| Pennsylvania State Court Decisions | | | | "collateral order" under Pa.R.A.P. 313 - and |
| 1. Civil Litigation | | | | appealable as a matter of right - the following |
| 1.1. Automobile Insurance | | | | three factors must be present: |
| 1.1.1. "Cars for Hire" | | | | 1. The Order must be separable from and |
| *Supreme Court | | | | collateral to the main cause of action; |
| ♦ Prudential Property & Casualty Ins. Co. | | | | 2. The right involved is too important to be denied |
| v. Sartno, No. 163 MAP 2005 (August 21, 2006) | | | | review and must involve rights deeply rooted in |
| Holding: An insured's use of his private vehicle to | | | | public policy going beyond the particular litigation at |
| deliver pizza does not render the automobile a | | | | hand; and, |
| "car for hire" and does not trigger the | | | | 3. The question presented is such that if review is |
| exclusionary provision of the insurance policy. | | | | postponed until final judgment in the case, the |
| 1.1.2. Uninsured & Underinsured Motorist Arbitration | | | | claim will be irreparably lost. |
| * Superior Court | | | | 1.1.1. Trade Secrets |
| ♦ The Hartford Ins. Co. v. O'Mara, 2006 | | | | * Superior Court |
| PA Super 236 (August 29, 2006) | | | | ♦ Crum v. Bridgestone, 2006 PA Super |
| Holding: Under the Uniform Arbitration Act of | | | | 230 (August 23, 2006) |
| 1980, when the application or construction of an | | | | Holding 1: This decision contains the same holding |
| insurance policy provision is at issue, the dispute is | | | | relating to collateral orders as Pridgen (above). |
| within the exclusive jurisdiction of the arbitrators. | | | | Holding 2: Pursuant to Section 757(b) of the |
| A court will take jurisdiction only when the | | | | Restatement (2d) of Torts and Pennsylvania law, |
| claimant attacks a particular provision as: (1) | | | | in order to determine whether particular |
| contrary to a constitutional, legislative or | | | | information is to be given trade secret status, a |
| administrative mandate; (2) against public policy; | | | | court should consider the following factors: |
| or, (3) unconscionable. | | | | 1. The extent to which the information is known |
| ♦ Nationwide Insurance Co. v. Schneider, | | | | outside of the business; |
| 2006 PA Super 219 (August 17, 2006) | | | | 2. The extent to which the information is known |
| Holding: Section 1733 of the MVFRL specifies the | | | | by employees and others involved in the business; |
| priority for recovery of underinsured motorist | | | | and, |
| benefits, but neither mentions nor requires | | | | 3. The extent of measures taken to guard the |
| exhaustion of limits. When an insured settles a | | | | secrecy of the information. Order must be |
| claim in contravention of a policy's | | | | separable from and collateral to the main cause of |
| consent-to-settle clause, an insurer must show | | | | action. |
| that its interests are prejudiced. | | | | For a court to determine whether a protective |
| 1.1.3. Subrogation | | | | order is appropriate under Pa.R.Civ.P. 4019(a)(9), |
| * Supreme Court | | | | the discovery standard should embrace both (1) |
| ♦ Wirth v. Aetna U.S. Healthcare, No. 28 | | | | relevance and necessity, and (2) a balancing of |
| EAP 2005 (August 22, 2006) | | | | need versus harm. Once a party establishes that |
| Holding: Pursuant to the Pennsylvania Health | | | | the information sought is a trade secret, the |
| Maintenance Organization Act, 40 P.S. § | | | | burden shifts to the requesting party to |
| 1560(a), a health maintenance organization is | | | | demonstrate by competent evidence that there is |
| exempt from complying with the anti-subrogation | | | | a compelling need for that information and that |
| provision of the Pennsylvania Motor Financial | | | | the necessity outweighs the harm of the |
| Responsibility Law. | | | | disclosure. |
| 1.2. Medical Malpractice Claims | | | | 1.1. Judgment by Default |
| 1.2.1. MCARE Act | | | | * Superior Court |
| * Superior Court | | | | ♦ State Farm Insurance Co. v. Barton, |
| ♦ McManamon v. Washko, 2006 PA Super | | | | 2006 PA Super 210 (August 7, 2006) |
| 245 (August 31, 2006) | | | | Holding: After a responsive pleading is filed, even if |
| Holding: The Medical Care Availability and Reduction | | | | untimely, a judgment by default cannot be |
| of Error Act does not apply to injuries not caused | | | | entered because the responding party is no longer |
| by medical negligence. | | | | in default. |
| 1.3. Sovereign Immunity | | | | 1.2. Settlement |
| 1.3.1. Real Property & Sidewalks Exceptions | | | | * Commonwealth Court |
| * Commonwealth Court | | | | ♦ Brannam v. Reedy, No. 2590 C.D. 2005 |
| ♦ Reid v. City of Philadelphia, No. 1572 C.D. | | | | (August 14, 2006) |
| 2005 (August 3, 2006) | | | | Holding: An evidentiary hearing is required when |
