Lou Rizzo elected President of Defense Counsel of Delaware
Managing Partner, Lou Rizzo was elected President of Defense Counsel of Delaware at the state-wide organization's annual meeting in January. DCD is a professional organization for attorneys in the state whose practice focuses on the defense of companies and individuals within Delaware's civil courts. The organization provides opportunities for sharing of information, continuing education, networking and service for its members. Lou has been a Board Member for DCD for six years and is a past state representative for the Defense Research Institute, the national defense counsel organization.
Bret Goldstein was recently named chairperson of the firm's Employment Practices Group
Mr. Goldstein is a partner in our firm's Philadelphia office, concentrating in the representation of management in worker's compensation, employment and labor matters. Mr. Goldstein regularly counsels clients on a broad range of employment-related issues.
Reger Rizzo & Darnall was once again named to the list of Pennsylvania's 100 Largest firms
In its annual report on the legal profession, The Legal Intelligencier identified Reger Rizzo & Darnall amoung the largest firms within the state.
Partners Louis Rizzo, Richard Darnall, Brad Vance and Adam Smith recently attended the DRI Annual Meeting in San Diego
The Defense Research Institute is a national organization of legal professionals engaged in the defense of corporations in civil litigation matters. The Annual Meeting includes national industry leaders and continuing education for professionals. Our partners participated in roundtable discussions with insurance and legal profession representatives regarding current issues facing both the industry and the profession.
Associate, Paul Luongo, Esquire, Named HAP Volunteer of the Month
For more than 1 and 1/2 years, Paul Luongo, an associate with Reger Rizzo & Darnall LLP has been a constant presence at HAP's legal clinics at Eliza Shirley House, Philadelphia's emergency intake center for homeless women and children. A captain in the US Air Force from 2001-2005, Paul concentrates his practice in the area of corporate and business services as well as trusts and estates. In addition to staffing legal clinics, Paul has advocated for HAP clients at administrative hearings with the Social Security Administration and Philadelphia Housing Authority and has achieved amazing results for several of HAP's most disabled and fragile clients. Paul's kind, heartwarming approach with clients is especially appreciated and makes him a welcoming and calming presence at the Eliza Shirley clinic. As both an officer in the Air Force and a dedicated HAP volunteer, we salute you!
MMSEA and Section 111 Reporting Requirements Summary by Partner, Bret Goldstein, Esquire
Please click here to read the full article that was published in the Pennsylvania Self-Insurers' Association's Workers' Compensation July, 2009 Newsletter.
Partner, G. Bradley Rainer, Esquire, Elected Chairman of the Board of Northern Home for Children
Please click here to read the press release issued by Northern Home for Children.
Partner, G. Bradley Rainer, Esquire, Re-elected to PBI Board of Directors
Please click here to read the press release issued by the Pennsylvania Bar Institute.
Legal Intelligencer features Managing Partner, Louis Rizzo, Esquire, in article about midsized firms: "For Midsized Firms, Opportunities Abound"
Click here to read the full article from The Legal Intelligencer on June 1, 2009.
Client Alert - Economic Climate Leads to Dramatic Increase in Age Discrimination Claims
Please click here for this Client Alert document.
We are pleased to welcome a new partner to the Philadelphia Office, John J. Barrett, Jr., Esquire
Mr. Barrett has more than 35 years of litigation experience, over the course of which he has tried numerous cases to verdict in state and federal trial courts across the United States. He has also argued before multiple state and federal appellate courts.
Mr. Barrett's litigation experience includes various types of commercial disputes, construction disputes, transportation-related cases, product liability cases, personal injury and property damage cases, insurance coverage cases, insurance bad faith cases, intellectual property matters, and adversary actions in bankruptcy. Mr. Barrett has also managed nationwide product liability litigation involving medical devices, and counseled medical device manufacturers during various stages of product design and manufacture.
Mr. Barrett was selected for inclusion in the 2009 edition of The Best Lawyers in America® and the 2009 edition of Philadelphia's Best Lawyers®.
