Legal Advice Blog: Legal Advice, Case Insights, & Local Law Information

Understanding Suits Against Us Provisions in Insurance Suits Against Us Provisions in Insurance Policies: What WV, OH, and PA Policyholders Should Know When you buy insurance, you expect it to be there when you need it most. But many policies contain fine print called “suits against us” provisions that can limit your right to take legal action against your insurance company. These provisions are common, but not always easy to understand. Here’s what you should know. What Are “Suits Against Us” Provisions? Most insurance policies include rules about when and how you can bring a lawsuit against your insurer. These typically appear in the “conditions” section of the policy. Common requirements include: Time limits – You may only have a certain number of months or years to file a lawsuit, separate from the state’s statute of limitations. Compliance obligations – You must meet all policy conditions (submitting forms, cooperating with an investigation, providing proof of loss) before filing suit. Triggering events – Some policies require certain steps, like waiting for liability to be determined in a third-party claim, before you can sue. Are These Provisions Enforceable? Not always. Courts have found that some “suits against us” provisions unfairly restrict policyholders’ rights. Outcomes vary depending on the policy language and the laws of the state. West Virginia – Courts consider whether the provision conflicts with state law or unfairly limits consumer rights ( West Virginia Insurance Commission). Ohio – Courts may uphold the provision if it is considered a valid contractual term and not against public policy ( Ohio Insurance Department). Pennsylvania – Courts have historically enforced these provisions more strictly, but results depend on the wording of the policy ( Pennsylvania Insurance Department). This patchwork of interpretations shows why state-specific legal guidance is critical. Why This Matters to Policyholders Insurance disputes are stressful enough without hidden policy deadlines or conditions. These provisions can catch policyholders off guard, especially while recovering from a loss. If you’ve had a claim denied or delayed, remember: Carefully read your policy for time limits and requirements. Don’t assume the insurer’s interpretation is final. Speak with an attorney who understands insurance law. Final Thoughts “Suits against us” provisions may seem like fine print, but they can have a huge impact on your ability to hold your insurer accountable. Whether you’re in West Virginia, Ohio, or Pennsylvania, knowing your rights and getting help when you need it can make the difference between losing your claim and receiving the coverage you’ve paid for. If you’re facing an insurance dispute, contact Bordas and Bordas.  An experienced attorney can guide you through the process and help protect your rights.

The Legal Risks of Distracted Driving in West Virginia Distracted driving remains a serious legal and safety concern across West Virginia. Under West Virginia Code § 17C-14-15, also known as the Electronically Distracted Driving Act, the state imposes strict prohibitions on the use of electronic devices while driving, with escalating penalties for violations that can have lasting consequences. What’s Prohibited? West Virginia law prohibits drivers from engaging in a wide range of distracting behaviors, including: Physically holding or supporting any wireless communication device or stand-alone electronic device, although wearing a smartwatch is allowed. Writing, sending, or reading texts, emails, social media messages, or other text-based communications unless using a hands-free, voice-to-text feature. Making phone calls, accessing data, entering text, watching videos (unless for navigation), playing games, or broadcasting video from these devices. These prohibitions also apply to school bus drivers, except when communicating with safety officials via a two-way radio. Penalties and Serious Consequences Violating distracted driving laws in West Virginia is a misdemeanor, with penalties increasing upon repeat offenses within a 24-month period: First conviction: Up to $100 fine. Second conviction: Up to $200. Third or subsequent conviction: Up to $350, plus 3 demerit points, and a possible 90-day license suspension. The stakes are far higher when distracted driving results in harm: Causing property damage: Misdemeanor, up to 30 days in jail or $100-$500 fine. Causing serious physical harm to another: Misdemeanor, $500-$1,000 fine, up to 120 days in jail, and one-year license revocation. Causing death: Subject to vehicular homicide prosecution under West Virginia Code § 17C-5-1 This law also mandates signage on highway entry points reminding drivers that texting or using devices without hands-free tools is illegal. Know the Law and Protect Yourself Distracted driving is not only dangerous, but it also carries long-term legal and financial consequences. Law enforcement across the state continues to crack down, especially during awareness campaigns like U Drive. U Text. U Pay. Whether you’ve been cited for distracted driving or injured by someone else’s negligence behind the wheel, knowing your rights is critical. At Bordas & Bordas, we understand how a distracted driving case can turn your life upside down. If you’ve been injured by a distracted driver or are facing charges yourself, our experienced legal team is here to help you. We’ve handled countless motor vehicle cases across West Virginia and know how to protect your rights. Contact us today for a free consultation and let us fight for the justice you deserve.

