text:
tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-51577953703996327652015-03-31T08:00:00.690-04:00Tort Talk: Updates and Trends in Pennsylvania Civil Litigation LawUpdates and Trends in Pennsylvania Civil Litigation Law by Insurance Defense Attorney Daniel E. Cummins from the Scranton Pennsylvania Law Firm of Foley, Comerford & Cummins.Daniel E. Cumminshttp://firstname.lastname@example.com://creativecommons.org/images/public/somerights20.gifTortTalkhttps://feedburner.google.comSubscribe with My Yahoo!Subscribe with FeedlySubscribe with SubToMeSubscribe with BloglinesSubscribe with NetvibesSubscribe with Bitty BrowserSubscribe with Daily Rotationtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5157795370399632765.post-15231347929856041152015-03-31T08:00:00.000-04:002015-03-31T08:00:00.694-04:00Parameters for Neuropsychological IME Set in Lebanon County CaseIn the Lebanon County Court of Common Pleas case of Shearer v. Hafer, No. 2012-01286 (C.P. Leb. Co. March 17, 2015 Charles, J.), Judge Bradford Charles ruled in response to a defense discovery motion for a protective order that, during a neuropsychological IME, the Plaintiff's attorney would be allowed to be present during the preliminary interview phase by the doctor of the Plaintiff.

However, the court also ruled that once the standardized testing portion of the neuropsych IME began, no one other than the doctor and the Plaintiff would be allowed in the room and no recording device would be permitted in the room.

The court also ruled that, once the IME was completed, the Plaintiff's attorney would be entitled to a copy of the standardized testing that was completed.

Anyone desiring a copy of this Order may click this LINK

I send thanks to Attorney Scott Cooper of the Harrisburg, PA law firm of Schmidt Kramer for bringing this case to my attention.

For other neuropsychological IME decisions summarized on Tort Talk, click HERE and HERE.

Daniel E. Cumminshttp://firstname.lastname@example.com://www.torttalk.com/2015/03/parameters-for-neuropsychological-ime.htmltag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5157795370399632765.post-17479727286494236572015-03-30T08:00:00.002-04:002015-03-30T08:00:12.273-04:00PA Supreme Court Holds That Evidence of Informed Consent Not Always Admissible in Med Mal Context

In the medical malpractice case of Brady v. Urbas, No. 74 MAP 2014 (Pa. March 25, 2015)(Op. by Saylor, C.J.), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that evidence that a patient affirmatively consented to treatment after being informed of the risks of that treatment is generally irrelevant to a cause of action sounding in medical negligence.

In other words, the Court ruled that evidence of informed consent is irrelevant in a medical malpractice case in which there is no allegations presented specifically with respect to informed consent.

The rationale is that the simple fact that a patient was aware of the risks of the treatment prior to agreeing to undergo the same is not a defense against a medical provider's allegedly negligent conduct.

This case can be read online HERE.

I send thanks to Attorney Scott Cooper of the Harrisburg, PA office of Schmidt Kramer for bringing this case to my attention.

Daniel E. Cumminshttp://email@example.com://www.torttalk.com/2015/03/pa-supreme-court-holds-that-evidence-of.htmltag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5157795370399632765.post-55969573485197222892015-03-27T10:30:00.000-04:002015-03-27T10:30:01.975-04:00SAVE THE DATE: JUNE 5 - LACKAWANNA PRO BONO GOLF TOURNAMENT

Daniel E. Cumminshttp://email@example.com://www.torttalk.com/2015/03/save-date-june-5-lackawanna-pro-bono.htmltag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5157795370399632765.post-69682603549163696562015-03-27T08:00:00.001-04:002015-03-27T08:00:01.450-04:00Punitive Damages Claim Allowed to Proceed in Lackawanna County Trip and Fall CaseIn a recent Order issued by Senior Visiting Judge John Braxton in the case of O'Malley v. Comet Realty Partnership, 2014 CV 5109 (C.P. Lacka. Co. March 11, 2015 Braxton, S.J.), the court denied a Defendant's Preliminary Objections filed in a slip and fall case.<o:p></o:p>

According to information secured on the case, the Plaintiff, as a business invitee,was walking on the sidewalk in the Abington Professional Plaza center in Clarks Summit, Pennsylvania, and was intending on entering a medical lab located in the plaza for a medical procedure. <o:p></o:p>

While walking on the sidewalk the Plaintiff's foot allegedly became lodged in a crack in the sidewalk, allegedly causing her to twist her left ankle, lose her balance, and land on her right knee.

<o:p>The Plaintiff averred that the Defendant was allegedly admittedly aware of the condition over the several months leading up to the accident but nevertheless allowed the condition to remain while allegedly waiting for better weather to fix the condition. </o:p>
The Plaintiff filed suit alleging negligence and punitive damages. The Defendant filed Preliminary Objections to the claim for punitive damages. As stated, the Plaintiff prevailed after oral argument was held in front of the Judge Braxton. The Court's decision was by simple Order only.<o:p></o:p>

Anyone desiring a copy of the Court's Order may contact me at email@example.com.

I send thanks to the prevailing Plaintiff's attorneys, Jason J. Mattioli and Thomas W. Munley, both of the Scranton law firm of Minora, Minora, Colbassani, Krowiak, Mattioli & Munley for bringing this case to my attention.

Daniel E. Cumminshttp://firstname.lastname@example.com://www.torttalk.com/2015/03/punitive-damages-claim-allowed-to.htmltag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5157795370399632765.post-91051560258142392982015-03-27T08:00:00.000-04:002015-03-27T08:00:04.849-04:00Pennsylvania Superior Court Denies Defendant's Request for New Trial in a Limited Tort CaseIn its recent decision in the case of Brown v. Trinidad, 2015 Pa. Super. 46 (Pa. Super. March 9, 2015 Lazarus, Wecht, and Strassburger, J.J.)(Op. by Lazarus, J.)(Concurring Op. by Strassburger, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court reviewed the current status of Limited Tort law in Pennsylvania and affirmed a trial court's denial of a defendant's request for a new trial after a Philadelphia County jury awarded a verdict to a Limited Tort plaintiff.

On appeal, the Superior Court noted that the medical evidence presented by the Plaintiff contained references to expert testimony from the Plaintiff's side that the Plaintiff sustained a lumbar spine disc herniation as a result of the subject accident that not only impaired the Plaintiff in his every day activities but also made the Plaintiff more susceptible to the work injury he sustained three months after the accident. The Plaintiff's evidence also included references to neck and mid-back injuries, pain, and residual limitations.

The court also noted that while the Plaintiff, who was in his mid-twenties, admitted that he did not feel pain on the date of the accident, he quickly developed low back pain in the days that followed the accident. When the pain allegedly became severe, the Plaintiff sought out treatment. The Plaintiff advised that he stopped treating approximately four months after the accident after being allegedly advised by his medical providers that his injuries could not be fixed.

The record before the court also confirmed that with regards to substantial impairments, the Plaintiff had testified at trial that he had difficulty playing with his young daughter and that he could no longer run or jump, as compared to prior to the accident when the Plaintiff enjoyed bowling, playing basketball, and ice skating.

As noted, the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the trial court's denial of the Defendant's request for a new trial.

The Majority Opinion in Brown v. Trinidad can be viewed HERE.

For other recent Limited Tort decisions of note from around the Commonwealth, click this LINK.

Daniel E. Cumminshttp://firstname.lastname@example.com://www.torttalk.com/2015/03/pennsylvania-superior-court-denies.htmltag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5157795370399632765.post-45764753006474819232015-03-24T09:22:00.001-04:002015-03-24T09:22:41.900-04:00Link To Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas Sanction Opinion Re: Violation of a Preclusion of Evidence Order for TrialHere is a LINK to an Opinion out of the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas in the case of Sutch v. Roxborough Mem. Hospital, July Term 2009, No. 00901 (Phila. Co. Feb. 3, 2015) in which the court requests the Superior Court to affirm its entry of a substantial sanction of nearly a million dollars against a defense counsel for a violation of the trial court's preclusion order with respect to expert testimony at trial.

Daniel E. Cumminshttp://email@example.com://www.torttalk.com/2015/03/link-to-philadelphia-county-court-of.htmltag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5157795370399632765.post-7756499144217033962015-03-24T08:00:00.001-04:002015-03-24T08:00:11.045-04:00Negligence Per Se Doctrine Applied Relative to Maintenance of Smoke Alarms in Fatal Fire CaseIn a recent Pike County Court of Common Pleas decision in the case of Tooley v. Mill Rift Inn, Inc., No. 2496-2009 Civil (C.P. Pike Co. Feb. 25, 2015 Kameen, P.J.), President Judge Joseph F. Kameen addressed Motion for Summary Judgments filed by each party in a case arising out of a fatal fire at the Mill Rift Inn in Westfall Township, Pike County, Pennsylvania. At the time of the incident, the Plaintiff's decedent resided in the Mill Rift Inn in one of its apartments.

The issue before the court was whether or not the Plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment under the negligence per se doctrine given the Defendant's alleged failure to annually inspect the smoke detectors at the Mill Rift Inn in violation of Pennsylvania Code Provisions.

After reviewing the record before the court, Judge Kameen found that the Plaintiff had established that the Defendant's violation of the applicable law was sufficient to trigger the doctrine of negligence per se. In his opinion, Judge Kameen set forth the law pertaining to his doctrine and the four (4) elements that a party must meet to establish the application of the negligence per se doctrine.