Email: jbarrett@regerlaw.com
Firm Mourns death of Founding Partner
Reger Rizzo & Darnall LLP rising in the ranks of 100 largest law firms in Pennsylvania 2007
RRD has again been named to the 100 largest law firms in Pennsylvania in the 2007 edition of the PaLaw's Annual Report on the State of the Profession rising to number 83.
We are pleased to welcome a new partner to the Philadelphia Office, G. Bradley Rainer, Esquire, as Chairman of the new Estates and Trusts Department
Mr. Rainer practices in the fields of Estate Planning, Estate and Trust Administration, and Business Law, representing individuals, fiduciaries, and closely-held businesses and their owners throughout the mid-Atlantic region. Mr. Rainer also consults with lawyers and law firms regarding matters of legal ethics, as well as representing lawyers in the formation of law firms and in law firm disputes. Email: brainer@regerlaw.com
Changes to the Workers Compensation Act
Recent changes to the Workers Compensation Act require additional information be provided to employees when they are hired and when they report an injury. We have provided a link below to a form with the necessary information for your convenience. Please contact any attorney in the Workers Compensation Department for additional information. Workers Compensation Information
Reger Rizzo & Darnall Opening New Office in West Chester, Pennsylvania
We are pleased to announce the opening of an office in West Chester, Pennsylvania. The West Chester office will be managed by Thomas K. Schindler, Esquire. Mr. Schindler has extensive experience in Criminal, Matrimonial, Personal Injury, and Commercial Law.
Email: tschindler@regerlaw.com
Dramatic Changes in Underinsured/Uninsured Motorist Litigation
The future landscape of uninsured and under-insured motorist claims in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was altered dramatically by the recent Supreme Court decision in IFP v. Koken. The Koken decision was handed down on December 30, 2005. That decision has potentially dramatic effects on the way in which uninsured and under-insured motorist claims will be litigated.
The Koken decision has the potential effect of uninsured and under-insured claims being litigated in the same manner as third party claims, with the claimant or plaintiff filing suit against the insurance company. What would likely follow is written discovery, conferences with the Court and Scheduling Orders which traditionally accompany the third party action. In that the uninsured and under-insured motorist claims will be litigated in the traditional fashion, these claims will be tried to a jury with commensurate voir dire and points for charge.
It remains unclear what policy language governing these claims will be acceptable and enforceable. It is anticipated that most insurers will retain in their contracts of insurance some form of voluntary arbitration for resolution of uninsured and under-insured claims. It is likely that future uninsured and under-insured arbitration provisions will require that the claims be decided in arbitration only if both sides of the claim agree. Such provisions will obviously have a significant impact on every aspect of arbitration, including selection of arbitrators and the arbitration process itself. By way of example, it should be anticipated that the traditional method of stating and accepting an uninsured or under-insured motorist claim for arbitration, followed by each side selecting an arbitrator and agreeing on a third or neutral arbitrator, or if no agreement can be reached, seeking court intervention for the selection of a neutral will be a thing of the past. It is now likely that if the two sides cannot agree on a neutral arbitrator, either or both will not agree to submit the claim to arbitration at all.
In deciding whether to submit a claim to arbitration or follow the traditional route to a jury trial through the Court Systems, both the plaintiff and the insurer will have additional issues to consider. Traditionally, the uninsured or under-insured arbitration process is streamlined, with significant limitations on discovery, and with relaxed evidentiary rules which, for instance, would permit either side to present expert testimony on written reports. The traditional arbitration process is one that usually moves more quickly, and can in many instances be significantly less expensive to the litigants. Parties will also have to consider the forum where the case is to be litigated, as certain counties across the Commonwealth may be viewed as traditionally far more liberal or conservative depending upon whether the case proceeds through an arbitration process or to a trial by jury.