PA Superior Court Bars Parents From Using Parol Evidence in Medical Malpractice Settlement Dispute In West v Abington Memorial Hospital, 2025 PA Super 199 (August 28, 2025) the Superior Court granted judgment on the pleadings for Abington, denying the Wests an opportunity to prove that they were fraudulently induced to enter into a settlement agreement for $19 million. Background of the Case The Wests filed a medical malpractice case against Abington Hospital, et al. (West I), claiming damages due to the mismanagement of Amy West’s labor and delivery, resulting in a catastrophic brain injury to her child, Juliana West.  The case settled for $19 million. The Release contained an integration clause, also known as an “entire agreement” or “merger” clause, as follows: It is further understood and agreed that this is the complete release agreement, and that there are no written or oral understandings or agreements, directly or indirectly, connected with this release and settlement, that are not incorporated herein.  This agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the successors, assigns, heirs, executors, administrators, and legal representatives of the respective parties hereto. The Wests initiated the instant action against Abington (West II), claiming they were fraudulently induced to enter into the parties’ settlement agreement in West I due to the hospital’s failure to identify and produce a memorandum from Dr. Joel Polin, then Chair of Abington’s OBGYN Department that addressed Pitocin use in labor and delivery and the risk of uterine rupture resulting from excessive oxytocin (“Memorandum”).  The Wests first discovered the Memorandum on March 9, 2015, when the hospital produced it during discovery in an unrelated case involving the Wests’ attorneys. The Wests claimed that if the Memorandum had been produced in West I, they would have obtained a settlement or jury verdict substantially more than the $19 million settlement they negotiated. The court granted Abington’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding that the Wests released Abington from all claims arising from the labor and delivery of their daughter. On appeal to the Superior Court, the Wests’ contended that their current claims were viable because they released only their medical malpractice claims against Appellees, not any right to recover for fraud and unjust enrichment, “as to claims that had not yet accrued in relation to misconduct during discovery.”  They argued the parol evidence rule did not apply because their new causes of action did not require alteration or supplementation of the terms of the Release.  Abington however, argued the Release indicated the parties’ intention to resolve any and all claims related to the West I litigation. Superior Court’s Analysis The Superior Court determined that the Wests’ position relied upon too narrow an interpretation of the terms “arising from,” “in any way connected with,” and “arising out of” appearing in the Release.    The Court found the term “in any way connected with” to be even broader, requiring no cause and result relationship between the past claims and the present suits, but merely some logical association between the malpractice and the new damages claim. In the Court’s view, the Wests’ new claims were not only “in any way connected with” the occurrence underlying the claims the Wests released, but they also originated from the alleged malpractice.  Moreover, this interpretation of the Release was consistent with the Wests’ declaration that they were “making a full and final compromise adjustment and settlement of any and all claims on account of the injuries and damages above-mentioned, and for the express purpose of precluding forever any further or additional suits arising out of the aforesaid claims.” As such, the Wests acknowledged that they were releasing not only West I’s claims for the injuries sustained from Abington’s provision of medical services, but were further forfeiting the right to bring any additional claims arising out of those claims. However, the Wests argued that Abington made fraudulent misrepresentations upon which the Wests justifiably relied in agreeing to settle West I.  