| Holding: A street owned by a municipality that is | | | | one party disputes the existence of a settlement |
| designated a Commonwealth highway continues | | | | agreement or its binding effect, and is the |
| to be owned by the municipality. If a person is | | | | appropriate procedure even when there is a |
| injured on a municipal sidewalk that adjoins a | | | | written agreement signed by counsel if it is alleged |
| designated highway, the municipality remains the | | | | that counsel lacked the authority to bind his client. |
| owner of the sidewalk and the sidewalk is, | | | | There must also be a hearing when a settlement |
| therefore, within the "right of way" of a street | | | | is vacated by court order or enforced by court |
| owned by the municipality for purposes of | | | | order. A hearing must be held even if the trial |
| analyzing governmental immunity under the | | | | court has "intimate knowledge" of the facts as a |
| Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act. | | | | result of a pre-hearing conference because a trial |
| ♦ LoFurno v. Garnet Valley School District, | | | | court's recital of facts is not a substitute for a full |
| No. 2082 C.D. 2005 (May 3, 2006) | | | | record. A hearing must also be held, despite filing |
| Holding: A belt sander, designed to be bolted to | | | | a petition and answer, even if no party requests |
| the floor, that is not hardwired or permanently | | | | one. |
| attached to the floor or to a dust collection | | | | 1.3. Transfer From Federal Court to State Court |
| system, is personalty, and not a fixture under the | | | | ♦ Falcone v. The Insurance Company of |
| real property exception to governmental | | | | the State of Pennsylvania, 2006 PA Super 241 |
| immunity under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims | | | | (August 30, 2006) |
| Act. | | | | Holding: Pursuant to 42. Pa.C.S.A. § 5103, a |
| 2. Civil Procedure | | | | party may transfer a case from federal court to |
| 2.1. Appeal | | | | the appropriate state court when the federal |
| 2.1.1. Conflict Between Federal & Pennsylvania Law | | | | court lacks diversity jurisdiction. The date of the |
| * Superior Court | | | | federal filing becomes the date of the state filing |
| ♦ Trombetta v. Raymond James Financial | | | | for purposes of the applicable statute of |
| Services, Inc., 2006 PA Super 229 (August 22, | | | | limitations. To comply, a party must promptly file |
| 2006) | | | | a certified transcript of the final judgment of the |
| Holdings: 1.The standards of review of an | | | | federal court and related pleadings in a |
| arbitration award under the Pennsylvania Uniform | | | | Pennsylvania court or magisterial district. A party |
| Arbitration Act are not preempted by the Federal | | | | does not comply with the statute by filing a new |
| Arbitration Act (FAA). | | | | complaint in state court. |
| 2. The standards of review under the FAA cannot | | | | 2. Unemployment Compensation |
| preempt the Pennsylvania standards for review | | | | 2.1. Necessitous and Compelling Reason to Quit |
| of arbitration awards unless the Pennsylvania | | | | * Commonwealth Court |
| standards of review frustrate the underlying | | | | ♦ Brunswick Hotel & Conference Center, |
| objectives of the FAA because standards of | | | | LLC v. Unemployment Compensation Board of |
| review are an inherently procedural mechanism | | | | Review), No. 464 C.D. 2006 (August 23, 2006) |
| used to facilitate judicial resolution of | | | | Holding: Elimination of health care benefits |
| controversies after the underlying arbitration | | | | constitutes a substantial change in employment |
| agreement has been enforced in accordance with | | | | terms and serves as a necessitous and compelling |
| the FAA. | | | | reason for a claimant to resign from employment, |
| 3. Common law arbitration standards of review do | | | | thus entitling the claimant to unemployment |
| not violate the core objective and principles | | | | compensation benefits. |
| underlying the FAA. Pennsylvania law governs the | | | | 3. Workers' Compensation |
| question of whether parties can impose de novo | | | | 3.1. Appellate Review |
| review on trial courts by virtue of contractual | | | | * Supreme Court |
| agreements. | | | | ♦ Trimmer v. Workers' Compensation |
| 4. De novo review clauses contained in arbitration | | | | Appeal Board (Monaghan Township), No. 58 MAL |
| agreements are unenforceable as a matter of law | | | | 2006 (August 3, 2006) |
| in Pennsylvania. | | | | Holding: The Commonwealth Court (and |
| ♦ Joseph v. Advest, Inc., 2006 PA Super | | | | presumably the Workers' Compensation Appeal |
| 213 (August 8, 2006) | | | | Board) may not substitute its determination of |
| Holding: The provision of the Federal Arbitration | | | | the facts and credibility of witnesses for the |
| Act permitting a party three months to challenge | | | | Workers' Compensation Judge's proper |