Some in the Plaintiff's Bar have suggested that litigating uninsured and under-insured claims in the Court Systems may result in significantly higher awards. First, there is the position that where the underlying and under-insured claim are tried together, or if the uninsured claim is tried to a jury, the jury would not be limited by applicable UM or UIM limits in reaching a verdict. Even if the Court ultimately molds a verdict to bring it within the applicable UM or UIM limits, the suggestion is that the excess verdict would essentially set or certainly evidence damages against the insurer in a bad faith case.
It is also anticipated that if uninsured or under-insured claims are tried to a jury, the Complaints filed in those actions will contain bad faith counts. If the bad faith allegations are permitted to stand in the Complaint, such may significantly impact the discovery that is permitted in the action, as well as the evidence that is introduced at the time of trial.
Others have suggested that insurers, through arbitration provisions that require each side to agree to arbitration or elimination of arbitration clauses altogether, may attempt to force early and lower settlements by presenting claimants with the prospect of having to expend significant funds to try the uninsured or under-insured claim. In under-insured claims, it is likely that the Plaintiff will attempt to file a single suit against both the tortfeasor and the insurance company. This prospect would seem to eliminate or significantly reduce any concern that the Plaintiff's Bar may have about escalating costs. As to the uninsured claim, one must bear in mind that the insurer will have significantly increased costs as well if it does not agree to arbitration of the claim. Moreover, any concern that insurers will attempt to force trial to increase costs seems contradictory to the suggestion that the claimants or plaintiffs in uninsured and under-insured claims may reap significantly greater awards before a jury.
Although the landscape of uninsured and under-insured motorist claims has potentially been changed dramatically, if the Courts across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania now see a significant increase in the amount of litigation, it is likely that the legislature will have to react in the future. Of course, in the immediate future, uninsured and under-insured claims made under contracts of insurance requiring mandatory arbitration are unaffected by the Koken decision, and those claims will proceed through the arbitration process.
One thing is clear, and that is that there will be a period of time for the foreseeable future in which insurance companies and claimants in the uninsured and under-insured claims will have to feel their way through the UM/UIM process. If you should have any questions or if you would like to discuss the Koken decision and its potential ramifications further, please feel free to contact Bradley J. Vance, Esquire at bvance@regerlaw.com or 215.495.6503.
Supreme Court Allows Employers To Obtain IREs Beyond 60 Day Period, Although Employer Cannot Unilaterally Modify Benefits Based On "Late" IRE.
The Supreme Court, on December 28, 2005, issued its much anticipated decision in Gardner v. WCAB (Genesis Health Ventures), holding that an employer must request an IRE within 60 days of the expiration of 104 weeks of total disability benefits in order to take advantage of the self executing modification prescribed by Section 511.2(2) of the Act. However, the Court held that an employer may still obtain an IRE beyond the 60 day period.
The key is that the results of "late" IREs are not "as in Section 511.2(2) self-executing, but rather, applicable to a traditional administrative process". In plain English, this means that although an employer can still obtain the IRE after the 60 day period expires, it cannot file the self executing Notice of Change of Workers' Compensation Disability Status. The Employer must either obtain a signed supplemental agreement, or file a modification petition in order to limit a claimant to 500 weeks of benefits, following a "late" IRE finding of less than 50%.
The Supreme Court viewed the issue as whether an employer could take advantage of the self executing Bureau form, as opposed to the much anticipated decision on whether the employer was entitled to an IRE at all. Although the Court affirmed the decision in Gardner, the plain language of the decision indicates that an employer is entitled to an IRE even if it missed the 60 day deadline: "An insurer's failure to request an employee submit to an IRE within the proscribed time frames of Subsection 1, however, does not preclude and insurer for requesting that an employee submit to an IRE at a later time." Gardner opinion, at page 16.
In a companion case, Walmart Stores, Inc, v WCAB (Rider), the Court also determined when the 104 week period begins to run. In Rider, the claimant's benefits were delayed because his claim petition was pending. The Supreme Court held that the 60 day period begins to run once the claimant physically receives 104 weeks of total disability benefits- in Rider, once the WCJ's decision was issued and supersedeas was denied by the WCAB, the 60 day period began to run.