Judge Joseph F. Kameen
Pike County

More specifically, the court found that the Defendant's failure to annual inspect the smoke detectors in the decedent's apartment and/or to notify her in writing of her own duty to inspect her apartment's smoke detectors as required by the Pennsylvania Code was indeed a substantial factor in bringing about the Plaintiff's harms for purposes of the negligence per se analysis. As such, the Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in this regard was granted.

With regards to the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment which argued, in part, that the Plaintiff was ever a tenant at the Mill Rift Inn, Judge Kameen found that the record established that an oral agreement existed that was sufficient to create a landlord/tenant relationship under Pennsylvania law. The court found that the verbal agreement with regards to the Plaintiff living in the apartment was sufficient to establish the existence of a month-to-month rental agreement between the parties under Pennsylvania law.

The court also denied the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment based upon its status as a landlord out of possession.

First of all, the court noted that there were no support for this argument by the Defendant with respect to the control of the "hard wired" electrical systems on the premises such that the landlord could be considered a landlord out of possession.

Judge Kameen also noted that, even if the court found that the Defendant was a landlord out of possession, the reserved control exception of the general rule that landlords out of possession are protected from liability was found to apply where the hardwired items such as the smoke detectors were not serviceable by the tenants who lack lawful excess to the main electrical lines in the building. The court also noted that the Plaintiff had no right of access to the basement where the fuse boxes were located.

Accordingly, there were no reasonable expectation that the decedent would have been able to repair the smoke detectors in her apartment. As such, the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in this regard was denied.

Judge Kameen did grant the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on the Plaintiff's allegations of a breach of implied warranty of habitability as there was no evidence to show that the tenant gave notice to the landlord of any alleged defect or condition such that the landlord had a reasonable opportunity to make the necessary repairs prior to the incident. Here, there was no evidence that the tenant notified the Defendant of any defects at issue in this case, including the allegedly non-functional smoke detectors. As such, this claim was stricken under the summary judgment standard.

I send thanks to Attorney Michael Foley of the Foley Law Firm in Scranton, Pennsylvania for providing me with a copy of this Opinion in the case in which he is the Plaintiff's counsel.

<o:p> </o:p>Anyone desiring a copy of this may email me at firstname.lastname@example.com.

Daniel E. Cumminshttp://email@example.com://www.torttalk.com/2015/03/negligence-per-se-doctrine-applied.htmltag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5157795370399632765.post-42753366644140449842015-03-24T08:00:00.000-04:002015-03-24T08:00:10.768-04:00Judge Conaboy Circumscribes Proper Bad Faith Claims in UM ContextIn his recent decision in the case of Cicon v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, No. 3:14-cv-2187 (M.D. Pa. March 4, 2015 Conaboy, J.), Federal Middle Court Judge Richard P. Conaboy, considered Defendant State Farm's Motion to Dismiss four counts of a Post-Koken Complaint filed by the Plaintiff, including Bad Faith claims.

More specifically, State Farm sought a dismissal of a Count of Breach of the Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, a Count for Breach of Contract, a Count of Negligence, and a Count of Vicarious Liability, all asserted against the Uninsured Motorist (UM) Benefits carrier.

According to the Opinion, this matter arose out of personal injuries allegedly sustained as a result of a motor vehicle accident involving an uninsured vehicle. Following the accident, the Plaintiff submitted a claim for uninsured motorist benefits.

Prior to retaining any attorney, the Plaintiff attended an independent medical examination at the request of the carrier and, thereafter, attempted to settle the claim for a period of seven (7) months. When the settlement discussions failed to be successful, the Plaintiff retained counsel.

Plaintiffs' retained counsel made a demand of the $100,000.00 UM limits, and supplied State Farm with additional documentation in support of the claims presented. Defendant, State Farm responded with a $30,000.00 offer.

The Plaintiff proceeded to file suit alleging that the offer presented by State Farm was unreasonable and inconsistent with the documentation provided by the Plaintiff in terms of medical treatment and wage loss information.

With respect to the Defendant's motion for the dismissal of the Plaintiff's allegations of a violation of a contractual duty to observe the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, the court noted that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held that "there is no cause of action for a breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing in a case for first party insurance benefits, like this one, where an insured is suing his insurer." SeeCicon at p. 5-6 citing D'Ambrosio v. Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company, 494 Pa. 501, 507-10 (1981).  As such, this claim was dismissed by the court.

Judge Richard P. Conaboy
Federal Middle District
of Pennsylvania

Judge Conaboy allowed the Plaintiff's Count for Breach of Contract to stand and rejected the defense argument that that Count should be dismissed as being redundant of the claims alleged Counts 1 and 2 in the Complaint for UM benefits and loss of consortium claims, respectively. Although the court noted that it was inclined to agree that the damages recoverable under all of these claims were seemingly identical and "necessarily limited by the terms of the policy," the court noted that the claims presented in these three counts were technically separate such that the Breach of Contract claim would be allowed to proceed.

Judge Conaboy went on to dismiss Count 6 of the Complaint which sounded in Negligence and was based upon an allegation that the Defendant, State Farm, owed a duty of care to the Plaintiff, failed to discharge that duty, and was allegedly therefore liable in tort.

In this regard, the court accepted the defense argument that the "gist of the action" doctrine operated to preclude the Plaintiffs' negligence count as an improper attempt to characterize an ordinary breach of contract claim as a tort action. The court ruled in this fashion despite recognizing the Plaintiffs' argument that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania have never adopted the gist of the action doctrine in an insurance coverage dispute context.

However, Judge Conaboy felt that, after his review of the Superior Court case law, that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would rule that the Plaintiff's negligence count should be barred by the gist of the actions doctrine under the circumstances presented if that Court was ever faced with the issue.

Judge Conaboy also agreed that the Plaintiffs' allegations of vicarious liability on the part of the Defendant State Farm, based upon the alleged negligent and intentional misconduct of its adjusters, supervisors, and defense counsel, should be dismissed.

In so ruling, the court noted that the only party in this case was the Defendant and that, as such, the party Defendant could not be vicariously liable for its own conduct. Judge Conaboy additionally noted that vicarious liability is a creature of tort law, which caused him to reiterate his finding that the gist of the action doctrine required that this case be determined under contract law concepts and not tort law principles.

Overall, the court granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in part and denied it in part.

Judge Conaboy's Opinion can be read as supporting an argument by a Defendant carrier that the sole cause of action in a first party case for an alleged breach of good faith is pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S. §8371. This decision also arguably stands for the proposition that there is no common law cause of action for a breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, with its attendant consequential damages, in a first party case.

<o:p> </o:p>
I send thanks to the prevailing defense counsel, Attorney Lee Ullman of the Reading, Pennsylvania office of Forry Ullman, for providing me with a copy of this Opinion.

<o:p> </o:p>
Anyone desiring a copy of this Opinion may contact me at firstname.lastname@example.com.

Daniel E. Cumminshttp://email@example.com://www.torttalk.com/2015/03/judge-conaboy-circumscribes-proper-bad.htmltag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5157795370399632765.post-82583974596335417662015-03-23T08:00:00.002-04:002015-03-23T08:00:06.421-04:00Extent to Which Expert Witness May be Cross-Examined for Bias Circumscribed by Pennsylvania Superior Court

In Flenke v. Huntington, 2015 Pa. Super. 50, 467 MDA 2014 (March 17, 2015 Stabile, Bowes, Ott J.J.)(Op. by Stabile, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled that, while e expert witnesses may be impeached for bias, including frequent work for the same side in litigation, including for insurance carriers, there are limits to such cross-examination.

This case arose out of a motor vehicle accident. The specific evidentiary issues in this matter centered around the Plaintiff's cross-examination of the defense medical expert.

Under the well-established rule of law that holds that a witness cannot be cross-examined on collateral matters, see J.S. v. Whetzel, 860 A.2d 1112, 1120 (Pa.Super. 2004), the court in Flenke noted that even bias evidence can become too intrusive and collateral.

In this matter, as is becoming more and more frequent in civil litigation matters ever since the Cooper v. Schoffstall and Feldman v. Ide decisions set down the parameters for gathering discovery on an expert's litigation-related activity and compensation, the jury heard, and plaintiff hammered home during closing argument, the income and litigation-activity bias evidence concerning the defendant's expert. <o:p></o:p>

On appeal, the Plaintiff was challenging the trial court's limitations on the use of this type of evidence at trial. The Superior Court found that the additional income testimony that was excluded, even if error, was cumulative under Pa.R.E. 403 and was, therefore, harmless in the end. <o:p></o:p>
The Superior court more specifically found that detailed review of the expert's fifty most recent reports involving other persons would have introduced collateral issues into the case. As such, this evidence was found to have been properly excluded by the trial court.<o:p></o:p>

The Superior Court also ruled that evidence of the expert's work for defendant's "insurance company" was properly excluded as it would have introduced the impermissible topic of insurance into the case.

In the end, the Superior Court affirmed the trial court's denial of the Plaintiff's request for a new trial.

Anyone wishing to review this notable opinion pertaining to the cross-examination of experts at trial on the issue of bias may click this LINK.

I send thanks to Attorney James Beck of the Philadelphia office of Reed Smith for bringing this case to my attention. I highly recommend that you check out Attorney Beck's award-winning and nationally recognized blog, the Drug and Device Law Blog, which can be accessed at this LINK.
<o:p></o:p>

Daniel E. Cumminshttp://email@example.com://www.torttalk.com/2015/03/extent-to-which-expert-witness-may-be.htmltag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5157795370399632765.post-50455344232682722332015-03-20T08:00:00.000-04:002015-03-20T08:00:04.645-04:00Judge Kosik of PA Federal Middle District Court Addresses Interplay Between Future Medical Expenses Claim and Medicare
As Tort Talkers may recall, a hot topic trending right now under Pennsylvania civil litigation law is the interplay between alleged damages for future medical care and the collateral source doctrine.