| an arbitration award is procedural. Pennsylvania's | | | | assessments. This per curiam Order summarily |
| 30-day deadline (under either the Uniform | | | | reverses the Commonwealth Court's decision |
| Arbitration Act or common law arbitration) for | | | | because determination of facts and credibility is |
| contesting arbitration awards applies to such | | | | solely within the province of the Workers' |
| appeals, and appeals filed more than 30 days | | | | Compensation Judge. |
| after the entry of the award are untimely. | | | | 3.2. Hearing Loss/Employer Liability |
| 2.2. Capacity to Sue | | | | * Commonwealth Court |
| * Superior Court | | | | ♦ Hayduk v. Workers' Compensation |
| ♦ George Stash & Sons v. New Holland | | | | Appeal Board (Bemis Co., Inc.), No. 230 C.D. 2006 |
| Credit Co., LLC, 2006 PA Super 206 (August 2, | | | | (August 11, 2006) |
| 2006) | | | | Holding 1: When an employer (Company A) |
| Holding: The Fictitious Name Act provides that an | | | | purchases the assets, but not the liabilities, of |
| entity that fails to register its fictitious name shall | | | | another company (Company B), including the plant |
| not be permitted to maintain any action in a | | | | where the claimant worked, and the purchase |
| Pennsylvania tribunal. Where, as here, a person or | | | | specifically excludes any of Company B's workers' |
| entity knows the identity of the persons with | | | | compensation liabilities that arose prior to the |
| whom he or she is dealing, he cannot assert the | | | | purchase of the assets, Company A is not liable |
| lack of capacity to sue under the Fictitious Name | | | | for any work-related hearing loss that occurred |
| Act. | | | | prior to its purchase of Company B. |
| 2.3. Collateral Source Rule | | | | Holding 2: Under Section 306(c)(8)(iv) of the |
| * Superior Court | | | | Workers' Compensation Act,audiometric testing |
| ♦ Simmons v. Cobb, 2006 PA Super 222 | | | | for a work-related hearing loss must conform to |
| (August 16, 2006) | | | | applicable OSHA standards. It is the employer's |
| Holding: The collateral source rule does not | | | | burden, however, to establish that an occupational |
| preclude a plaintiff from introducing evidence of | | | | hearing loss is attributable to a previous employer. |
| the receipt of Social Security Disability benefits. | | | | When, as here, the employer fails to meet this |
| Rather, the collateral source rule, which is intended | | | | burden, it remains liable for all of a claimant's |
| to protect tort victims, provides that payment | | | | compensable hearing loss. |
| from a collateral source shall not diminish the | | | | 3.3. Impairment Rating Examinations |
| damages otherwise recoverable from the | | | | * Supreme Court |
| wrongdoer. In this case, plaintiff sought to | | | | ♦ Dowhower v. Workers' Compensation |
| introduce evidence of receipt of SSD benefits. | | | | Appeal Board (Capco Contracting, Inc.), No. 542 |
| 2.4. Forum Non Conveniens | | | | MAL 2003 (August 11, 2006) |
| * Superior Court | | | | Holding: The Supreme Court has granted |
| ♦ Wright v. Aventis Pasteur, Inc., 2006 PA | | | | claimant's Petition for Allowance of Appeal and will, |
| Super 203 (August 2, 2006) | | | | presumably, address the issue of whether an |
| Holding: In determining whether to dismiss a case | | | | employer may request an Impairment Rating |
| pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5322(e) based on | | | | Examination before the 104-week period in |
| forum non conveniens, the trial court must | | | | Section 306(a.2)(1) of the Workers' Compensation |
| consider two important factors: (1) a plaintiff's | | | | Act. |
| choice of the place of suit will not be disturbed | | | | 3.4. Physical Examinations |
| except for weighty reasons, and (2) no action will | | | | * Commonwealth Court |
| be dismissed unless there is an alternative forum | | | | ♦ Knechtel v. Workers' Compensation |
| available to the plaintiff. As Superior Court | | | | Appeal Board (Marriott Corp.), No. 140 C.D. 2006 |
| acknowledges - this decision diverges from "the | | | | (August 24, 2006) |
| apparent trend in recent forum non conveniens | | | | Holding: Pursuant to Section 314(a) of the |
| decisions ... toward dismissing cases brought in | | | | Workers' Compensation Act, when an employee's |
| Pennsylvania where another forum is available." | | | | physician attends an employer-requested physical |
| 2.5. Interlocutory Appeals | | | | examination, the employee is entitled, at |
| 2.5.1. Generally | | | | employee's expense, to have a health care |
| * Supreme Court | | | | provider of his or her own selection participate in |
| ♦ Pridgen v. Parker Hannifin Corp., Nos. 8 | | | | such examination. Participation is limited to |
| & 9 EAP 2005 (August 22, 2006) | | | | attendance and observation. |
| Holding: In order for a trial court Order to be a | | | | |