To that end, the Wests sought to prove their claims of fraud in the inducement by establishing that there were other understandings directly or indirectly connected with the settlement that were not incorporated in the Release. While parol evidence may be introduced based on a party’s claim that there was a fraud in the execution of the contract, i.e., that a term was fraudulently omitted from the contract, parol evidence may not be admitted based on a claim that there was fraud in the inducement of the contract, i.e., that an opposing party made false representations that induced the complaining party to agree to the contract. Yocca v. Pittsburgh Steelers Sports, Inc., 854 A.2d 425, 437 n.26 (Pa. 2004). A party cannot disavow an integration clause merely by asserting that an unincluded representation was fraudulently made. See Bardwell v. Willis Co., 100 A.2d 102, 104 (Pa. 1953). Final Ruling Ultimately, the Superior Court found that the trial court properly observed that the Wests agreed to accept $19 million in exchange for a release of any and all claims for known and unknown injuries connected in any way with the medical services Abington rendered. As such, the Court concluded that the trial court correctly granted Abington’s motion for judgment on the pleadings because the Wests’ new claims were barred by the Release. The Pennsylvania Superior Court’s opinion in West v Abington Memorial Hospital, 2025 PA Super 199 (August 28, 2025) can be found here. Why This Matters for Families Settlement agreements in medical malpractice cases often involve large sums and life-changing circumstances. Families in WV, OH, and PA need to carefully review settlement language, especially integration clauses, with experienced legal counsel before signing. At Bordas & Bordas, we guide clients through every stage of litigation and settlement, ensuring that their rights are protected and that they fully understand the long-term impact of their decisions.

What to do Immediately After a Car Accident in Pittsburgh Nobody ever expects to get into a car accident, but when it happens, it can leave you shaken and unsure of what to do next. The good news is that if you’re ever in this stressful situation, there are clear steps you can take immediately after the crash to protect yourself and make things easier later on. Taking these actions can make all the difference if you need to file an insurance claim or take legal action. What to Do After a Car Accident The minutes right after a crash can be a whirlwind. Here’s a simple checklist to help you stay focused and protect yourself. Make sure everyone is safe. If you can, move your vehicle out of traffic and turn on your hazard lights. Check yourself, your passengers, and anyone else involved for injuries. If anyone is hurt, call 911 right away and wait for emergency responders. Call the police. A police report creates an official record of the crash. This report can be a critical piece of evidence for an insurance or legal claim down the road. Exchange information. Get the other driver’s name, address, phone number, insurance details, and license plate number. If there are any witnesses, get their contact information as well. This information is essential if there’s a dispute over who was at fault. Document everything. Use your phone to take photos of the vehicles, the damage, skid marks, traffic signs, and any visible injuries. It’s also a good idea to write down what happened while it’s still fresh in your mind. Get medical attention. Even if you feel fine, some injuries like concussions or whiplash don’t show up right away. Seeing a doctor protects your health and creates a record of your injuries, which is important for your case. Notify your insurance company. Report the accident to your provider as soon as you can. When you talk to them, stick to the facts and avoid speculating about who was at fault. Be careful what you say. What you say at the scene, even something as simple as an apology, can be used against you. It’s good practice to avoid posting about the accident on social media, as insurers might use it to challenge your claim. Contact a Car Accident Lawyer in Pittsburgh for Help In Pennsylvania, you only have two years from the accident date to file a personal injury claim. The sooner you get an attorney involved, the stronger your case can be. An experienced lawyer can handle communications with the insurance company, gather evidence, and fight to get you the money you deserve for medical bills, lost wages, and pain and suffering. If you or a loved one has been hurt in a car accident in Pittsburgh, you don’t have to face it alone. At Bordas & Bordas, our team has decades of experience fighting for accident victims and their families. We’ll guide you every step of the way, protect your rights, and work to get you the maximum compensation you deserve. Contact us today for a free consultation.

