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

Bread Sold in Ohio and Pennsylvania Recalled for Containing Glass If you’ve recently bought Upper Crust bread in Ohio or Pennsylvania, you may want to be very careful about eating it. The Food and Drug Administration has announced that bread sold by the Maryland-based company Upper Crust Crest Hill Bakery in six different states has been voluntarily recalled following the discovery of glass fragments on top of the bread. The bread was recalled on April 12 The bakery, also known as the Crest Hill Bakery, sells partially baked bread and frozen pizza dough it then sells to major food retailers and wholesalers. The recall involves three (3) different types of breads: the Ancient Grains Hoagie Roll, Multigrain Sourdough, and Whole Grain Multigrain loaves. While no specific stores were included in the FDA’s announcement, the questionable bread was sold in California, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Ohio, and Pennsylvania If you have any of these recalled breads on hand, you should probably dispose of them to be safe. And if you or a loved one have been injured from consuming this recalled bread, you should contact an experienced law firm right away to explore your rights.

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

According to 26 U.S.C.A. § 7430(c)(1) and I.R.C. § 7430(c)(1), the term “reasonable litigation costs” are defined as follows: (A) reasonable court costs, and (B) based upon prevailing market rates for the kind or quality of services furnished— (i) the reasonable expenses of expert witnesses in connection with a court proceeding, except that no expert witness shall be compensated at a rate in excess of the highest rate of compensation for expert witnesses paid by the United States, (ii) the reasonable cost of any study, analysis, engineering report, test, or project which is found by the court to be necessary for the preparation of the party's case, and (iii) reasonable fees paid or incurred for the services of attorneys in connection with the court proceeding, except that such fees shall not be in excess of $125 per hour unless the court determines that a special factor, such as the limited availability of qualified attorneys for such proceeding, the difficulty of the issues presented in the case, or the local availability of tax expertise, justifies a higher rate. In the case of any calendar year beginning after 1996, the dollar amount referred to in clause (iii) shall be increased by an amount equal to such dollar amount multiplied by the cost-of-living adjustment determined under section 1(f)(3) for such calendar year, by substituting “calendar year 1995” for “calendar year 2016” in subparagraph (A)(ii) thereof. If any dollar amount after being increased under the preceding sentence is not a multiple of $10, such dollar amount shall be rounded to the nearest multiple of $10. Corson v. C.I.R., 123 T.C. 202 (2004) addressed what is a reasonable litigation cost and specifically discusses section 7430. The opinion states that section 7430 defines reasonable litigation costs as reasonable court costs and reasonable fees paid or incurred for the services of attorneys in connection with the proceeding. Corson, 123 T.C. at *212 (citing Sec. 7430(c)(1)). Corson involved the review of determining what the fair litigation costs of the prevailing party are in a tax claim. Furthermore, attorney’s fees, which may be considered litigation costs in a claim, are limited by statute and are adjusted for living costs. Id. (citing Sec. 7430(c)(1)(B)(iii)). According to the National Center for State Courts’ Civil Litigation Cost Model, the median costs of litigation broken down by case type are as follows: Automobile $43k, Premises Liability $54k, Real Property $66k, Employment $88k, Contract $91k, and Malpractice $122k. More on this can be found here. As you can see, the cost of litigating a legal claim can be very expensive. A contingency lawyer will generally agree to forgo all attorney fees and litigation costs if there is no verdict or settlement in the client’s favor. It is this factor that will likely benefit a client in various ways. Examples of the same are that the attorney bears all the economic risks associated with the litigation, and the contingency fee substantially ensures the attorney will be diligent and assertive in the handling of the claim, because the attorney will not get paid, if at all, until a successful resolution of the case. A person may want to keep all of this in mind when assessing the legitimacy of the lawyer’s share of the recovery in a successful claim.