This case has important implications where a claim petition is in litigation and the 104 week period lapses before the Judge's decision is issued. In a case where a claim is granted, and 104 or more weeks of back due benefits are paid out, the 60 day period begins to run from the point the claimant actually receives payment. It is important to note that an Employer's unlawful delay in paying the benefits (in Rider, the employer's failure to pay despite a denial of supersedeas) does not extend the period. Although the 60 day period may arguably begin to run after payments are timely made following a denial of supersedeas from the WCAB, in an exercise of caution, employers should try to request the IRE within 60 days of the WCJ's decision granting the claim- this guarantees that the IRE is timely filed under Rider, and does not leave the potential for a dispute over when the 60 day period begins.
We should consider IREs in every post Act case where the 60 day period was initially missed. Although the 500 week period will only relate back to the date of the IRE, it is still a cost effective way to avoid significant long term exposure. In any case where a claim petition is granted, the question of an IRE should be carefully monitored immediately following the decision, even if an appeal is filed. Although the litigation of issues pertaining to IREs is probably far from over, Gardner and Rider represent a significant clarification of the law, as well as a potential savings for employers in long term liability.
If you have any questions regarding the application of Gardner, please give a call to any of the attorneys in our department.
Reger Rizzo & Darnall LLP named to the 100 Largest Law Firms in Pennsylvania 2005
RRD has been named to the 100 Largest Law Firms in Pennsylvania in the 2005 edition of the PaLaw's Annual Report on the State of the Profession at number 97, with 23 attorneys in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Bret R. Goldstein chosen as one of Pennsylvania's Super Lawyers' Rising Stars in 2005
This award is presented to attorneys chosen by their peers as being among the top up-and-coming lawyers in the state. Only 2.5 percent of attorneys across the state of Pennsylvania are chosen for this award. Pennsylvania Rising Stars are published in the December issues of Philadelphia magazine and Pennsylvania Super Lawyers - Rising Stars Edition magazine. More information can also be found on the web at www.superlawyers.com. Bret R. Goldstein, Esquire is a partner of the firm and concentrates his practice in the workers compensation and employment practices group.
Daniel Fiore Elected to the Board of Directors of the Melanoma International Foundation
Daniel Fiore, Esquire has been elected to serve as a member of the Board of Directors of the Melanoma International Foundation, a charitable organization that provides patient services, education and screening for melanoma. For more information on the Melanoma International Foundation, please visit their website at www.melanomainternational.org.
Louis J. Rizzo, Jr., appointed DRI's Delaware State Representative
Louis J. Rizzo, Jr., Esquire, the managing partner of the firm's Wilmington, Delaware and Baltimore, Maryland offices has been appointed the Defense Research Institute's State Representative for the State of Delaware. The DRI is an international association of lawyers and others concerned with the defense of civil actions. DRI provides professional information to its members through continuing legal education, publications and many other research and member services. Lou was featured in the DRI's "For the Defense" July 2005 publication. A complete copy of the article can be viewed by clicking here.
Unemployment Compensation Hearings
As of February 3, 2005, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court has ruled that corporate employers must be represented by an attorney in unemployment compensation hearings. Our employment practices department regularly represents major employers in the tri-state area and works diligently to streamline the process in order to minimize costs to employers.
Robert J. Reger, Esquire Named to the Million Dollar Advocates Forum
The Million Dollar Advocates Forum is recognized as the most prestigious group of trial lawyers in the United States. Membership is limited to attorneys who have won million and multi-million dollar verdicts, awards and settlements. Forum membership acknowledges excellence in advocacy, and provides members with a national network of experienced colleagues for professional referral and information exchange in major cases. For more information, please see The Million Dollar Advocates Forum website at www.milliondollaradvocates.com.