Free Articles  >>  Legal >>  Page 399  >> 

A Summary Of Recent Pennsylvania New Jersey Appellate Court Decisions august 2006

A Summary of Recent Pennsylvania Appellate Court Decisions & Rule Changes




*Superior Court of Pennsylvania

*Santorella v. Donegal Mutual Insurance Co., 2006 PA Super 202 (July 31, 2006)

Holding:An individual who owns a registered, uninsured motor vehicle – in a state other than Pennsylvania – is precluded from receiving first party medical benefits under a policy issued to another member of the individual’s household. In this case, plaintiff David Santorella, Jr., owned an uninsured car registered in California. The Superior Court denied the plaintiff first party benefits under 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1714 “because the word ‘registered” is not qualified by the words ‘in this Commonwealth’ in the statute, we … refuse to read into the section an exception it does not explicitly declare…”

*Wheeler v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 2006 PA Super 197 (July 31, 2006)

Holding:An individual whose motor vehicle insurance policy – on which he or she is a named insured – does not provide income loss, may not recover first party income loss benefits from the insurance policy covering the motor vehicle he or she was driving at the time of the accident.


*Superior Court of Pennsylvania

*Excavation Technologies, Inc. v. Columbia Gas Co. of Pa., 2006 PA Super 164 (July 7, 2006)

Holding:A utility company is considered to be in the business of supplying information when acting in compliance with the Pennsylvania One Call System and is therefore subject to Section 552(2) of the Restatement (Second) of Torts. In addition, the Court adopts Section 552(3) for negligent misrepresentation cases that arise under the One Call Act. Finally, the Court holds that the economic loss doctrine – which states that no cause of action exists for negligence that results solely in economic damages unaccompanied by physical injury or property damage – does not automatically apply when only economic losses are alleged. Rather, if, in a negligent misrepresentation claim, (1) the defendant was in the business of supplying information, and (2) it was foreseeable that the information would be used and relied upon by third parties, the claim may proceed under Section 552 of the Restatement, and the economic loss doctrine is inapplicable.


*Superior Court of Pennsylvania

*Rostock v. Anzalone, 2006 PA Super 191 (July 26, 2006)

Holding:A complaint may be dismissed under the doctrine of lis pendens based upon the pendency of a prior action or an agreement for alternative dispute resolution. The mere filing of a second complaint, identical in all respects to the first with the sole exception that the second complaint alleged, “This is a medical malpractice action,” does not make the defense of lis pendens unavailable.

*McSorley v. Deger, 2006 PA Super 200 (July 31, 2006)

Holding:In a claim alleging lack of informed consent, it is a jury question whether the doctor’s actions were within the terms of the consent provided by the patient. In this case, the pre-surgery consent form permitted the physician to perform such surgical or other procedures as are necessary and desirable in the event of unforeseen conditions that necessitate an extension of the original procedure.


*Superior Court of Pennsylvania

*De Lage Landen Financial Services, Inc. v. The Urban Partnership, LLC, 2006 PA Super 169 (July 12, 2006)

Holding:Generally, when an allegation of forgery is raised – in this case, it was alleged that the document conferring jurisdiction in Pennsylvania was forged – the party claiming forgery has the burden of proving the existence of a forgery by clear and convincing evidence. Because the allegation of forgery raises an issue of fact, resolution of the issue will turn upon the court’s assessment of the witnesses’ credibility; however, there is no legal requirement that a party alleging forgery present a handwriting expert to support the claim.


*Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

*Pries v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Verizon Pennsylvania), No. 1870 C.D. 2005 (July 25, 2006)

Holding:Affirming its decision in County of Allegheny (Dept. of Public Works) v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Weis), 872 A.2d 263 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2005), the Court holds that, in order for disability compensation to continue following retirement, a claimant must show that he or she is seeking employment after retirement and that he was forced into retirement because of his work-related injury. It is the claimant’s burden to show that he or she has not withdrawn from the entire work force.


*Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

*Huddy v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (U.S. Air), No. 1031 C.D. 2005 (August 1, 2006)

Holding:A Notice of Compensation Payable is properly amended to include depression and anxiety when a claimant proves that the work injury was a substantial contributing factor to the psychological injury/diagnosis.


*Superior Court of Pennsylvania

*Urmann v. Rockwood Casualty Insurance Co., 2006 PA Super 201 (July 31, 2006)

Holding:A settlement agreement, which apportions a settlement between an injured worker’s claim and the worker’s spouse’s loss of consortium claim, will not be overturned when it is adjudicated by the trial court based upon an evidentiary hearing and the execution of a settlement agreement. In this case, the facts demonstrate that the trial court attempted to assure that the apportionment was fair and consistent with Darr Construction Co. v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Walker), 522 Pa. 400, 715 A.2d 1075 (1998).


*Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

*McGaffin v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Manatron, Inc.), No. 2168 C.D. 2005 (July 19, 2006)

Holding:Because the claimant failed to raise/preserve the issue before the Workers’ Compensation Judge of whether an impairment rating under Section 3006(a.2) of the Act, 77 P.S. § 511.2(1), precludes a termination of benefits, the Court declines to address the issue.



*Effective February 1, 2007, all pleadings, motions and other legal papers must conform to the following requirements:

1. Documents must be on 8-1/2 by 11 inch paper 2. Documents shall be on white paper (except dividers and similar sheets) 3. The first sheet shall contain a 3-inch space at the top for court stampings, filing notices, etc. 4. Text must be double-spaced 5. Quotations more than two lines long may be indented and single spaced 6. Margins must be at least one inch on all four sides 7. Letter shall be clear and legible, and no smaller than 12 point in size 8. Lettering shall be on only one side of a page (except for exhibits and supporting documents) 9. Documents must be firmly bound.



