children were educated. They all thought an education was the road to opportunities that they never were able to experience. They didn’t want their children to face the signs of “Irish Need Not Apply” that they often saw right next to the “Help Wanted” signs in the front of various business. My grandparents were hard working and each, for the most part, held the same job for their entire work life. That in itself is a feat when weighed against the financially tough times they lived in, including the Depression and World War II. From their 12 children came a large number of highly educated and financially successful individuals, who did indeed get to experience many of life’s wonderful moments that are provided through an education. I remember in my early years growing up that every Sunday was St Patty’s Day. All the Heneghan families would go visit our paternal grandparents and have a late Sunday afternoon dinner consisting of typical Irish food. There was Irish bread, stew, corn beef and cabbage, roast beef, potatoes and more. Every Sunday dinner meal was served on my grandparents’ finest Waterford China. The chinaware was a center piece for our Sunday visits. My grandparents had scraped together their savings to buy pieces of fine Waterford china individually or, at times, a set here and there as my dad, aunts and uncles grew. Finally, years after collecting pieces, they received the remaining sets as a gift from their adult children. I am sure a glass of Irish whiskey or two was consumed by some on these Sunday visits, but never by my grandfather. He was a tall, lanky, quiet man, whose hands were as big as mitts. He had a full head of white, not grey, hair. By that time, my grandmother was bed ridden, crippled with terrible arthritis. She was in a great deal of pain every day, but every Sunday she would meet all her grandchildren with a smile on her face and ask, in her soft spoken Irish accent, what we were doing in school or in our seasonal activities. Shortly after I got out of law school, I traveled to Ireland for the first of my two trips I have made to Ireland. The country has many beautiful and elegant sights, such as the Cliffs of Moher or the Ring of Kerry. Everywhere you look is history. There are a number of things I loved about the old country. Many things that were memorable, some in good way and some not. I remember how truly alluring the whole country was. It is hard to imagine how something that is mainly green can be so beautiful. No matter how hard I try to explain it, I will never do it justice. I still can see the small cottages, with their thatched roof tops made of sod and sticks, sprayed along the hillsides. The ground is made up of, in some wonderful way, various shades of green, and the cottages overlook the ocean. The homes are divided by quaint stone walls that only add to the breath taking view and elegance of the image. The other thing I remember is how unappealing the food was on the trips. I can say that because I am 100% Irish, but the food was generally average at best. However, the people of Ireland are at the other end of the spectrum. The people are kind, fun loving, hardworking, religious and only too happy to help a lost tourist. The people of Ireland are splendid to say the least. They, the beauty and the history of Ireland makes it a majestic country to experience. So as I sit here on the weekend of St Patrick’s Day, I don’t think of the hordes of people who roam the streets clamoring for green beer and corn beef. Rather, St Patty’s Day makes me think of my heritage and my grandparents who traveled from Ireland. It makes me recall the message of an education and hard work that they gave to their children, and how it has been passed to their grandchildren and great grandchildren. It is the splendor of Sundays spent at my grandparents’ home and enjoying the delicious meals of Ireland (which were somehow were fantastic despite how bad the food was in Ireland), and the history, beauty and the people of Ireland that I clamor for on St Patty’s Day. Happy St Patty’s Day to you and yours. And from and old Irish toast, “May the roof over your head always be strong. And may you be in heaven half an hour before the devil knows you’re dead.”

You have been involved in a motor vehicle crash involving a commercial motor vehicle!!! It was not your fault!!! The following are three of the most important records you can obtain after a truck wreck. First, request a copy of the police report. When a police officer arrives at the collision scene, they open an official police report and begin documenting the investigation. Often, their initial work at the scene involves gathering basic facts like the drivers’ identities, the vehicles involved, and insurance information. The police report should also list witnesses, record whether anyone required emergency medical attention, and document where they went for treatment. The officer may also come to an initial conclusion about why the crash happened and take down any statements given by witnesses. Second, To supplement the police report, you should also obtain the police department’s open records regarding the crash. This can provide additional information, including when officers first received word of the crash, the names of any officers who responded, and a record of the radio dispatches that occurred while the police department identified the vehicles and mobilized a response. This information will prove especially helpful if the police report contains inaccuracies or errors. You should also contact the emergency department that received the initial 911 call and request their transcripts. These records can help identify potential witnesses who may have left the scene before police arrived, among other useful information. Finally, get a copy of any reconstruction report. Although police officers have some training that can help them determine the causes of a crash, they aren’t experts, and their opinion is far from the final word in a truck crash case. Sometimes police may bring what is known as a reconstructionist  to the scene. This is especially likely when the wreck involves multiple vehicles or other complexities. Since these investigators specialize in determining the causes of truck and bus collisions, they can conduct a more thorough inspection based on their extensive knowledge of collision dynamics and of Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) regulations. If one of these investigators visited the scene of the crash in your case, their report will be extremely important for your claim. Data from the truck itself can play a critical role in supporting your claim. Physical and electronic data from the truck can help build a fact-based account of the crash and cut through conflicting witness statements or dishonest defenses from the truck driver, their employer, and the insurance company. To make sure this data is available, it’s important to preserve the truck’s event data recorder (EDR), also known as a “black box.” A truck’s black box can give you in-depth information about what the truck was doing just before the wreck occurred, including: How fast the trucker was going and variations in speed The truck’s gear shifts When the trucker braked How long the trucker had been driving The truck’s GPS location Communications between the trucker and trucking company Reports filed by the trucker, including daily inspection reports Besides the black box, most commercial trucks contain electronic logging devices (ELDs) and other computer systems that can yield further important information to support a truck wreck claim. However, you can’t rely on the trucking company to preserve this critical evidence, which is why you should always contact an experienced truck accident attorney after a collision involving a large truck or bus.