For other Tort Talk posts covering this area of the law click HERE and HERE.

This issue came up in the Federal Middle District of Pennsylvania case of Coyne v. Midland Steel Warehouse, No. 3:13-CV-02728 (M.D.Pa. Feb. 20, 2015 Kosik, J.), in which the Plaintiff's expert intended to offer testimony that Plaintiff's gross future medicals were around $150,000.

However, according to defense counsel, at the time of the accident, and obviously going forward, Plaintiff, due to her age, was Medicare eligible. Defense counsel reported that Medicare had actually paid for the Plaintiff's medical care up to the time of trial and was asserting a lien for a fraction of the gross cost.

Based upon this scenario, the defense filed a Motion in Limine in which the following issues were raised.

First, the defense sought to have the alleged future medicals capped to the Medicare amount.

Second, and in the alternative, permission was requested by the defense to cross-examine the Plaintiff's expert on the Medicare amount.

Third, the defense additionally requested permission to produce a rebuttal expert to discuss the Medicare pricing of the alleged future medical care.

According to the copy of the Order only (without Opinion) secured from this case, Judge Kosik granted the defense motion in part and permitted the defense to cross-examine the Plaintiff's expert and/or call a Medicare expert.

According to defense counsel, the case settled on the eve of trial.

The prevailing defense counsel on the motion in Coyne was Attorney John Croumer of the Lancaster, PA office of Post & Schell and I send thanks to him for bringing this notable decision to my attention.

Anyone desiring a copy of the Order in question, may contact me at email@example.com.

Daniel E. Cumminshttp://firstname.lastname@example.com://www.torttalk.com/2015/03/judge-kosik-of-pa-federal-middle.htmltag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5157795370399632765.post-78665133511765419762015-03-18T08:00:00.000-04:002015-03-18T08:00:05.618-04:00Admissibility of BAC Evidence Requires Proof of Intoxication In his recent February 9, 2015 Opinion in the case of Ritter v. Van Campen Motors, Inc., No. 12-00,379 (C.P. Lycoming Co. Feb. 9, 2015 Anderson, J.), Judge Dudley M. Anderson addressed Motions in Limine pertaining to DUI evidence filed by a Defendant in a motor vehicle accident case.

According to the Opinion, this matter involved a motor vehicle accident during which each party claimed that the other driver crossed the centerline resulting in the fatal accident. Accident reconstruction experts offered by each party came to opposite conclusions.

The Defendant filed a Motion In Limine to preclude evidence that the Defendant driver had a BAC of .257 at the time of the accident as confirmed by an autopsy report, testimony that the Defendant had been drinking prior to driving that day, and evidence that there was beer in the Defendant's vehicle at the time of the accident. The Defendant contended that the BAC evidence was inadmissible absent proof of intoxication.

Judge Anderson noted that, while the court agreed with the principle argument presented by the defense, the court found that the defense argument did not apply as there was indeed proof of intoxication in the record.

For example, in the autopsy report, an expert forensic pathologist concluded that the Defendant was "markedly" intoxicated at the time of the accident. In a supplemental report, the pathologist reiterated this opinion of intoxication and noted the mental effects that would result from such intoxication.

Accordingly, the court found that the evidence of intoxication presented was more than sufficient to support the evidence of consumption of alcohol which the defense sought to preclude.

The Defendant filed an additional motion preclude the supplemental report of the forensic pathologist on the basis that it was submitted outside the discovery deadline and given that the opinion of the expert was allegedly beyond the scope of that pathologist's expertise.

The court confirmed that, with respect to the latter portion of this argument, the Plaintiffs had agreed not to use the objected to portion of the report which was allegedly outside the scope of the expert's expertise.

With regard to the timeliness of the report, the court noted that the Plaintiff submitted a supplemental report of the pathologist in response to the Defendant's Motion In Limine to exclude evidence of alcohol consumption. Given that the supplemental report only addressed the issue of intoxication and further explained the statements made by the pathologist in his first report, Judge Anderson felt that it was not necessary to exclude the report on the basis of timing. The court opined that the Defendant had enough notice with the first report as to the pathologist's opinion on the issue of intoxication such that the defense had sufficient time to seek a contrary opinion if they wished.

Overall, the defense Motions In Limine were denied.

<o:p> </o:p>
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this Opinion may contact me at firstname.lastname@example.com.

Daniel E. Cumminshttp://firstname.lastname@example.com://www.torttalk.com/2015/03/admissibility-of-bac-evidence-requires.htmltag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5157795370399632765.post-56490556108437703832015-03-17T08:00:00.000-04:002015-03-17T08:00:01.639-04:00An Oldie But Goodie for St. Patrick's Day

Here is a LINK to my March 10, 2008 article from the Pennsylvania Law Weekly entitled "A St. Patrick's Day Parade of Proverbs" in which I take well-known Irish Proverbs and apply them to the practice of law. I hope you enjoy the article.

Daniel E. Cumminshttp://email@example.com://www.torttalk.com/2015/03/an-oldie-but-goodie-for-st-patricks-day.htmltag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5157795370399632765.post-62389811074504337642015-03-16T08:00:00.000-04:002015-03-16T08:00:10.585-04:00PLEASE SAVE THE DATE: SEPTEMBER 24, 2015 FOR THE TORT TALK EXPO 2015

PLEASE SAVE THE DATE

TORT TALK EXPO 2015

at the

Mohegan Sun Casino

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2015

I know it's early, but calendars fill up fast -- hoping you can please Save the Date of Thursday, September 24, 2015 for the Tort Talk Expo 2015 CLE Seminar at the Mohegan Sun Casino in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. The event will run from 12:30 pm to 4:30 pm and will be followed by a complimentary reception.

As in years past, there will be an Auto Law/UIM/Post-Koken Update, a Civil Litigation Update, a Doctor's hour, and a View from the Bench Hour.

More details, Registration Info, and Booking a Hotel Room Info to follow shortly. Information on Sponsorship opportunities also to follow.

Thanks very much.

Daniel E. Cumminshttp://firstname.lastname@example.com://www.torttalk.com/2015/03/please-save-date-september-24-2015-for.htmltag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5157795370399632765.post-41704021381112057072015-03-13T08:00:00.000-04:002015-03-13T12:13:36.950-04:00Lease Terms and Hills and Ridges Addressed in Lycoming County Parking Lot Slip and Fall CaseJudge Richard Gray of the Lycoming County Court of Common Pleas recently addressed the Hills and Ridges Doctrine in the case of Gamble v. Beck, PICS Case No. 15-0269 (C.P. Lycoming Jan. 6, 2015 Gray, J.).

After reviewing the case before him, Judge Gray granted summary judgment in favor of a tenant Defendant in a parking lot slip and fall case.

Judge Richard Gray
Lycoming County

Judge Gray stated that the store owner owed no duty to its customer who slipped on a patch of ice in the parking lot since the lease between the landlord and the tenant provided that the landlord was responsible for outside maintenance.

Judge Gray further indicated in his decision that the landlord's liability was not precluded by the Hills and Ridges Doctrine. In this regard, the Plaintiff provided evidence that it was sunny on the day of her fall and that there had been no precipitation for the 34 hours leading up to the incident. The Plaintiff additionally established that she fell on a distinct patch of ice, as opposed to generally slippery conditions in the community. Accordingly, Judge Gray found that the Hills and Ridges Doctrine did not apply.

Anyone wishing to review this decision may click this LINK.

I send thanks to Attorney Anthony J. Gabriel of the Harrisburg, PA office of Thomas, Thomas & Hafer as well as Attorney Jaime S. Bumbarger of the State College, PA law firm of McQuaide Blasko, Inc. for providing me with a copy of the same.

Daniel E. Cumminshttp://email@example.com://www.torttalk.com/2015/03/lease-terms-and-hills-and-ridges.htmltag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5157795370399632765.post-28797868595787475852015-03-12T22:20:00.001-04:002015-03-12T22:20:22.653-04:00Notable Rules of Civil Procedure Amendments by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has issued two recent notable Rule changes.

Pa.R.C.P. 229 Discontinuance

Relative to Pa.R.C.P. 229, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has amended the Rule to specifically state that, whenever a Discontinuance is sought to be entered as to less than all of the Defendants, the Discontinuance can be entered with the consent of all parties or, if that total consent is not forthcoming, a motion can be filed by the Plaintiff or the Defendant whom the Plaintiff has agreed to dismiss. Previously the Rule was silent as to who could file such a motion.

Here are Links to the Amended Rule and the Explanatory Note:

http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/619civ-attach.pdf?cb=1

http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/619civ-rpt.pdf?cb=1

Pa.R.C.P. 234.1 Subpoena to Attend and Testify

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court amended Pa.R.C.P. 234.1 to require that reasonable notice of a need to appear and testify be given to non-party witnesses who are subpoenaed. The Rule was previously silent in this regard.

Below are Links to the Amended Rule and the Explanatory Note:

http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/618civ-attach.pdf?cb=1

http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/618civ-rpt.pdf?cb=1

The above changes are in effect.