*Supreme Court of New Jersey

*Tluma v. High Bridge Stone, No. A-69-05 (July 19, 2006)

Holding:In order for the statutory defense of intoxication to bar the recovery of workers’ compensation benefit, an employer must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the employee’s work-related injuries were caused solely by intoxication.

Remember, visit Pennsylvania Legal Research Links, and make <a href="https://" target="_blank"></a> your home page for Pennsylvania research.
About Author Daniel Siegel :

Daniel J. Siegel, an attorney in Havertown, Pennsylvania, has authored this newsletter since 1988. He is the creator of Pennsylvania Legal Links ( and founder of Integrated Technology Services ( To subscribe or contact Dan Siegel, go to or send an email to

Article Source:
Article Url:

Article Added on Saturday, August 19, 2006
Other Articles by Daniel Siegel

A Summary Of Recent Appellate Decisions From Pennsylvania September 2006
Pennsylvania State Court Decisions 1. Civil Litigation 1.1. Automobile Insurance 1.1.1. “Cars for Hire” *Supreme Court f Prudential Property & Casualty Ins. Co. v. Sartno, No. 163 MAP 2005 (August 21, 2006) Holding: An insured’s use of his private vehicle to deliver pizza does not render the automobile a “car for hire” and does not trigger the exclusionary provision of the insurance policy. 1.1.2. Uninsured & Underinsured Motorist Arbitration * Superior Court f The Hartford...

A Summary Of Recent State Federal Appellate Trial Court Decisions
REPORTING DECISIONS THROUGH FEBRUARY 3, 2006 PENNSYLVANIA STATE COURT DECISIONS 1. CAUSES OF ACTION 1.1. Civil Remedies For Violations of State Constitutional Rights º Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania f Jones v. City of Philadelphia No. 795 C.D. 2004 (January 25, 2006) Holding: A city or other local government is not liable for monetary damages under Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution for a claim of excessive force. Of note is the en banc Court’s finding that the...

A Summary of Recent Pennsylvania Civil Appellate Court Decisions December 2008
I. Appellate Procedure A. Appealability of Order 1. The Law Office of Douglas T. Harris, Esquire v. Philadelphia Waterfront Partners, LP, 2008 PA Super 222 (September 22, 2008) Holding: An appellant that invokes the “colorable claim” standard for determining whether underlying Orders are collateral in nature, fails to satisfy this standard when it implicitly waived the claim of attorney-client privilege pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) based upon counsel’s failure to invoke and/or assert the...

A Summary of Recent Pennsylvania Workers Compensation Appellate Court Decisions December 2008
Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Appellate Decisions (All Commonwealth Court Cases Unless Noted) I.Appellate Procedure -- Remand Repash v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (City of Philadelphia), 114 C.D. 2008 (November 10, 2008) Holding: The Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board errs when it ignores a Workers’ Compensation Judge’s finding that a claimant was entitled to the firefighter’s presumption under Section 108(o) of the Act and that, consequently, his heart disease disabled him from...

A Summary Of Recent Pennsylvania Federal Court Decisions Rules Changes
REPORTING DECISIONS THROUGH MAY 4, 2006 Practice Tip: Exploding the Myth of the 90-Day Rule The constant mantra that injured workers must treat with a “company doctor” for 90 days is a myth, and it’s time to put it to rest. All too often, I hear that the “law” requires an injured worker to treat with a “company doctor” for 90 days when, in reality, this “rule” applies to virtually to no one. I hope this “Practice Tip” puts this myth to rest – for good. Treatment with a “company doctor” is...

A Summary Of Recent Pennsylvania Appellate Decisions
PENNSYLVANIA STATE COURT DECISIONS It seems as though the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ends every calendar year by issuing numerous Opinions, with the volume increasing any year in which a Justice is leaving the bench. With Justice Nigro’s unceremonious removal from the bench at the behest of voters irate because the legislature decided to award a large pay raise to itself and the judiciary, 2005 was no exception. Consequently, the decisions reviewed in this issue are grouped by Court rather...

Publishers / Webmasters
Article ID: 46931
DELINK URL from Authors Bio
REMOVE Article
Tell A Friend
Leave A Comment!
Download this article in PDF
Report Article!
Search through all the articles:

618 Users Online !
Related Articles:
Latest Articles:
Legal >> Top 50 Articles on Legal
Category - >
Advertising Advice Affiliate Programs Automobiles
Be Your Own Mentor Careers Communication Consumers
CopyWriting Crime Domain Names DoT com Entrepreneur Corner
Ebooks Ecommerce Education Email
Entertainment Environment Family Finance And Business
Food & Drink Gardening Health & Fitness Hobbies
Home Business Home Improvement Humour House Holds
Internet And Computers Kiddos and Teens Legal Matters Mail Order
Management Marketing Marriage MetaPhysical
Motivational MultiMedia Multi Level Marketing NewsLetters
Pets Psychology Religion Parenting
Politics Sales Science Search Engine Optimization
Site Promotion Sports Technology Travel
Web Development Web Hosting WeightLoss Women's Corner
Writing Miscellaneous Articles Real Estate Arts And Crafts

Disclaimer: The information presented and opinions expressed in the articles are those of the authors
and do not necessarily represent the views of and/or its owners.

Copyright © AwareINDIA. All rights reserved || Privacy Policy || Terms Of Use || Author Guidelines || Free Articles
FAQs Link To Us || Submit An Article || Free Downloads|| Contact Us || Site Map  || Advertise with Us ||
Click here for Special webhosting packages for visitors of this website only!
Vastu Shastra

Shared Linux Hosting Provided By AwareIndia

Company IDS