Uber’s Safety Failures: When Business Goals Trump Rider Safety Every eight minutes. That’s how frequently Uber received a report of sexual assault or misconduct in the United States between 2017 and 2022, according to recently revealed court records. In total, more than 400,000 Uber trips in that period involved reports of sexual assault or sexual misconduct, a staggering figure that far exceeds what Uber has publicly disclosed. By contrast, Uber’s official safety reports claimed only about 12,500 incidents of “serious” sexual assaults in that timeframe. This discrepancy suggests the company downplayed the true scope of the problem by only counting the most severe categories of assault, while omitting hundreds of thousands of other reports. Court Records Reveal the Truth These new figures emerged from sealed court documents obtained in ongoing litigation against Uber. According to The New York Times, Uber averaged one sexual misconduct report every 8 minutes in the U.S. Over six years, that amounted to 400,181 passenger reports of sexual assault or misconduct, ranging from lewd remarks to rape. Yet Uber’s public U.S. Safety Reports, which the company touted as a transparency effort, only included the five most severe categories of sexual assault — totaling 12,522 incidents between 2017 and 2022. That means 16 other categories of sexual misconduct that Uber internally tracked were never included in public reports. About 75% of incidents, such as harassment, unwanted touching, or inappropriate comments, were effectively hidden. Uber Chose Business Over Safety Internally, Uber knew about thousands of complaints every year. Data showed 3,000–7,000 reports of sexual assault annually, with a significant number of cases involving non-consensual touching and rape. Equally troubling is the evidence that Uber’s own safety team developed tools to reduce risks — but many were never implemented when they conflicted with the company’s bottom line. Potential safety measures included: Driver-passenger matching systems that could pair women riders with women drivers. In-car cameras or recording features to document misconduct. Algorithms to flag high-risk situations before they happen. Despite testing these measures, Uber leadership often shelved them out of fear that drivers might quit or costs would rise. Protecting Yourself and Seeking Help The disturbing truth is that rider safety has too often taken a backseat to profits. While Uber and Lyft remain convenient transportation options, passengers must remain aware of the risks. If you or a loved one has been a victim of sexual assault during a rideshare trip, you are not alone. Consider reaching out to: Law enforcement to report the crime. The National Sexual Assault Hotline at RAINN.org or 1-800-656-4673. A trusted legal professional who can explain your rights and potential claims. At Bordas & Bordas, our attorneys serve clients in West Virginia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania who have suffered serious harm because of corporate negligence and misconduct. We stand ready to help victims pursue justice and hold powerful companies accountable.

Consumer Product Safety Commission Says Walmart Knew of Water Bottle Danger for Years Before Recall In July 2025, Walmart recalled approximately 850,000 Ozark Trail 64-ounce stainless-steel water bottles after reports that the lids could “forcefully eject” and injure users. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) warned that these bottles posed a serious hazard — at least three people suffered devastating injuries, including two cases of partial blindness. However, federal regulators now claim that Walmart was aware of these dangers for seven years before taking action. Walmart Aware of Injuries as Early as 2018 Investigations reveal Walmart had evidence of catastrophic injuries long before the recall. For example: 2018, Georgia: A woman was struck in the eye when hot soup caused the bottle’s lid to blast off. 2018, Washington State: A man’s left eye was ruptured after a cap exploded while opening a bottle filled with hard apple cider. 2018, Massachusetts: A woman suffered severe facial and jaw injuries when a bottle filled with juice burst. Walmart quietly settled lawsuits tied to these incidents but did not issue public warnings or recalls at the time. Warning Labels Instead of Recall By 2020, Walmart began placing warning labels on Ozark Trail bottles, advising customers to use them only for water. Labels cautioned that storing carbonated or perishable liquids could cause pressure to build up and eject the lid like a projectile. This reduced injuries for a while, but by early 2024, another customer was harmed, which finally prompted the CPSC to formally request a recall. Why the Delay Matters Safety experts say Walmart’s seven-year delay underscores how corporations may weigh recall costs against liability risks. The CPSC cannot force recalls without a company’s cooperation, leaving dangerous products in homes for years. The recalled bottles (model #83-662) were sold at Walmart stores nationwide since 2017 for about $15. Consumers are urged to stop using them immediately and return them for a refund. Holding Companies Accountable For families of those injured, Walmart’s delayed response highlights the importance of product liability law. When preventable design flaws cause life-altering injuries, companies must be held accountable. At Bordas & Bordas, we help clients across West Virginia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania pursue justice when defective products cause harm. If you or a loved one has been injured by a recalled item or other unsafe product, our attorneys can help you explore your legal options.