As I meet more and more people in the course of my campaign, I am frequently asked about why I am doing this. Folks see the time and effort my supporters and I are putting into this race, and they naturally wonder what it is about being a Circuit Judge that would make me so determined to reach that position.  I spent a good deal of time thinking about that question when people first started asking me to run clear back in 2011, and I continue thinking about it now.  The answers are always the same. The simplest answer has to do with the way I was raised.  My parents always emphasized the need to do my absolute best at any task I started.  In last week’s column, I mentioned that one of Dad’s favorite sayings was “any job worth doing is worth doing right”.  Dad’s grammar may not have been the best, but the message he drilled into me was born of the tremendous work ethic he was taught by his father.  He taught me to strive for the highest level in anything I did, and that is what I have done throughout my 35 years as a lawyer.  It takes many, many years in the practice of law to gain the experience necessary to be a fair and effective judge.  After three decades during which I served as chief counsel in more than 50 jury trials, I have finally gained the necessary experience.  It’s only natural that I now seek to move into the highest level of my profession. I have to confess that the other answer to the “why am I doing this” question is a bit more selfish.  OK, maybe it’s a lot more selfish.  If there is one thing I have learned in my 35 years of practice, it is that nothing is as personally and professionally satisfying as helping to change someone’s life for the better.  I’m not talking here about the cases most lawyers see every day; I’m referring to the cases where our work has actually, significantly changed someone’s life.  Let me give two examples. Several years ago, I was prosecuting a case of alleged child abuse and neglect.  The neglected child was a little blonde-haired, blue-eyed boy of around 6 years old.  All you had to do was look into that little fella’s eyes, and you could see the potential in him.  He was a bright little boy, but Mom rarely took him to school.  He was full of life, but years of experience told me that he had no chance where he was.  With a lot of time, effort, and commitment from everyone involved, and with a judge who truly understood the importance of these cases, we were able to get that little boy placed in a good home where he was eventually adopted.  I will never forget the status hearing we had after the little guy was placed in a loving home shortly before Christmas.  The hearing was over, and as he was leaving the Courtroom, the youngster turned, and with a beaming smile, shouted, “Merry Christmas, everybody!”  There wasn’t a dry eye in the courtroom. The other case involved a sexual predator who preyed on young girls who were near his family, generally step-children or nieces.  He would begin abusing them when they were 4 or 5 years old, and would continue until they were 12 or 13 and old enough to understand the perversion they were being subjected to.  The case began when one victim came forward, who led law enforcement to another, and then another.  The victims were adults by then, in their late 20s and early 30s, each of whom had continued to live in fear of the day when they would again come face to face with their abuser.  I prosecuted and convicted the pedophile, and I will never forget the looks on their faces as they sat in the courtroom, holding hands, as their abuser finally faced justice.  After the judge handed down what amounted to a life sentence, we all hugged and we all cried. So, what is consistent about those cases?  It’s making a difference.  It’s changing a person’s life.  The young boy is now a happy child, making straight A’s in a home where he is loved.  The women who were victimized as children are married, some with children of their own, able to live without looking over their shoulders.  You see, nothing is as satisfying as making a real difference in someone’s life.  Lawyers see such cases a few times in a career.  A judge gets to work with them every week.  More than anything else, that is why I want to be a judge.  I want to make a difference.