Daniel E. Cumminshttp://firstname.lastname@example.com://www.torttalk.com/2015/03/notable-rules-of-civil-procedure.htmltag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5157795370399632765.post-58052091004099956002015-03-12T12:31:00.001-04:002015-03-12T12:31:34.839-04:00Upcoming PDI CLE: Advanced Workers' Compensation Seminar - March 20, 2015 in Camp Hill, PA

PENNSYLVANIA DEFENSE INSTITUTE

proudly presents

Advanced Workers' Compensation Seminar
March 20, 2015
Radisson Hotel & Convention Center, Camp Hill, PA
(See additional videoconference locations in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Erie and Scranton
 on our website at www.padefense.org)

AGENDA

8:30 - 8:50 AM Registration

8:50 – 9:00 AM Introduction
 Neil T. Dombrowski, Esquire
 The Dombrowski Group, P.C.

9:00 – 9:30 AM State of the Bureau of Workers' Compensation: One Hundred Year
 Anniversary and First Anniversary of WCAIS Implementation
 Stephen J. Fireoved
 Director, Bureau of Workers' Compensation

9:30 – 10:10 AM Case Law and Legislative Review
 Jane A. Lombard, Esquire
 Swartz Campbell LLC

10:10 – 10:30 AM Phoenixville Hospital Decision: Its Impact on Earning Power
 Assessments Under Section 306 (b)
 Michael J. Smychynsky, C.R.C.
 Michael J. Smychynsky Consulting LLC

 Jane A. Lombard, Esquire

10:30 – 10:40 AM Break

10:40 – 11:40 AM Effective Techniques in Mediating a Workers' Compensation
 Claim From All The Parties' Perspective
 Honorable Jeffrey S. Russell

 Mary Kugler, Sr. Workers' Compensation Adjuster
 Erie Insurance Group

 Lawrence F. Barone, Esquire
 Freeburn & Hamilton

Neil T. Dombrowski, Esquire

11:40 – 12:10 PM Guide to Effective WCAIS Use
 Honorable Jeffrey S. Russell

12:10 – 12:30 PM Lunch

12:30 – 1:30 PM Understanding Pain Management and Medications
 Gregory H. Pharo, D.O.

Stephen F. Moore, Esquire
 Peters & Wasilefski

1:30 – 2:00 PM Utilization Reviews: A Multi-Perspective of Employers' Burden and
 Guide to the UR Process
 Honorable David R. Weyl

Garrett W. Brindle, Esquire
 The Dombrowski Group, P.C.

2:00 – 2:30 PM Subrogation: Maximizing Employer's Interests in Subrogation
 Return and Navigating Other Liens in the Workers'
 Compensation Case

 Stephen F. Moore, Esquire

2:30 – 3:30 PM Workers' Compensation Insurance Fraud: Effective Referrals,
 Understanding the Statutory Requirements and Recent
 Prosecution Results

 Robert A. Labar, Esquire
 Senior Deputy Attorney General
 Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General

REGISTRATION

Five Substantive and One Ethics CLE Credits

Cost (including lunch):
<dir><dir> Lawyers: $180
 Insurance company claim representatives: FREE
 All others: $50</dir></dir>

There are several ways to register:<dir><dir> Complete this registration form and mail it with a check payable to "PDI" to the address below
 E-mail, call or fax your registration and pay with check or cash at the door
 Complete the registration form on PDI's website (www.padefense.org) and use the PayPal option to pay</dir></dir>

Name(s):_______________________________________________________

E-mail address: _________________________________________________

Pennsylvania Defense Institute
P.O. Box 697, Camp Hill, PA 17001-069800-734-0737/800-734-0732 email@example.com

Note: Neither Daniel E. Cummins nor Tort Talk is involved in the above event. Rather, the event is listed here at the request of the PDI simply for advertising purposes.

Daniel E. Cumminshttp://email@example.com://www.torttalk.com/2015/03/upcoming-pdi-cle-advanced-workers.htmltag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5157795370399632765.post-24463674506421115072015-03-11T22:27:00.002-04:002015-03-11T22:27:23.958-04:00Upcoming April 14th CLE of Note: The DRI's 17th Annual Personal Injury Potpourri

Harris Bock and the DRI will be putting on their excellent 17th Annual Personal Injury Potpourri on Tuesday, April 14, 2015 from 9:15 am to 5:00 pm at the Pennsylvania Convention Center in Philadelphia, PA.

For more information on the event, as well as access to a Registration Form, please click this LINK.

Daniel E. Cumminshttp://firstname.lastname@example.com://www.torttalk.com/2015/03/upcoming-april-14th-cle-of-note-dris.htmltag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5157795370399632765.post-51539688890357677582015-03-10T08:00:00.000-04:002015-03-12T22:53:25.026-04:00Judge Mazzoni of Lackawanna County Reviews Parameters for Site Inspections by ExpertsIn his recent decision in the case of Gardner v. MIA Products Co., et.al., No. 2011-CV-1560 (C.P. Lacka. Co. No. 10, 2014 Mazzoni, J.), Judge Robert Mazzoni of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas denied a Plaintiff's appeal from an Order issued by the Special Discovery Master of Lackawanna County with respect to issues raised relative to a site inspection of the Defendants' facility.

By way of background, this case involved a slip and fall on the Defendant's premises. During the course of discovery, the Plaintiff filed a motion to compel the Defendant to allow entry on the property for a site inspection. The defense responded that it had no objection to a site inspection but required that those entering the premises would be required to sign in and present valid photo identification. The defense also requested copies of all photos and videos taken on the date of the inspection.

The Plaintiff argued that, under the applicable Rules, the Plaintiff was not required to disclose the identity of various individuals that would be participating in the site inspection as such disclosures would permit the Defendants to learn the Plaintiff's trial strategy, including but not limited to, the identity of potential experts, which would allegedly be prejudicial to the Plaintiff's case.

Judge Robert A. Mazzoni
Lackawanna County

The Plaintiff also asserted that the production of all photos and videos completed during the inspection, including those not intended for trial, was not permitted under the attorney work product privilege.

Judge Mazzoni noted that the defense presented evidence that its sign in and photo I.D. requirement had long been in place and was not specific to this case.

The court additionally reviewed the applicable law under Pa.R.C.P. 4003.5 pertaining to "Discovery of Expert Testimony. Trial Preparation Material."

While the court agreed that, under that Rule, disclosure of the opinions of experts that a party retained but did not intend to present at trial was protected, the Rule is silent on the issue of the mere "identification" of such experts. Judge Mazzoni went on to note that he did not see how the identification of experts in this regard would compromise the trial strategy of a Plaintiff in a slip and fall case. No opinions would be disclosed with such information. The court also noted that the Defendant had bona fide reasons behind its policy of generally requiring those entering the premises to sign in and identify themselves.

Judge Mazzoni also found the Plaintiff's reliance upon the work product doctrine to be misplaced with respect to the assertion that Plaintiff need not turn over photos or videos generated during the site inspection. The court noted that no attorney mental impressions, conclusions, or opinions would be disclosed by way of the production of such photos or videos.

As stated, Plaintiff's appeal of the Special Discovery Master's Order was denied.

<o:p> </o:p>

Anyone desiring a copy of this Opinion by Judge Mazzoni relative to certain parameters for site inspections may contact me at firstname.lastname@example.com.

Daniel E. Cumminshttp://email@example.com://www.torttalk.com/2015/03/judge-mazzoni-of-lackawanna-county.htmltag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5157795370399632765.post-56157958238400161182015-03-06T08:00:00.000-05:002015-03-06T08:00:02.563-05:00ARTICLE FOR YOUR READING ENJOYMENT: "The Lessons of 'Forrest Gump'"

Here's a LINK to an article of mine entitled "The Lessons of Forrest Gump" that was published in the current edition of the Pennsylvania Lawyer magazine published by the Pennsylvania Bar Association.

The article takes life lessons and quips from a favorite movie and applies them to the practice of law in a manner that I hope you will find to be an enjoyable read.

I am grateful to the Editors Geoff Yuda and Don Sarvey for agreeing to publish the article and I thank them and their staff for the great layout that they created for the article in the magazine.

Daniel E. Cumminshttp://email@example.com://www.torttalk.com/2015/03/article-for-your-reading-enjoyment.htmltag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5157795370399632765.post-43093326013386467612015-03-02T08:00:00.000-05:002015-03-02T08:00:03.739-05:00Judge Conaboy Addresses Application of Rejection of UIM Stacking Form to Renewal PoliciesIn the case of Connolly v. Progressive Northern Ins. Co., 3:13-CV-2717 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 4, 2015 Conaboy, J.), Judge Richard P. Conaboy of the Federal Middle District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania addressed a carrier's motion for summary judgment in a case involving a challenge to the carrier's rejection of stacking form in an underinsured (UIM) motorists benefits matter.

 Before the court were insurance application documents concerning an underinsured motorist claim (UIM) and the applicability of a rejection of stacking form signed when the policy was first purchased in 1998. The UIM limits under the policy were $100,000 per person. The stacking issue was important as there were three vehicles on the policy.

The Plaintiff asserted that, since there was only a rejection of stacking form signed at the inception of the policy, then stacking should apply because the policy numbers were different every time the policy was renewed. According to the Plaintiff's argument, this represented the creation of a new policy, which, in turn, arguably required the need for the carrier to obtain a new rejection of stacking form.

The insurance company argued that the last numbers were only changed but that the policy remained the same.

Judge Conaboy agreed with the defense position that, under the Sackett line of cases, once a valid rejection of stacking form was secured, the carrier need not secure a rejection of stacking form every time the same policy came up for a renewal or when a car was added to the policy.