Medical Device Failures: How to File a Product Liability Claim Medical devices are designed to improve our health and the quality of life; however, when they fail, the consequences can be devastating. Whether it’s a defective hip implant, a malfunctioning pacemaker, or a faulty surgical mesh, medical device failures can significantly worsen your health. Medical device failures can lead to serious injuries, additional surgeries, long-term complications, or even death. At Bordas & Bordas, we have seen firsthand how defective medical products can impact individuals and their families. If you or a loved one has been harmed by a medical device, you may be entitled to compensation through a product liability claim. Here’s what you need to know about your rights and how to take action. What Is A Medical Device Product Liability Claim? Product liability law holds manufacturers, distributors, and sometimes medical providers responsible when a defective product causes harm. In the case of medical devices, these claims generally fall into one of three categories: Design Defect – The device is inherently dangerous due to a flawed design. Manufacturing Defect – A mistake occurred during production, making the device unsafe. Failure to Warn – The manufacturer failed to provide adequate warnings or instructions for safe use. Common Defective Medical Devices Some devices more commonly involved in product liability lawsuits include: Hip and knee implants Transvaginal mesh Pacemakers and defibrillators IVC filters (used to prevent blood clots) Insulin pumps Breast implants Surgical tools or instruments that break during procedures If a device like one of these has failed and caused injury, it’s worth exploring whether you have a valid legal claim. Steps to Filing a Product Liability Claim If you believe a medical device caused you harm, follow these key steps: Seek Medical Attention Your health is the top priority. Get evaluated by a medical professional who can assess the damage and provide proper care. Preserve the Evidence Keep the device (if possible), packaging, instructions, and any related medical records. These items can serve as crucial evidence. Document Your Experience Start a journal documenting symptoms, medical appointments, additional teams, and how your daily life has been affected. Contact a Product Liability Attorney An experienced attorney can review your case and help you navigate the legal process. At Bordas & Bordas, we offer free consultations to help you understand your options. File a Lawsuit or Join a Mass Tort Depending on your case, you may file an individual lawsuit or join a larger mass tort case involving the same device. Your attorney will help determine the best course of action. Why Legal Representation Matters Product liability cases involving medical devices are complex. Manufacturers often have powerful legal teams working to protect their bottom line. You need someone in your corner who understands the law and will fight for the compensation that you deserve, whether that means recovering medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, or long-term disability costs. At Bordas & Bordas, we have a strong track record of standing up to corporations and holding them accountable. We’re here to help you guide you through every step of the process. Speak With an Experienced Product Liability Attorney Today If you or a loved one has been injured by a defective medical device, don’t wait to take action. Contact us today for a free consultation and let our experienced product liability attorneys help you seek justice.

Do I Have a Medical Malpractice Case? 5 Signs to Watch For Medical errors are one of the leading causes of death in the United States. According to Johns Hopkins Medicine, more than 250,000 deaths each year in the U.S. are caused by medical mistakes. Patients expect their doctors and hospitals to provide safe, competent care, but when that doesn’t happen, the consequences can be life-changing. So how do you know if you have a medical malpractice case? Here are five warning signs to watch for: 1. Delayed or Incorrect Diagnosis If a doctor fails to diagnose a serious condition or diagnoses it too late, you may have grounds for legal action. 2. Surgical Mistakes Wrong-site surgery, leaving surgical tools inside the body, or other preventable errors can be clear signs of negligence. 3. Medication Errors Getting the wrong drug or dosage is a red flag, especially if it leads to serious complications or hospitalization. 4. Failure to Follow Up Doctors are required to communicate lab results, follow up on test findings, and monitor recovery. Failure to do so can result in preventable harm. 5. Lack of Informed Consent Patients have the right to understand the risks of a procedure before agreeing to it. If you weren’t fully informed, your consent may not be legally valid. At Bordas & Bordas, we work with medical experts to evaluate each case and determine whether the standard of care was violated. Learn more about medical malpractice cases and how we help patients in West Virginia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania seek justice.