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.

Ever sit and think about how much technology is directly at our fingertips? How simple technological advancements have completely changed our lives? The thought entered my mind when discovered my hometown has a Civic Sign Up website. During my little league softball days, for years my parents would drag me to sign ups. Although I loved playing, the whole thing was such a bore to me. Once my parents tackled the obstacle of getting me to sign up, they then enter Phase 2 which is me losing my practice/game schedule. With this new website you can sign up your child, view their schedule, and any events/fundraisers that may come up. This new development is absolutely incredible and wish it was something available when I was child. I then began to think about all the tech upgrades I’ve had in just my lifetime. I have watched media evolve. I, like most girls in the 90’s was obsessed with the Spice Girls. I had their movie and concerts all on VHS tape. The thought of using a VCR now is so draining. But to purchase those VHS Tapes I would have to beg/torment someone to drive me to the local Blockbuster. With the advancement from VCR, to DVD Player, and now streaming services, I have the slightest idea where to even visit such a retro video store. All media I consume whether it’s music, movies, or even the news, is all digital. Technology has even seeped into my church. I read the bible from my iPad. The order of service is displayed from a projector along with opening songs. My church even has an app, so if you’re like me and never seem to stop at the ATM for cash Sunday Morning, you can simply log onto the app and give your offering and Tithes. These are just some of the few advancements in my short lifetime. I could go on about GPS and flip phones just to name a few. I’m excited what’s next to come in future generations.

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.

Christmas 2018 will be a holiday my family will never forget, not because of the great day, not the big gift or even the Christmas night around the tree with our extended family telling tales and laughing. It will be remembered for the tragic loss of Patricia Bates. Pat is my wife’s mom, my children’s grandma (Granny, if you will) and my second mom. After a terrible drive to Pittsburgh, following Pat’s arrival via Life Flight to UPMC, we found out she was not going to make it back to us. Pat was taken off a ventilator that was keeping her alive and passed, with her family at her side all listening to the Rosary being said by her sister. After all the tears and the long ride back to Bellaire, we received a call at 1:30 a.m. from a wonderful woman, whose name I wish I could remember. This strange call was at first not welcomed, but soon realized she was warm and compassionate. She expressed her regret that Pat had passed at such a beautiful time of year. She asked about Pat, what she was like, what her passions were and most importantly to Pat and us, her faith in God. Pat had not indicated to us or anyone her thoughts on being an organ donor. We found out that someone was in need of skin. Pat was a good donor for this person in need in the same hospital that Pat had passed in hours before. My wife began to weep and instantly knew how giving Pat was and her belief in God’s mercy, would make it impossible to say no. Did I wish we had had this discussion with Pat? YES. Do I know Pat would give her right hand to someone in need? YES. I’m also sure Pat, who was so quiet in public and afraid of embarrassing herself in public, probably wanted to check the box as an organ donor, but was too embarrassed to ask the DMV employee, where the box was, or can you repeat that? Please have this discussion with your loved one, no matter how difficult of time you have with this topic. As for the lady who called us that night, thank you. The thought that Pat’s final good deed was helping someone else through a terrible tragedy was something she would have done in a heartbeat. If someone passing can help your family, I think we would all be agreed organ donation is an import talk to have. February 14was National Donor Day, when we thank organ donors, donor families, and living donors for making the choice to save others, and we remember and honor those heroic gifts. For more information about organ donation contact C.O.R.E.: https://www.core.org/understanding-donation/

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