According to the Opinion, however, the carrier never explained in its argument why the suffixes were different or why the company periodically modified the final number on the policy. In other words, the court was unable to state, as a matter of law, that there were not any substantive differences in the policy over the course of the 21 renewals in 10 years. Simply put, based upon the record before the court, Judge Conaboy could not state that the policy at issue was identical to the one originally issued at the inception of the policy back in 1998 when the rejection form was signed.

As such, the Connolly court ultimately held that."[d]ue to uncertainty in the record, the Court must deny the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment."

Judge Conaboy also allowed the Plaintiff's bad faith claim to proceed.

Anyone wishing to read Judge Conaboy's Memorandum Opinion in Connolly v. Progressive may click this LINK.

I send thanks to Attorney Scott Cooper of the Harrisburg, PA law office of Schmidt Kramer for bringing this case to my attention.

<o:p> </o:p>

Daniel E. Cumminshttp://email@example.com://www.torttalk.com/2015/03/judge-conaboy-addresses-application-of.htmltag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5157795370399632765.post-68595274188651802392015-02-27T08:00:00.000-05:002015-02-27T08:00:02.973-05:00Article Notes Potential For Ghostwriting of Expert Reports Under the Protection of Barrick v. Holy Spirit Hospital

Here is a LINK to an excellent article by Attorney Will Sylianteng of the Doylestown office of WES Litigation that appeared in the February 17, 2015 edition of the Pennsylvania Law Weekly and is entitled "District Court Sanctions Attorney for Ghostwriting Expert Report."

In reference to a case involving sanctions applied to an attorney in a Michigan federal court case, Attorney Sylianteng analyzes the pros and cons of the Pennsylvania court decisions in the case of Barrick v. Holy Spirit Hospital which limits discovery of communications between an attorney and a retain expert.

In his article, Attorney Sylianteng notes that while some members of the bar favor the Barrick decision, others have denounced the ruling (I'm not alone!) as opening the door for "unscrupulous [attorneys] to mold, if not create, their own expert's opinions."

If you are unable to access this interesting article via the link above please let me know and I will send you a copy.

I note that I was the writer of the Pennsylvania Defense Institute's amicus briefs at the Superior Court level in Barrick. Click HERE to review my later May 6, 2014 Tort Talk article on the same topic entitled "A Sad Day for the Truth."

Daniel E. Cumminshttp://firstname.lastname@example.com://www.torttalk.com/2015/02/article-notes-potential-for.htmltag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5157795370399632765.post-40041948968463440212015-02-26T08:00:00.000-05:002015-02-26T08:00:01.078-05:00Reference to Opinions in Police Report Prohibited at an Auto Accident Trial

In the case of Harris v. Phila. Facilities Mgmt. Corp., No. 39 C.D. 2014 (Pa. Cmwlth. Dec. 2, 2014 Simpson, McCullough, and Covey, J.J.)(Op. by McCullough, J.), the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court addressed the propriety of a reference to a police report in a jury trial arising out of a motor vehicle accident.

In this matter, the Plaintiff motorcyclists wished to make reference a police officer's observations in his police report concerning a pothole in the area of the accident, which was allegedly a central fact and/or issue in the happening of the accident. While the trial court noted that some basic facts contained in a police report may be referenced at trial under appropriate circumstances, since the pothole issue was central to this matter, the trial court excluded the police report as a whole.

In this matter, on cross-examination by Plaintiff's counsel, a police officer witness admitted that, prior to taking the witness stand, he had referred to the police report another officer wrote up. The testifying officer did this to refresh his recollection but stated, on the stand, that he was otherwise testifying from his memory and without reference to the report while sitting on the stand.

In Harris, the Commonwealth Court reiterated the general rule that a police accident report is inadmissible in an auto accident case as hearsay evidence.

However the appellate court went on to find that, under Pa.R.E. 612, it was within the trial court's discretion to allow for the witness to review the police report as part of an effort to refresh the witness's recollection. Such a refreshing of a witness's recollection could be accomplished by presenting the witness with documents to review either before the witness takes the stand, or during the time the witness is on the stand.

This decision also supports the long-standing proposition that an expert accident reconstructionist may rely upon, and refer to, a police report in reconstructing an accident. Citing to Pa.R.E. 703, the court noted that a police report is the type of data that such an expert witness is permitted to rely upon in formulating is opinion. Here, the defense expert merely stated that he had relied upon the police report in formulating his opinion and there was no effort on the part of that expert to simply, and impermissibly restate, opinions contained in the police report on central issues to the case.

The Harris court likewise upheld the trial court's rejection of the efforts by the Plaintiff to introduce favorable opinions contained in the police report through the testimony of the Plaintiff's experts. The appellate court cited to 75 Pa.C.S.A. Section 3751(b)(4) to support the ruling that a police report prepared by a police officer who did not witness the accident is inadmissible hearsay evidence and should not be admitted into evidence. The court also noted that a party is not allowed to get such a report into evidence in an indirect manner.

Accordingly, based upon these rulings the appellate court did not find any errors that would require the granting of a new trial as requested.

The Harris decision can be viewed online HERE.

Daniel E. Cumminshttp://email@example.com://www.torttalk.com/2015/02/reference-to-opinions-in-police-report.htmltag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5157795370399632765.post-83426971071508023622015-02-24T08:00:00.000-05:002015-02-24T08:00:09.029-05:00Superior Court Revisits Standard for Proper Expert Medical Testimony ("Non-Precedential Decision)In its recent "Non-Precedential" decision in the medical malpractice case of Hickman v. Shor-Conroy, No. 2336 EDA 2014 (Pa. Super. Jan. 23, 2015 Donohue, Wecht, Jenkins, J.)(mem. op.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court applied the current status of the law on the admissibility of expert opinions and the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur and affirmed a lower court's entry of summary judgment.

Although "Non-precedential," the case could serve to assist in your research on the current status of these two legal concepts.

In Hickman, the Plaintiff attempted to rely upon the contents of her treating providers office notes as serving as the Plaintiff's expert reports. The court noted that even "[a]ssuming arguendo that the records constitute expert reports, none of the records state, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty" that the Plaintiff's injuries were the result of the medical malpractice alleged.

While the court noted that the Plaintiff need not utilize "magic words," the use of terms of causation such as "most likely" or "in all likelihood" were not sufficient.

As stated the court also rejected the Plaintiff's res ipsa loquitur argument and, in doing so, concisely stated the current status of Pennsylvania law in that regard (referring to Section 328D of the Restatement (Second) of Torts).

Anyone wishing to review this "Non-precedential" Opinion of the Superior Court in Hickman, may click this LINK.

Source: "Medical Reports Don't Count as Expert Reports, Panel Says," by P.J. D'Annunzio The Legal Intelligencer (Jan. 27, 2015).

Daniel E. Cumminshttp://firstname.lastname@example.com://www.torttalk.com/2015/02/superior-court-revisits-standard-for.htmltag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5157795370399632765.post-53034539599260693782015-02-20T08:00:00.000-05:002015-02-20T08:00:05.059-05:00ARTICLE: Improve Your Practice, Reduce Stress, and Prevent Nightmares

The below article of mine was published in the February 9, 2015 edition of the Pennsylvania Law Weekly and is republished here with permission from the publisher, American Law Media. All rights reserved.

Legal Profession

 Improve Your Practice, Reduce Stress and Prevent Nightmares

Daniel E. Cummins, The Legal Intelligencer <time> February 9, 2015</time>

<credit> </credit>
We are all getting older, and possibly more forgetful. Here, then, is a list of some things to remember to improve your practice, reduce stress and prevent late-night terrors.

Check Statute of Limitations Date
Make sure you emphatically highlight the statute of limitations date on any new case that comes in and continually check that date every time you look at the file, up to the time suit is formally commenced. Once suit is commenced, don't fully relax in this regard until service on all defendants is perfected.

Similarly, on the defense side, when a new file comes in, counsel should not assume that the statute of limitations has been satisfied merely because the new suit has made its way to counsel's office for a defense. In addition to checking if the suit was filed in time, don't forget to also check if service was properly perfected.

Moreover, remember to also review the complaint to confirm that the suit was filed in the proper county so as to prevent any forum-shopping by the plaintiff.

Keep Clients Apprised
It has been repeatedly stated that the main client complaint on either side of the bar is the lack of timely communication and updates from counsel.

Rule of Professional Conduct 1.4 requires that a lawyer communicate with a client and keep the client updated. The Pennsylvania Bar Association's Working Rules of Professionalism recommend the same.

One way to avoid forgetting (or avoiding) continual updates to clients would be to set up a process where, on the first (or last) day of every month, you stand in front of your filing cabinets with a portable dictaphone in hand and spit out a short status update to each client in each file. More sophisticated attorneys who have brought their file handling into the 21st century can do this while sitting in front of their computers and scrolling through their files.

This may sound like a daunting, boring task, but once you start to do it, your letters and emails in the subsequent months will flow out smoothly and quickly and you will become very aware of the status of all of your cases from this repeated checking and reporting.

Review Pleadings and Interrogatory Answers with Witnesses
At depositions, once you have exhausted all of your standard questions, take a moment to review the pleadings and interrogatory answers of the opposing party. Such a review may trigger additional important questions to ask.

At a minimum, secure an agreement from the witness that he or she reviewed the pleadings and the discovery and that the signature on the verification is indeed the signature of the witness. Take it one step further and secure the witness' agreement that by signing the verification, he or she agrees that the information is true and correct to the best of his or her knowledge.