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

MCARE Act and PSQIA: PA Superior Court Weighs in on Document Discovery In Boyle v. Main Line Health, Inc., 2025 PA Super 148 (July 17, 2025) the Superior Court of Pennsylvania analyzed the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error (“MCARE”) Act, 40 P.S. §§ 1303.101-1303.910, and the Patient Safety and Healthcare Quality Improvement Act (“PSQIA”), 42 U.S.C. 299b-21, et seq, 42 C.F.R. Part III, §§ 3.10, et seq. in determining whether documents relating to the review and investigation of issues relating to Erin Boyle’s delivery of B.B. (“Boyle Event”) were discoverable. The Boyles asserted claims for professional negligence against Main Line Health, Inc. (“Main Line”) and Dr. Scott Bailey arising out of the birth of their son, “BB”. The Boyles also asserted claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress regarding Erin Boyle, and loss of consortium regarding Erin and Stephen Boyle.  During discovery, the Boyles requested the production of documents from the Main Line Defendants relating to the review and investigation regarding Erin Boyle’s delivery of B.B. In response to the request, the Main Line Defendants provided a privilege log identifying four documents Defendants claimed were privileged: (1) the Patient Safety Occurrence Worksheet (“PSOW”); (2) the Situation Background Assessment/Recommendations (“SBAR”); (3) the Patient Safety Reporting System (“PSRS”); and (4) the Potentially Compensable Event (“PCE”) report to Claims Management. The Main Line Defendants specified that the PSRS report was protected from disclosure under the MCARE Act, and the PSOW and SBAR were protected as confidential patient safety work product under the PSQIA. The Main Line Defendants admitted that no peer review was conducted, and they did not assert any privilege under the PRPA. The trial court ordered the production of the documents, and the Main Line Defendants appealed the court’s decision. MCARE confidentiality extends to “documents, materials or information solely prepared or created for the purpose of compliance with section 310(b).” Ford-Bey v. Professional Anesthesia Services of North America, LLC, 229 A.3d 984 (Pa.Super. 2020 (quoting 40 P.S. § 1303.311(a)) (emphasis in original). party claiming a document is protected under section 311(a) need not demonstrate a patient safety committee or governing board actually reviewed the contested document.” Lahr v. Lehigh Valley Hosp., Inc., 311 A.3d 587, 2023 WL 8665017 *9 (Pa.Super. 2023) (unpublished memorandum).  However, at a minimum “section 311(a) requires proof that the document, materials or information or reporting requirement arose out of ‘matters reviewed’ by a patient safety committee or a governing board pursuant to their section 311(b) responsibilities.” Id. In this case, the Main Line Defendants failed to introduce evidence to show that Main Line’s patient safety committee or governing board had reviewed the Boyle Event. Therefore, the Court concluded that the PSRS report did not meet the criteria of privilege under section 311(a). The Main Line Defendants created the SBAR and PSOW for the purpose of reporting to a patient safety organization and that the SBAR was reported to the ECRI PSO as part of the Hospital’s reporting system.  The Main Line Defendants insist that these documents, “are quintessential examples of … documents that qualify for PSQIA privilege protection” under subsection (ii) of the PSQIA.  (Main Line Defendant’s Brief at 45).  Therefore, the Main Line Defendants insist that they have met their burden of establishing that the documents constituted privileged “patient safety work product” as defined by the PSQIA at Section 299b-21(7)(A). PSQIA defines “patient safety work product” as follows: Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the term ‘patient safety work product’ means any data, reports, records, memoranda, analyses (such as root cause analyses), or written or oral statements— (i) which (I) are assembled or developed by a provider for reporting to a patient safety organization and are reported to a patient safety organization; or (II) are developed by a patient safety organization for the conduct of patient safety activities; and which could result in improved patient safety, health care quality, or health care outcomes; or (ii) which identify or constitute the deliberations or analysis of, or identify the fact of reporting pursuant to, a patient safety evaluation system. 42 U.S.C. § 299b-21(7)(A).  The PSQIA provides that “patient safety work product” shall be privileged and shall not be subject to a state subpoena, subject to discovery, or admitted as evidence.  42 U.S.C. § 299b-22(a). Information that constitutes “patient safety work product” under the “deliberations or analysis” option set forth in section 299b-21(7)(A)(ii), is protected when it is done within the patient safety evaluation system.  