A civil lawsuit generally has a time limitation in which the injured party must file a lawsuit by or they will forever waive their rights to file a claim. So, what can you do if you file a claim in time but realize after the statute of limitations that you failed to include all the claims you wanted in front of the court? Have you waived your right to make these claims, or is there a possibility to include these claims after the statute of limitations? If the claims are evolving from the same occurrence and/or are simply amplifying the existing claims, you will likely be able to amend your Complaint to include the omitted allegations. This article identifies the law that will support an amended of the Complaint under these circumstances in a Federal Court. Standard of Law The Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint: Amendments Before Trial. Amending as a Matter of Course. A party may amend its pleading once as a     matter of course within: 21 days after serving it, or if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier. Other Amendments. In all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires. (emphasis added). The Rule further reads: Relation Back of Amendments. When an Amendment Relates Back. An amendment to a pleading relates back to the date of the original pleading when: the law that provides the applicable statute of limitations allows relation back; the amendment asserts a claim or defense that arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set out—or attempted to be set out—in the original pleading; or (emphasis added) Pursuant to Fed. Civ. R. 15(a)(2), “The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” See, e.g., Coe v. Bell, 161 F.3d 320, 341 (6 th Cir. 1988).  The rule is part of a “liberal policy of permitting amendments to ensure the determination of claims on the merits.” Marks v. Shell Oil Co., 830 F.2d 68, 69 (6 th Cir.1987). The Court in Marks held: Under the Federal Rules, a party amending a pleading after a responsive pleading has been served “may amend his pleading only by leave of court ... and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires.” See Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). A court's refusal to grant leave to amend is reviewable under the “abuse of discretion” standard. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 401 U.S. 321, 330-332, 91 S.Ct. 795, 802-803, 28 L.Ed.2d 77 (1971); Tefft v. Seward, 689 F. 2d 637 ( 6th Cir.1982). Estes v. Kentucky Utilities Co., 636 F. 2d 1131 ( 6th Cir.1980). 2 Though the decision to grant leave to amend is committed to the trial court's discretion, that discretion is limited by Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a) 's liberal policy of permitting amendments to ensure the determination of claims on their merits. See Espey v. Wainwright, 734 F. 2d 748 (11th Cir.1984).Id at 69 Amendment of a Complaint after the Statute of Limitations The Courts and the applicable law has long held that if the allegations of the amended claim relates back to the occurrence stated in the initial complaint, as it does here, the allegations will not be barred by the statute of limitations.  Watkins & Son Pet Supplies v. Iams Co., 107 F.Supp.2d 883, 897 (S.D. Ohio 1999); Boerkoel v. Hayes Mfg. Corp. 76 F.Supp. 771, 776 (S.D. Mich. 1948); Hall v. Spencer County, Ky., 583 F.3d 930, 933-934 (6th Cir.2009); and Fed R Civ. P 15(a) (2) and (c). Further, when the Plaintiffs do not seek to state a new cause of action or add a new party; rather, they seek to amend their Complaint to “merely explain, expand or amplify” the existing claims for the occurrence, the motor vehicle incident, it is a permissible amendment. Watkins & Son Pet Supplies v. Iams Co., 107 F.Supp.2d 883,897 (S.D. Ohio 1999); Boerkoel v. Hayes Mfg. Corp. 76 F.Supp. 771, 776 (S.D. Mich. 1948); Hall v. Spencer County, Ky., 583 F.3d 930, 933-934 (6th Cir.2009); and Fed R Civ. P 15(a) (2) and (c). If the Plaintiff seeks to include a claim for punitive damages or other damages, it is not a considered a new cause of action. Regardless, when it and the other allegations in the amended complaint “relate back” to the same occurrence, they are permissible amendments. Payne v. A.O. Smith Corp., 578 F.Supp. 733 (S.D. Ohio 1983); Cohen v. Bucey, 158 Ohio St. 159, 168 (1952); Watkins & Son Pet Supplies v. Iams Co., 107 F.Supp.2d 883, 897 (S.D. Ohio 1999); Hall v. Spencer County, Ky., 583 F.3d 930, 933-934 (6th Cir.2009); and Fed R Civ. P 15(a) (2) and (c). Even a new legal theory after the statute of limitations in an amended complaint that is “substantially more sophisticated than the original complaint” is proper if it evolves from the same occurrence. Hall v. Spencer County, Ky., 583 F.3d 930, 934 (6th Cir.2009). In considering whether to allow an amendment, the Court may consider any undue delay, lack of notice, bad faith by the moving party, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by previous amendments, undue prejudice to the opposing party, and futility of amendments. Coe, 161 F. 3d at 341.  If these factors are not present, leave to amend should be “freely given.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S. Ct. 227, 9. L. Ed. 2d 222 (1962). Arguments that the lack of bad faith, undue prejudice, and undue delay do not exist could include the following reasons: The deadline for filing motions to amending the pleadings has NOT passed; The Complaint was filed only short period before; The new counsel for Plaintiff has only been involved in the matter since last month; Defendants have complete access and knowledge of their conduct in this matter, but Plaintiffs have very limited personal knowledge of the respective Defendants conduct in the matter; Little if any discovery was performed to date; The case deadlines for Discovery Deadlines and Expert Disclosures has not passed. The amendment will “merely explain, expand or amplify” the existing claims for the occurrence, the motor vehicle incident; and The amendment will include a claim for punitive damages or other damages; CONCLUSION: Accordingly, under the above law and with the identified factors, a Court is likely to grant a Motion to Amend A Complaint, even after the passing of the statute of limitations