Get Answers to Expert Interrogatories
Expert interrogatories are generally sent out to opposing counsel as a matter of course at the beginning of a file. Opposing counsel usually replies to such interrogatories by indicating, "No experts retained to date. Discovery ongoing. Right to supplement and all objections preserved." The expert interrogatories are then forgotten.

Few things are more frustrating in civil litigation than fully preparing to cross an opponent's expert at a trial deposition but being unable to show bias of that expert toward the party because you forgot to follow up on securing complete answers to your expert interrogatories. Typically, an opposing expert will coyly assert that he or she cannot recall what his or her fee was to generate the report or to participate in the deposition.

So, when a file reaches the point where expert reports are produced, remember to follow up with opposing counsel to request that the expert interrogatories previously submitted be supplemented as promised or as required under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4007.4 or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e).

If necessary, file a motion to compel and request permission of the court to file Cooper v. Schoffstall expert interrogatories to discover the extent to which a "professional witness" expert has previously participated in litigation and has financially gained from it.

Arguably, if the opposing counsel has not previously objected to your expert interrogatories within 30 days of having received such interrogatories, any objections are waived.

This gives rise to another point: Don't forget to send out valid objections to your opponent's expert interrogatories the day you receive those interrogatories to avoid a waiver argument down the road.

Put Rule 238 Language in Settlement Offer Letters
When making any settlement offers to a plaintiff in any personal injury civil litigation matter, defense counsel should remember to include, verbatim, the language required by the delay damages rule, Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 238, so as to put a cap upon, or even prevent, the addition of such damages to any verdict.

Rule 238(b)(2) provides that, in order to have any effect under this rule, a written offer of settlement "shall contain an express clause continuing the offer in effect for at least 90 days or until commencement of trial, whichever occurs first," and the offer shall be set forth as a specific sum or in the form of a structured settlement.

Several courts in Pennsylvania have ruled that the word "shall" in Rule 238 requires that such language comport to the exact wording set forth in the rule in order to be valid. As such, don't forget to dictate the verbatim Rule 238 language into a form paragraph.

Accordingly, whenever you send out a settlement offer, ask your assistant to include the form Rule 238 paragraph in the letter so as to comply with the rule and potentially limit the plaintiff's recovery.

Stand When Addressing the Court
Apparently, showing respect to the court and members of the bench is a dying trend. Seasoned attorneys may become casual with the traditions of the courtroom, while new lawyers may somehow believe that the nonsense they see in courtroom scenes of television legal dramas is acceptable.

So don't forget to always stand whenever you address the court for whatever reason. When commencing an argument, it is traditional to begin with, "May it please the court." Throw in some, "Yes, your honor," and, "No, your honor." Don't forget to ask for permission to approach a witness.

Moreover, no matter what, whenever a judge starts speaking, stop whatever you are saying no matter how eloquent you may be. If a judge asks you a question, listen to that question and, more importantly, directly answer that question. Judges are lawyers like us and know when their questions are not being answered, so don't even try it.

Mimic Jury Instructions in Your Closing Argument
When preparing for a closing argument at trial, don't forget to review the jury instructions, standard or otherwise, that you know or can reasonably anticipate will be utilized by the court. Incorporate some of the verbatim language, or key phrases, from the instructions that are favorable to your case into your closing argument and say those same words and phrases to the jury.

Perhaps nothing will make you seem more trustworthy to the jury, or that you know what you are talking about, than having the judge say many of the same things in his jury instructions that you just said in your closing argument.

Take Care of Yourself
Perhaps more important than anything else in this article, don't forget to take care of yourself. If you are not in good mental and physical shape, your practice won't be in good shape.

We are at the beginning of a new year. Look ahead and plan some time off now while your calendar is clear. Mark those days or weeks as "Keep Open" or "Vacation." When you do take that time off, forget your phone.

And don't limit yourself to only those days off—take other days along the way if your schedule and time should permit for brief respites (perhaps with your phone at hand to keep emails at bay and matters moving along).

Eat well and make sure you secure sufficient sleep. Exercise, or at a minimum, as some fitness articles suggest, stand every time you are on the phone at your desk. Take a daily brisk walk after lunch. Join a gym, or join the yoga/meditation trend, for stress relief and good health habits.

Say Please and Thank You
Last, but certainly not least, don't forget to say "please" and "thank you" whenever you can throughout your day.

Say it to opposing counsel. What goes around, comes around. Kindness begets kindness.

Say it to the court. But don't say "thank you" whenever you win an objection—that's just plain tacky. While in court, don't forget to be equally polite to other court personnel, such as tipstaff, clerks, court reporters and the like. Those people have close contact with and regularly converse with isolated judges. Perhaps they will portray you in a positive light to the judge, which, in the end, will benefit your clients.

Perhaps most importantly, always say "please" and "thank you" to your co-workers and office staff—that is, the ones who make things go smoother for you day in and day out.

Daniel E. Cummins is a partner and civil litigator with the Scranton, Pa., law firm of Foley Comerford & Cummins. His civil litigation blog, Tort Talk, can be viewed at www.TortTalk.com.

Read more: http://www.thelegalintelligencer.com/id=1202717227061/Improve-Your-Practice-Reduce-Stress-and-Prevent-Nightmares#ixzz3RSzgEgTR

Daniel E. Cumminshttp://firstname.lastname@example.com://www.torttalk.com/2015/02/article-improve-your-practice-reduce.htmltag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5157795370399632765.post-91735359841353323092015-02-19T10:11:00.000-05:002015-02-19T10:11:53.461-05:00Judge Mariani of Middle District Tackles the Post-Tincher Era in Products Case In what appears to be the first Post-Tincher federal court decision in Pennsylvania relative to products liability cases, Judge Robert D. Mariani of the Federal District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania applied Tincher retroactively and granted in part and denied in part a Defendant's motion for summary judgment in the case of Nathan v. Techtronic Industries of North America, Inc., No. 3:12 - CV - 00679 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 17, 2015 Mariani, J.).

This case involved a products liability claim arising out of injuries from the Plaintiff's use of a table saw.

Notably the court retroactively applied Tincher and its analysis, including the analysis with respect to the application of the Restatement of Torts (Second) test, i.e. the risk/utility test.

In denying the Defendant's motion, the court noted feasible alternative designs that could have possibly avoided the injury.

Judge Robert D. Mariani
M.D. Pa.

Judge Mariani also noted in his Opinion that the Plaintiff's alleged removal of a safety device associated with the table saw - more specifically, the saw blade guard - was foreseeable due to the design of the guard.

The court granted summary judgment with respect to the failure to warn claims and breach of implied warranty claims in light of the Plaintiff's apparent concession on those issues.

Anyone wishing to review this notable Opinion of first impression in the federal courts in the Post-Tincher era may click this LINK.

I send thanks to Attorney James Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this decision to my attention. I invite you to check out Attorney Beck's nationally recognized Drug and Device Law Blog HERE.

Daniel E. Cumminshttp://email@example.com://www.torttalk.com/2015/02/judge-mariani-of-middle-district.html