Notably, “‘patient safety work product’ excludes ‘information that is collected, maintained, or developed separately, or exists separately, from a patient safety evaluation system.’” Ungurian v. Beyzman, 232 A.3d 786, 795 (Pa.Super. 2020) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 299b-21(7)(B)(ii)). Here, the Court concluded that Mainline Medical produced the SBAR and PSOW solely in accordance with the patient safety evaluation system and reported to the patient safety organization and thus constituted “patient safety work product” privileged documents as the “deliberations or analysis of” a patient safety evaluation system. See 42 U.S.C. § 299b-21(7)(A)(ii).  The Court noted that the burden now shifted to the Boyles “to set forth facts showing that disclosure will not violate the…privilege.” Ungurian, supra at 795. The Superior Court’s opinion in Boyle v. Main Line Health, Inc., 2025 PA Super 148 (July 17, 2025) can be accessed here. Legal Help You Can Trust Navigating discovery and privilege in medical negligence cases is complex. If you believe your medical provider is withholding critical information or that you were harmed by medical negligence, the attorneys at Bordas & Bordas are here to help. Contact us today for a free consultation.

Supreme Court Rejects Heightened Standard of Proof in Disability Discrimination Cases Against Schools Federal laws, including the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, protect people with disabilities from discrimination, including in the area of education.  The Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) conditions federal funding to states on the promise to provide a “free appropriate public education” to children with certain disabilities.  Recently, in A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Indep. School Dist. No. 279, the United States Supreme Court rejected a lower court’s ruling that plaintiffs in education-related cases under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act must show bad faith or gross misjudgment by school officials to recover damages, not just failure to provide a reasonable accommodation as in other discrimination cases. Background of the Case The plaintiff in A.J.T., identified by her initials because she is a minor, was a teenager who had a rare form of epilepsy with serious manifestations including seizures so severe in the morning hours that she was unable to attend school before noon.  A.J.T. had previously been permitted to attend educational activities in the evening, but after her family relocated, her new school district denied her request for evening education, such that she received significantly less instruction than non-disabled students.  A.J.T.’s parents filed a complaint under the IDEA and won a ruling ordering the district to provide A.J.T. with evening instruction. A.J.T.’s parents then sued the district under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act, seeking a permanent injunction and compensatory damages.  The federal district court in Minnesota granted summary judgment to the school district and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision.  The appeals court determined that unlike in other discrimination cases under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act, “a plaintiff must prove that school officials acted with ‘either bad faith or gross misjudgment,’ which requires ‘something more’ than mere non-compliance with the applicable federal statutes.’”  Federal appeals courts had disagreed on the appropriate standard, and the Supreme Court accepted the case to resolve the dispute. What the Supreme Court Decided Writing for a unanimous Supreme Court, Chief Justice John Roberts held unambiguously that “ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims based on educational services should be subject to the same standards that apply in other disability discrimination contexts.” The Court observed that children with disabilities and their parents “face daunting challenges on a daily basis,” but that “those challenges do not include having to satisfy a more stringent standard of proof than other plaintiffs to establish discrimination under Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.” Chief Justice Roberts noted that the Congress had previously amended the IDEA to overturn caselaw holding that the IDEA was the only mechanism by which a child with a disability could allege that his or her education was inadequate. What This Means for Parents While the Supreme Court’s decision contains nuances that reflect the complexities of the legal framework it interpreted, A.J.T. makes it clear that the unique challenges that can come with educational accommodations in no way lessen the rights of children with disabilities.  As the varying interpretations of the same law by different courts demonstrate, seeking the law’s protections can be complicated and intimidating.  A lawyer experienced in navigating discrimination claims can help make sure your rights are protected.

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