Bordas & Bordas is proud to announce that seven attorneys have been selected to the 2025 West Virginia Super Lawyers list. Bordas & Bordas attorneys Jamie Bordas, Linda Bordas, Geoffrey Brown, Scott Blass, Jason Causey, Richard Monahan and Mike Prascik were selected as 2025 West Virginia Super Lawyers. Jamie Bordas, managing partner of Bordas & Bordas for 20 years, has been a West Virginia Super Lawyer for over a decade. Bordas spearheads Bordas & Bordas’ operations across multiple states and jurisdictions. An extremely accomplished litigator, Bordas has concentrated on the negotiation and resolution of the firm’s most complex and significant cases, including mass tort settlements of $36,500,000 and $18,500,000 and a single plaintiff settlement of over $18,000,000. In 2019, he served as lead counsel for a plaintiff at trial and presented the Oral Argument before the West Virginia Supreme Court in a case that resulted in a $16,922,000 verdict against Walmart. The verdict is believed to be one of the largest, if not the largest, verdicts in the history of Wood County, West Virginia, on behalf of a single plaintiff. He has also obtained a $10 million verdict in an insurance bad faith case in Belmont County, Ohio. In 2023, Bordas argued a case, Harris v. Hilderbrand, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3005, before the Ohio Supreme Court where the Court unanimously ruled that police officers do not have immunity from negligent acts with K9 officers outside of duty. He also served as appellate counsel in Brown v. City of Oil City in which the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania decided in May 2023 that a contractor who has created a dangerous condition through work performed for a possessor of land may be liable to all persons suffering injuries caused by the dangerous condition. Bordas works on cases involving diverse areas of law, including insurance bad faith, toxic torts, personal injury, medical malpractice, business litigation and more. He has frequently been invited to speak to groups of attorneys on techniques applicable to trial skills, negotiation, mediation and resolution of cases as a result of his reputation for getting the best possible results for his clients. He has led the firm’s expansion into Pittsburgh and the rest of Western Pennsylvania and the opening of the firm’s Gateway Center offices in Pittsburgh. Linda Bordas, also a partner, founded Bordas & Bordas with her husband Jim Bordas when she joined his practice upon graduating from law school in 1985. She had previously worked as a hospital pharmacist and immediately applied her background to become one of West Virginia’s most successful medical malpractice attorneys. Linda has obtained numerous major verdicts and settlements in almost every area of medicine and handled appeals that have expanded the rights of patients and especially the families of children who were injured or killed as a result of negligence. She obtained a verdict of $2 Million in Davis vs. Wang, which involved the death of an infant due to medical negligence. That case also significantly affected the law in West Virginia for jury selection and juror bias in medical negligence cases and cases in general. She also obtained a $2,500,000 verdict in Klamut vs. Youssef in a case involving the death of woman as a result of medical negligence involving radiation oncology. In Andrews vs. Reynolds, she obtained a $2,760,000 verdict following the death of an infant, and helped establish law regarding loss of future wages for the survivors in a wrongful death action. In Mackey vs. Irisari, Linda obtained a $1.8 Million verdict following the failure of physicians to recognize signs of septic shock following a surgery. In Nickerson vs. Andreini, she obtained a $1 Million verdict on behalf of a young boy who required a hip replacement as a result of negligence by an orthopedic surgeon. She has also obtained multiple multi-million dollar settlements on behalf of other clients in medical malpractice cases involving various areas of medicine. Geoffrey Brown, a partner at Bordas & Bordas, has been a West Virginia Super Lawyer for 13 years. He concentrates his work on the firm’s complex litigation and medical malpractice cases. He has obtained major jury verdicts not only in medical malpractice, but also in cases of stockbroker negligence, workplace injury, and wrongful death. Brown has earned a reputation for comprehensive preparation and attention to detail in theses demanding areas of law. He has obtained multi-million-dollar verdicts in West Virginia and Ohio. Brown has also been involved in Bordas & Bordas’ business litigation department and has handled multi-jurisdictional contract disputes involving Fortune 500 companies and representation of individuals before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) arbitration panel. Scott Blass has been a West Virginia Super Lawyer for 15 years. Blass has been litigating complex civil cases for over 30 years. He has obtained seven-figure verdicts on behalf of his clients in diverse areas of the law, including verdicts of over $4 million in a product liability case, $8 million in an auto accident case, $1.4 million in an insurance bad faith case, and $5.7 million in a medical malpractice case. Blass has also represented the families of oil and gas workers killed in fires/explosions and obtained settlements of $19 million and $19.5 million. He has been recognized as one of the foremost insurance bad faith and insurance coverage lawyers in West Virginia. Jason Causey has been a West Virginia Super Lawyer for the past eight years. Causey is a leader in consumer law in the State of West Virginia. Through aggressive litigation, he has saved dozens of homes from foreclosure. In 2011, Causey and one of the firm’s founding partners, Jim Bordas, were forced to trial against Quicken Loans in an effort to save the home of two Wheeling, West Virginia, women from foreclosure. In addition to saving the home, they obtained a verdict of nearly $3,000,000 in this predatory lending action. In 2016, Jim Bordas and Causey teamed up again for a $1,700,000 result against a municipality after a broke water-main flooded a local business. Richard Monahan has been a West Virginia Super Lawyer since 2020. Monahan has been representing West Virginia citizens and consumers for more than 29 years. Among his successful trials, he has obtained verdicts and judgments of $3.9 million in a wrongful death action arising from a motor vehicle collision and $2.5 million in a retaliatory discharge case.  He has also worked in complex litigation, including substantially contributing to class actions involving natural gas rights, product liability claims involving defective drugs, and other consumer claims resulting in verdicts or settlements in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Monahan is also known for his extensive appellate work.  In addition to his involvement in numerous appeals before the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, he also fully briefed and argued a case before the United States Supreme Court, resulting in a unanimous decision in favor of West Virginia class action plaintiffs in Smith v. Bayer Corp., 564 U.S.299 (2011). He was selected as Appellate Lawyer of the Week for his argument in that case by The National Law Journal. Mike Prascik has been named a West Virginia Super Lawyer for the first time. With over 20 years of experience, Prascik has a history of representing individuals injured by defective products and unsafe workplace conditions, while also handling various other types of civil litigation. He is a 2002 graduate of West Virginia University College of Law, where he served as a Legal Research and Writing teaching assistant. Prascik currently provides crucial litigation support, research, and writing on cases throughout the region for Bordas & Bordas. Super Lawyers, part of Thomson Reuters, is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The annual selections are made using a patented multiphase process that includes a statewide survey of lawyers, an independent research evaluation of candidates and peer reviews by practice area. The result is a credible, comprehensive and diverse listing of exceptional attorneys. Bordas & Bordas is a plaintiff’s litigation law firm with offices in Pittsburgh, Wheeling, W.Va., St. Clairsville, Ohio, and Moundsville, W.Va. The firm’s attorneys practice throughout the region in diverse areas of law and are licensed in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, and Texas.