text:
Photo News The Magazine of the Marlborough Camera Club Editor - Trevor Dennis 1 Ashford Grove, Rapaura RD3, Blenheim. email@example.com — 03 570 5064, 021 984 883 Web site: www.marlboroughcameraclub.org.nz/ www.flickr.com/groups/marlborough_camera_club/ June 08 Last month I intended to start placing an enhanced version of Photo News on the Club's flickr group. Unfortunately that turned out to be over ambitious with the forever grow- ing constraints on my free time. I apologise to anyone disappointed. Our flickr Group continues to grow however, and 16 Club members have now joined and are showing their work on the Group pages. Seddon Shield This years Seddon Shield seems to have rushed out of nowhere and taken some of us by surprise. There is still time to enter, but you'll have to be quick. There are details on the back cover, and entry forms on our website. Marlborough Camera Club Meetings The next two Club meetings are going to be very special. Steve Austin, from the Marl- borough Museum, is coming on 12th June to give the results of the 'Blast from the Past' competition that he kindly judged for us, and will be giving a talk afterwards. Steve is an interesting person and highly knowledgeable about local history. The Museum now has a very professional website at www.marlboroughmuseum.org.nz and Steve keeps a blog linked from that site. The July 10th meeting will be equally interesting with one of my favourite Kiwi Pho- tographers, Ron Willems, coming to give the results of the Open competition that he will be judging for us, and Ron will also be giving a talk. Ron is not just a great pho- tographer, but also a skilful and innovative user of Photoshop. You can see his work at www.ronwillemsphoto.com Both these meetings should not be missed. Field Trips I understand the last Club Field Trip to Lake Rotoroa was enjoyed by all who went on it, and I have seen some very nice photographs taken on the day. These trips offer a wonderful learning opportunity. Volunteers to write a trip report for future Field Trips would be much appreciated. Trevor David's Dabblings The Fourth Dimension For me, a photograph can have four dimensions. The two obvious physical dimensions are the width and the height which constrain the image to the page or screen. Some photographers are sufficiently gifted to introduce a third dimension – depth. This is a pure illusion, and the photographer has managed to draw our eyes to features which make us think that the flat surface is three-dimensional. A small number of photographers though can give a photograph a dimension which has nothing to do with physical parameters. These people endow their images with a metaphysical dimension – they can engage us with their work by touching our very soul. Growing up in Britain during the war and through the grim post-war period, I was cap- tivated by the Picture Post images shot by Bert Hardy, Bill Brandt and Frank Cappa. Later I discovered Cartier-Bresson and Ansel Adams. These photographers could make a picture that would stop you in your tracks: Their work radiated emotion and demanded your undivided attention. There is an oft-told story of the great photographer Yousef Karsh. He took a series of photographs of the master cellist Pablo Casals at Cuxa Abbey. Casals was playing in a bare, stone-walled room with a shaft of light from a high window illuminating him. The best shot was displayed in an exhibition at the Boston Museum of Fine Art. Every morning an elderly gentleman visited the museum and stood for ages in front of the picture. A puzzled curator eventually went up to the man and said "Why do you come here every day and stare at that photograph?" The old man replied "Hush, hush, can't you see, I am listening to the music". I would give my eye-teeth to be able to take a photograph with that sort of impact. David Supper Roster June12th Sue Clifford & Dick Campbell July 10th Mary Russell & Rachel Marfell August 14th Gordon Walker & Peter Bargh PHOTOGRAPHY # 52 - OPEN SUBJECT – WHAT DOES IT MEAN? By Roger Thwaites. It is always a bit of a mystery to know what an OPEN subject should be, but to put it quite simply, it can be any photographic subject of your choosing. Your particular choice of open subject could include any of the following: Portraits, Nature, Landscape/ Seascape, Architecture, Abstract, Still life, Photojournalism, Pictorial/Documentary, and many more. Because of the diverse range of subjects available in Open category competitions, it is more difficult to succeed, and that may be because there is a seem- ingly "uneven" playing field between the different subjects. This means that we need to produce outstanding photos to be in the hunt, and it takes a photo with that special "X" factor, to be noticed over all the other entries. Generally, photos of this calibre, display a unique quality and vibrance, which comes to life through the imagination and creative compositional skill of the photographer. Certainly, having good technique skills is part of the equation also. Photos that have a distinctive look about them, and which have impact and create lots of viewer interest, will capture the viewer's attention every time, and will create enduring memories of them. These are the kind of photos that you can put up on your wall and never tire from looking at them. eg. – Andris Apse landscapes. Photography tends to follow the fashion trends sometimes, and this is particularly so with digital images. With so many computer-generated "manipulation" tools available, it is easy to change a photo from the original composition to something quite different, and while this is a lot of fun, the end result may not be the type of picture that you would keep on your wall for very long. But,….in saying that, the Open Subject cate- gory, very often, is the only category that caters for this type of competition work. The important thing with digital manipulation, is to ensure that the picture has some sort of "reality" factor that the viewer can identify with, otherwise people viewing you picture, could justifiably see it as computer-generated graphics which have little meaning to them (And remember, if they see it this way, then it is on the cards that the judges most likely will also). Because Open Subject categories allow for such a big diversity of photos, judges look for other qualities like: Lighting Techniques, Sharp Focus, Correct exposure, Colour Harmony, Composition, Flow and Balance, and distracting features, to help them with their selections. So, what this means for the competition entrants is that, they need to be a bit more discerning about how they create their Open Subject pictures, with special emphasis on trying to produce something different. Remember: The OPEN category might be the most popular category to enter, but it is also the most difficult, to succeed in. P.S. - Practical Photography Magazine (March'08 Issue), Cites the POSITION OF THE MONTH as being : "THE TRIPOD SQUAT" (Probably refers to Natural History photographers stooping over their tripods in an effort to photograph a low-lying fungus specimen!)….They even give a Latin name for the phenomena: "Lowus levelus squati- cus" ! Roger Flash The Photographer's Unrequited Friend There is no more maligned an item of photographic equipment among the serious amateur than the flash-gun. Competition judges routinely reject any image where they detect its use, and those same serious amateurs hold forth evangelistically on the sanctity of avail- able light. And yet no professional photographer would leave lighting entirely to chance, and make do with whatever light just happens to be at hand. The trick with flash is that, for the most part, it should not be obvious one was used, and while that degree of control takes some practice, it is getting much easier with modern equipment, (Canon E-TTL and Nikon i-TTL) and the rewards for 'getting it right' can be massive. My own greatest use of flash is in 'High Speed Sync' mode (HSS). This causes the flash to pulse throughout the shutter opening period, instead of the usual single flash. The down- side is a drastic reduction in effective output and range, but the advantage is that it can be used at any shutter speed. I'll say that again... with high speed sync you can use a flash regardless of shutter speed – up to about 1/8000th in most cases. Although power output is compromised with HSS, serendipity lends us a helping hand. I generally use HSS for fill when photographing near field people and sports, where I would want to control DoF, so would be using large apertures. I would also tend to use mid to high ISO settings to keep shutter speeds high, and both these conditions work favourably to maximise the range of your flash. My Canon 580EX2 will give 4 to 5 metres of fill at f2.8 and ISO400. The resulting images not only have reduced shadows, but have better colour and are much crisper. It is important to understand that the exposure control of a modern automatic flash operates separately, and independently, from the camera's exposure metering. When you take a picture a low power pre-flash determines the range of any near field objects, and after tak- ing aperture and ISO into account, the flash power is set to correctly illuminate them. In- creasing camera exposure to compensate for a backlit subject, for instance, would make some, but much less difference than you might expect to how the flash would expose the near field object. It takes practice to balance the near field flash lit objects with the back- ground, which is achieved by using AEC (Automatic Exposure Compensation) to set cam- era exposure, and FEC (Flash Exposure Compensation). For the most part, you can use the default automatic settings, but for best results learn to interpret the image as seen on the camera's LCD, and fine tune using FEC. Although a flash is designed to give an even spread of light, it is always going to be stronger at its centre and fall off toward the edges, and this can be used creatively. If light- ing something at an angle, tilting the flash head away from it will feather its output so that the weaker edge of the beam illuminates the near field, and stronger central beam the far field. The result is an evenly illuminated object. Using the flash as a spotlight on near field objects can be pleasing and dramatic. The obvi- ous way to do this would be to manually adjust the flash zoom head to a narrow beam, but that is going to produce a hard edged light. It can be nicer to tilt the head and spill most of the light into the sky, for instance, and use the soft edge of the beam so that the light gradually falls away from the subject. This might be to emphasis a person's head and shoulders, while letting their lower body merge into a darker background. You would cer- tainly need to use some FEC for best results. Taking your camera and flash indoors presents a whole new set of problems, and if you were shooting something like a wedding going from full outdoor daylight, through twilight and into indoor near dark, you will need to constantly adjust your settings to keep track of conditions. My strategy is, when outside in bright light, to use Aperture Priority and HSS, opening the aperture, and increasing the ISO as the light level drops. You would need to constantly adjust FEC through this period. When the shutter speeds drops below normal sync speed the flash will automatically change from HSS to normal mode. As the light drops still further, your ISO is set as high as you are comfortable with, the aperture is wide open, and the shutter speed too slow to avoid camera shake, it is time to change strategy and go to full manual. Set shutter speed to whatever will stop any action and avoid camera shake, and the aperture wide open. The flash will then automatically expose for near field objects, but the background will be un- derexposed. Fill flash causes minimal shadows and modelling on a subject's face, so can safely be di- rected straight at your subject. That is no longer the case when we move indoors, and di- rect flash should be avoided at all costs. Fortunately automatic flash metering does not care what route the light takes to get to the subject, so bounce away. No self respecting landscape photographer shoots with the sun high in the sky, so if you are going to use bounced flash, a ceiling should be your last resort. Use a side wall if possi- ble, and if you can balance the available light from a window on the opposite side of the room, then so much the better. If you must use the ceiling then aim the flash straight up. Angling it at 45 degrees towards your subject will still produce some of the harsh effects of direct flash, (the subject shouldn't be able to see _any_ part of the flash tube). You would also be placing the effective light source nearer to directly above your subject, which would cause ugly shadows in eye sockets etc. I actually bounce the flash behind me and over my shoulder. The really interesting way to use a flash is off-camera. I now carry three ETTL flash heads, plus infrared and radio triggers, and while still learning to make best use of them, I have been pleased with my early results. This is what I shall cover in next month's Photo News, so until then... Trevor Field Trips June Picton — Sunday 22nd, Architecture — the subject for the Club's August competition. July Seddon Shield - Takaka Saturday 26th to Sunday 27th August Lochmara Lodge — Sunday 24th, Natural History (TBC) www.lochmaralodge.co.nz Book Review: The Moment it Clicks - by Joe McNally David Hobby is the creator of the phenomenal www.strobist.com — an Internet blog dedicated to the use of off-camera flash. David is a successful photojournalist who dedicates a lot of his spare time sharing his hard earned knowledge and experi- ence via his blog, but he claims to be amply rewarded by the wealth of ideas he gets from the many thousands of readers and participants. He also promotes a few books as essential sources of photographic information — including Light Science & Magic by Fil Hunter, which we reviewed in PhotoNews back in March — but top of his list of 'must have' books is Joe McNally's 'The Moment it Clicks' Joe McNally is way up there in contemporary photographer terms, and has been shooting for the likes of Life Magazine and National Geographic for the last thirty years. Like David Hobby, he is also happy to share his knowledge, and his own blog, accessed via www.joemcnally.com , makes wonderful reading. 'The Moment it Clicks' is not unlike an Internet blog in design. Every turn of the page reveals an amazing image accompanied by Joe's thoughts behind that image; what was involved in setting it up, and how it was lit. The book is loosely sec- tioned by topic — like lighting tips, equipment, the nature of light, and how to modify it — but essentially stays with the theme of an image and an explanation. But what made this book so useful to me were the ideas. It is jam packed full of easy to use, but highly effective tips on lighting and setup: ideas that excite and motivate you to go out and take better pictures, and there can surely be no better recommendation than that. Trevor Triptych I have recently been turning my hand at making greetings cards, so when I learned of a friend being airlifted to Wellington hospital by air-ambulance following a nasty accident, I decided to send her a card with a Marlborough scene to remind her of home. Out came a pile of old photos, but choosing just the right one became difficult, so I looked for ideas in a Marlborough travel guide. I settled on a plan to slice some landscape photos up, and make a picture from three different scenes of our region. The size had to be just right to fit inside the frame of the card, so I made a template on some heavy paper; trimmed the photos to fit, and placed them inside the tem- plate using magic dots. So far so good. I then took the finished photos to Topshots to have a print taken from the original design. That gave me a panelled photo to attach to the card. The finished photos were of the Wither Hills in summer; the Richmond Ranges with a vineyard in the foreground, and the beach at Cape Campbell. The finished print looked pretty good, and Lisa at Topshots told me it was a triptych, which was a new word for me. Without realizing it I had created a triptych by using up photos that were just re- cord shots. I found it really creative and fun to do, so members try it sometime — it's a good way to put those old photos into something useful. The print looks best as a matt finish. Maybe a subject for the competition calendar one month? Aileen Douglas Results of the 'Silhouette' Competition Judged by Jan Aliah 'A' Grade Prints Honours Mary Russell Wither Hills Sunset Russell Jackson River Fog Owen Dunn Steaming Ahead Merit Roger Thwaites Orchid Profiles Owen Dunne Twilight Time 'B' Grade Prints Honours Trevor Dennis Rosé Anna Angus The Climber Anna Angus Finish of the Day Merit Liz Davidson Mount Vernon Trig - Wither Hills Harry Mathews Pinelands Gordon Walker No Stress Competition Secretary Corner What a fantastic effort for 'Blast for the Past' entries. We have had a record of entries or this calendar year with a total of 50 prints (20 'A Grade',30 'B Grade'), 10 'A Grade' slides and 2 'B Grade' slides, so well done everyone! Steve Austin of the Marlborough Museum is our Judge and he will present his comments and grading at the June meeting. Entries to be handed in at the meeting include 'Creative Mounting' for members judging on the night, and 'Open' to be handed in for judging. Tracey NEXT MEETING: Thursday 12th June 2008 at the St. Mary's Parish Centre, Francis Street, Blenheim at 7.30pm Agenda: Results of - 'Blast from the Past' Hand In - 'Open' A talk by Steve Austin from the Marlborough Museum. LANGWOODS Just arrived Canon 450D. Call soon and inspect the outstanding features of this new model. FINE PHOTOS Come and enjoy the print quality that more and people are discovering from our new Noritsu printer. Baulk print discounts available and hot new deals available every week. TOPSHOTS PHOTOLAB Canon 400D SLR 18-55mm IS plus 55-250mm IS, Canon Case, 2GB Card for $1499 Canon 30D SLR for $1450 with a FREE Pixma MP470 Printer worth $199 Upcoming Events Seddon Shield — Takaka 26th & 27th July Entry forms, rules etc. on the Club website. www.marlboroughcameraclub.org.nz/competitions.htm The deadline for entries is Friday 27th June, so be quick. PSNZ SOUTHERN REGIONAL 2008 Hosted by the Rangiora Photographic Society When - 10th to 12th October 2008 Where - Rangiora www.photography.org.nz/southern.htm
Pages to are hidden for
"Photo-News-June-08"Please download to view full document