Happy St. Patrick’s Day! May your day be filled with good fortune, laughter, and maybe even a little bit of that Irish luck! We recently had a leprechaun, who was convinced his pot of gold was under threat, visit Bordas & Bordas for some legal advice on the best way to protect his pot of gold. Want to see how our attorneys handled this tricky situation? Click here to watch the video. Have a lucky day! 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 C ore 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. Building Strong Co-Counsel Partnerships at Bordas & Bordas At Bordas & Bordas, we deeply value collaborative relationships with fellow members of the trial bar. Our firm’s history is marked by significant successes achieved through strategic co-counsel partnerships. We recognize the strength that comes from combining our resources and expertise with that of other firms. Our firm’s size and diverse team of attorneys, specializing in various practice areas, enable us to effectively handle complex cases. We are particularly well-equipped to collaborate on matters involving: Personal Injury Wrongful Death Insurance Bad Faith Trucking and Auto Accidents Product Liability Medical Malpractice / Nursing Home Injuries Premises Liability We understand the importance of a strong co-counsel relationship and are committed to open communication, shared strategy, and a unified approach to achieving the best possible outcome for our clients. Our law firm’s proven track record against major corporations, including Walmart, Quicken Loans, AEP, American Home Patient/Lincare, and ManorCare, demonstrates our ability to handle high-stakes litigation. We believe that a collaborative approach allows us to maximize recoveries and provide exceptional legal representation. You can learn more about our firm’s capabilities and results at bordaslaw.com. Whether we’ve partnered in the past or are exploring a new co-counsel opportunity, we are eager to discuss how we can work together. Please feel free to reach out to managing partner Jamie Bordas directly at 304-242-8410. We consider it a privilege to collaborate with fellow trial lawyers. What Our Clients Say About Us Hear directly from Tom and Michele McFadden about their experience working with Bordas & Bordas and how we helped them achieve a successful outcome. Click To Watch Video It’s common for people to be shaken up after a car accident, and that can lead to mistakes. Learn the Dos and Don’ts after a car accident: Colin, a West Virginia University College of Law graduate, focuses his practice on personal injury litigation and works out of the firm’s Pittsburgh office. During his time at WVU College of Law, he served as an environmental law research assistant, where he helped draft and edit two published law review articles on coal mining and the opioid epidemic.  As a clinical student at the United States Supreme Court Clinic, his clinic successfully appealed two cases in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Prior to joining the firm, Colin gained valuable experience through internships at World Green Growth Organization, The Mills McDermott Criminal Law Center, and Bordas & Bordas itself. With a strong foundation in law and a passion for justice, he is committed to advocating for the rights of injured individuals. A Pittsburgh native, Colin is passionate about environmental conservation and environmental law. Outside of the office he enjoys skiing, hiking and camping. Quotes to Live By:

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

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

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

Bordas & Bordas is proud to announce that the law firm has been recognized for excellence in the 2025 edition of Best Law Firms® rankings in the United States. The recognition identifies the top-performing law firms across 127 practice areas and 188 local jurisdictions. The Best Law Firms® rankings are based on a rigorous evaluation process that includes collecting client and professional reference evaluations, peer reviews from leading attorneys, industry leader interviews, and reviewing additional firm information provided by law firms during the formal research submission process. Firms that have attorneys recognized in the most recent edition of the Best Lawyers in America® in specific practice areas are eligible to receive a law firm ranking in the same practice areas and metro jurisdictions. Bordas & Bordas attorneys Jamie Bordas, Geoff Brown, Scott Blass and Tom Anderson were recognized in the Best Lawyers in America® 2025 edition. The practice areas in which the firm was recognized for in the 2025 edition of Best Law Firms® rankings include: Metropolitan Tier 1 Morgantown Employment Law- Individuals Medical Malpractice Law- Plaintiffs Personal Injury Litigation- Plaintiffs Product Liability Litigation- Plaintiffs Metropolitan Tier 3 Morgantown Litigation- Labor and Employment “We are immensely proud to receive recognition in the 2025 edition of Best Law Firms® rankings,” said Jamie Bordas, Managing Partner at Bordas & Bordas. “This achievement reflects our firm’s commitment to fighting for justice and our dedication to providing exceptional legal representation to our clients.” The law firm of Bordas & Bordas has a long history of serving communities in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. The firm’s team of experienced attorneys offers a wide range of legal services.

As your case progresses, it will likely reach a point where your attorneys will discuss the possibility of entering settlement negotiations or participating in a mediation to try and settle the case before it goes to trial. Most courts require some type of mediation to occur in the case at some point before trial, but settlement negotiations can occur at any point in time in your case, including before the case is filed. Your attorney may take different approaches to the settlement negotiations depending on the stage of the case when those negotiations occur, but an element of settlement negotiations that is becoming more frequently used is the creation of a “settlement video.”nnA settlement video serves a purpose similar to a written demand or mediation statement. It educates the other side and the mediator if one is involved in the negotiations, about the case. Whereas written demand letters or mediation statements set forth the evidence in your case, including the evidence establishing the defendant’s liability and misconduct, evidence about your injuries and damages, and an introduction to you and how the situation gave rise to your injuries and a lawsuit have affected your life, a settlement video can help bring those things to life and give the other side in your case a better idea of the case and how you would present it to a jury at trial.nnSettlement videos typically include interviews with the plaintiff and his or her family members and friends. This allows the defendant to get to know the plaintiff better and to learn about who the plaintiff is as a person and how his injuries have affected him, both physically and emotionally. The defendant will be able to see video footage of the plaintiff’s day-to-day life as a result of the injuries, including things like how the plaintiff now walks with a limp, cannot lift his arms to get a cup out of the cupboard, or cannot dress anymore without assistance. The videos will show the emotions that the plaintiff and his family members experience in talking about what happened and how this has affected their lives. If the case involves someone who has died, family members can share photographs and memories about their loved one and really express the toll that the loss has taken on the family and how much their loved one is missed.nnSettlement videos can also help illustrate the injuries that a plaintiff sustained. Animations can show the force of a vehicle collision, and how it caused the plaintiff’s head and neck to move forward and backward, and can highlight the specific part of the neck and spine that were injured as a result of those movements. Illustrations can zoom in on the body parts that were injured, and pictures of broken bones, scars, burns, or other physical injuries can all be included to show the extent of the injuries and physical damages.nnExcerpts of depositions taken in the case, particularly of the defendant or defendant’s witnesses, can be included to highlight the ways in which the defendant was acting unsafely or was unaware of applicable rules and regulations and how they failed to follow those rules. It can be compelling for the defendant to view actual testimony that is harmful to them, the same way that a jury would hear that testimony, and to see the demeanor of the person giving that testimony. Expert witness interviews or depositions also help illustrate how persuasive testimony would be given at trial that establishes the defendant’s liability or the plaintiff’s damages and can be more effective than simply reading about that expert’s opinion.nnAll in all, a settlement video can be an effective way of presenting the strengths of your case and can be a persuasive tool in making clear to defendants just how valuable the case is, and can give some insight into how jurors would hear and view the case if it were presented at trial. While there are several considerations that go into whether a case is a good fit for a settlement video, including the available evidence, the timeframe to create the video, and the cost involved in creating the video, settlement videos can be a useful negotiation tool in many different types of cases.