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Effects of being uninsured or underinsured and living in extremely poor neighborhoods on colon cancer care and survival in California: historical cohort analysis, 1996—2011
1 School of Social Work, University of Windsor, 401 Sunset Avenue, Windsor, Ontario, N9B 3P4, Canada
2 Department of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada
3 Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
4 Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, and Robarts Research Institute, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada
5 Windsor Regional Cancer Center and School of Medicine and Dentistry, Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada
6 Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Oshawa, Ontario, Canada
7 Windsor Regional Cancer Center, Windsor, Ontario, Canada
8 School of Social Work, University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, Canada
9 School of Social Work, University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, Canada
10 Division of General Surgery, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center and cross appointed to the Departments of Surgery, and Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
BMC Public Health 2012, 12:897 doi:10.1186/1471-2458-12-897Published: 24 October 2012
We examined the mediating effects of health insurance on poverty-colon cancer care and survival relationships and the moderating effects of poverty on health insurance-colon cancer care and survival relationships among women and men in California.
We analyzed registry data for 3,291 women and 3,009 men diagnosed with colon cancer between 1996 and 2000 and followed until 2011 on lymph node investigation, stage at diagnosis, surgery, chemotherapy, wait times and survival. We obtained socioeconomic data for individual residences from the 2000 census to categorize the following neighborhoods: high poverty (30% or more poor), middle poverty (5-29% poor) and low poverty (less than 5% poor). Primary health insurers were Medicaid, Medicare, private or none.
Evidence of mediation was observed for women, but not for men. For women, the apparent effect of poverty disappeared in the presence of payer, and the effects of all forms of health insurance seemed strengthened. All were advantaged on 6-year survival compared to the uninsured: Medicaid (RR = 1.83), Medicare (RR = 1.92) and private (RR = 1.83). Evidence of moderation was also only observed for women. The effects of all forms of health insurance were stronger for women in low poverty neighborhoods: Medicaid (RR = 2.90), Medicare (RR = 2.91) and private (RR = 2.60). For men, only main effects of poverty and payers were observed, the advantaging effect of private insurance being largest. Across colon cancer care processes, Medicare seemed most instrumental for women, private payers for men.
Health insurance substantially mediates the quality of colon cancer care and poverty seems to make the effects of being uninsured or underinsured even worse, especially among women in the United States. These findings are consistent with the theory that more facilitative social and economic capital is available in more affluent neighborhoods, where women with colon cancer may be better able to absorb the indirect and direct, but uncovered, costs of care.


text:
Cooties are negatively charged particles. They are not the same as germs, or else they would not have different names. If you get too close to a cootie source you may be sucked into a cootie force field. Therefore stay away from all cootie sources i.e. boys.
I cannot come in contact with George because I do not want to be trapped in a forcefield of cooties.
od uživatele Cdebokx 31. Leden 2011
evil pests that dwell in the cooter.
Stay away from that bitch nigga, she got them cooties.
od uživatele Buckingbancon 24. Červen 2010
Another synonym for private parts, be it male or female. Cooty is used primarily in an effort to be cute or subtle in the reference to the area, without being excessively dirty.
This popsicle tingles, right down to the cooty.
od uživatele Robert Akins 02. Listopad 2005
is a friendly germ or idea that spreads itself rapidly across virtual, as well as, physical planes.
This dude spread his cootys' on the party and within minutes they all had their clothes off.
od uživatele They call me mr tibbs! 11. Březen 2011
1. real or imagined lice
2. an imaginary problem that little kids use as an excuse not to touch or go near someone.
2. an imaginary problem that little kids use as an excuse not to touch or go near someone.
Little Boy: Will you be my valentine?
Little Girl: Eww, no way! You probably have cooties anyway.
Little Girl: Eww, no way! You probably have cooties anyway.
od uživatele Light Joker 03. Prosinec 2004
A highly contagious disease spread only among men. It causes the victim to exhibit large, unquantifiable amounts of asshole-ness and stupidity. It inhibits common sense and causes a depletion of brain power usually resulting in dumping, slapping, and being called names by the opposite sex. There is no known cure.
Your man has a mad case of the cooties, you should dump him.
This dude's a complete asshole, he must have cooties.
This dude's a complete asshole, he must have cooties.
od uživatele kamrizzzle 24. Listopad 2010


text:
Switch to an Advertising Model With Unencumbered Redistribution
Personally, I don't mind paying for content IF I can redistribute, i.e. rebroadcast, it intact on my LPAM station once I've paid for the material. I'm NOT the intended target for this material. I want Ron's material for those indoctrinated folks in my local area who will NOT pay for it, but might listen to it. Within reason, I'll pay for it for THEM, i.e. my audience, IF I can rebroadcast Ron's material. I, too, highly recommend using the financial model employed by Alex Jones. Allowance for unencumbered redistribution MUST be part of any deal, but like Alex, Ron will need to switch to an advertising model so redistribution on other networks will promote his advertisers as well.
- Login to post comments


text:
Sure Fit Plush Sofa Throw Cover
Add color and character to your room with a Plush throw.
Protect you furniture with our soft and luxurious Plush throw.
Redecorating is a snap! Just place one of our Plush furniture throws over your sofa, chair or loveseat and enjoy a great new style - at an affordable price! Fiber content: 100% polyester.
- Imported.
- Machine wash separately in cold water, gentle cycle.
- Do not use bleach.
- Line dry only.
- Do not iron.
Sure Fit Plush Sofa Throw Cover
Sure Fit Plush Sofa Throw Cover
873612p_manual 873612p_manual
Shopping Cart


text:
Blasting day never short on excitement
Two well drilling rigs worked steadily in the sweltering Iowa heat, up on the top of the 60-foot-high quarry cliff face. They drilled rows of 60-foot-deep holes, into which we would pack three-inch by two-foot sticks of dynamite on blast day. These explosives would then, when detonated, blast the limestone cliff face loose so that the smaller rock could be picked up by a huge loader and dumped into a rock crusher.
Are you a newspaper subscriber but you don't have a Digital Access account yet? https://secure.forumcomm.com/?publisher_ID=40&event=subscriber/lookup.
You will need your subscription account number and phone number. Not sure if you have an account? Email us at email@example.com and we can help you.