Mahwah man can pursue suit against Finkelstein & Partners law firm

Today’s post was shared by The Workers’ Injury Law & Advocacy Group and comes from www.northjersey.com

Mahwah man can pursue suit against Finkelstein & Partners law firm

By KATHLEEN LYNN

STAFF WRITER | The Record

* Cites overcharges in slip-and-fall case

A Mahwah man’s lawsuit claiming that his lawyers overcharged him in a personal-injury case can move forward under a recent court ruling — though one of the original defendants, the well-known law firm Jacoby & Meyers, has been let off the hook.

Jeffrey Harding of Mahwah and his 80-year-old mother, Nancy Harding of Rockland County, hired lawyers with ties to Jacoby & Meyers, a New York company known for its television commercials, to file two slip-and-fall lawsuits on their behalf.

Nancy Harding hired Finkelstein & Partners of Newburgh, N.Y., after she suffered an injury at a Suffern, N.Y., tile business, and Jeffrey Harding, who had a separate case, hired Andrew Finkelstein of Finkelstein & Partners.

The Finkelstein firm shares many office locations and staff with Jacoby & Meyers, according to a lawsuit filed by the Hardings after their slip-and-fall cases were settled.

In their lawsuit, both Nancy and Jeffrey Harding claimed that the lawyers overcharged them by adding fees for services from a company, Total Trial Solutions, which was partly owned by their lawyers. Those fees were in addition to the regular attorneys’ fees of 33 percent of the amount recovered, the Hardings said in their lawsuit, which named Jacoby & Meyers, Finkelstein & Partners, Total Trial Solutions, and…

[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Newark watershed agency fights to keep class-action lawsuit in legal limbo

Today’s post was shared by The Workers’ Injury Law & Advocacy Group and comes from www.nj.com

NEWARK — Two former employees of the Newark Watershed Conservation and Development Corp. filed a class-action lawsuit last year to recover money allegedly stolen from the now-defunct agency.
But after the agency’s trustees filed for bankruptcy in January, that lawsuit was put on hold.
Now the former employees’ attorney is asking a federal bankruptcy judge to partially lift the stay on the lawsuit and allow certain claims to proceed on behalf of Newark residents.
“I want to go forward with the lawsuit,” said David Hoffman, the attorney representing the former employees. “I’m in limbo.”
But Daniel Stolz, an attorney representing the corporation in the bankruptcy case, argued the stay must remain in place, because the agency should be the one to pursue such litigation, not Hoffman.
“The appropriate thing is for the watershed to bring those claims and we’ve always intended to bring those claims,” said Stolz, adding that the corporation should serve that role “because the agency is the one that was directly injured.”
The litigation pursued by the agency would include negligence claims against law firms that had represented the agency and claims against people who wrongfully took money from the corporation, according to Stolz.
A hearing on Hoffman’s motion to partially vacate the stay is scheduled for March 31 before U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Vincent…

[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Staten Island Judge Allows Suit on Teacher Tenure to Proceed

Today’s post was shared by The Workers’ Injury Law & Advocacy Group and comes from www.nytimes.com

Opponents of New York State’s teacher tenure laws won a small but important victory on Thursday, when a Staten Island judge allowed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of those rules to move forward.

This decision comes as battles over the way teachers are hired, fired and evaluated swirl through courtrooms and statehouses across the country. In January, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo began a battle of his own with teachers’ unions, proposing a change to evaluations that would tie teacher performance ratings more closely with state tests.

The tenure lawsuit, filed in State Supreme Court on Staten Island, was brought against the state last year on behalf of about a dozen families. The suit — originally two lawsuits, which have been combined — contends that teacher tenure and discipline policies deprive children of their right to a “sound basic education,” essentially by making it too difficult to fire bad teachers.

On Thursday, Justice Philip G. Minardo denied a motion to dismiss that case, filed by New York state, city and union officials, allowing the suit to continue.

“This ruling is a major victory for New Yorkers, especially for parents and students,” said Campbell Brown, founder of the Partnership for Educational Justice, a group involved in bringing the lawsuit. “New Yorkers are one step closer to having access to the data that shows the degree to which quality teaching impacts a student’s ability to succeed and…

[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Facebook to face U.S. class action over children’s online purchases

Today’s post was shared by The Workers’ Injury Law & Advocacy Group and comes from www.reuters.com

(Reuters) – A federal judge said Facebook Inc must face a nationwide class-action lawsuit seeking to force the social media company to provide refunds when children spend their parents’ money on its website without permission.U.S. District Judge Beth Labson Freeman in San Jose, California on Tuesday said a class of plaintiffs estimated in the hundreds of thousands may press their claim that Facebook should change how it handles online transactions by minors.

The judge also said the plaintiffs could not pursue refunds as a group under U.S. Supreme Court precedent, because any refunds would vary from case to case, but could still seek individual refunds. She set an Oct. 19 trial date.

Facebook said it believes the lawsuit lacks merit, and said it will defend itself vigorously.

The April 2012 lawsuit said Facebook let children use their parents’ credit and debit cards to buy the virtual currency Facebook Credits, and violated California law by refusing refunds under its “all sales are final” policy when the parents complained.

In opposing class certification, Facebook said the plaintiffs’ claims were too disparate, and an injunction would not address them.

But Freeman said state law protects parents and their children when those children “occasionally use their lack of judgment” and buy things they should not.

“Though some minors undoubtedly may wish to continue making purchases through credit or debit cards they do not have permission to use, such a desire…

[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Lawsuit aims to ban swimming with manatees in Florida

Today’s post was shared by The Workers’ Injury Law & Advocacy Group and comes from www.foxnews.com

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is about to be sued over an animal that isn’t exactly “endangered.”

ECO-LAWSUIT: The Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, a Washington, D.C.-based group, wants several tough new restrictions on human activity in manatee areas.

The Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit, filed an Intent to Sue notice this week accusing the federal agency of mistreating “the endangered Florida manatee.”

PEER, which last month sued FWS to stop dirt bike and off-road vehicle noise and air pollution in California, says the agency is “facilitating significant physical harassment” of manatees by allowing the public to swim with the animals in the Crystal River National Wildlife Refuge.

The Crystal River National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1983, and it’s the only refuge created specifically for the protection of the Florida manatee, according to FWS.

By issuing special-use permits to local dive shops that lead manatee swim tours, PEER says the environmental agency is harming the animals.

The effort has the appearance of an overreaction. Natural events such as cold water and toxic red-tides have done far more to harm manatees in recent years than human contact. In the overlapping period, the animals have made…

[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Abes Baumann Attorney Argues to Commonwealth Court

Recently, the law firm of Abes Baumann participated in an en banc argument before the Commonwealth Court involving a challenge to the constitutionality of a portion of the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act. In the case of Protz vs. WCAB, Tom Baumann argued that the use of the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment to determine whether or not an injured worker converts from total disability to partial disability of Workers’ Compensation benefits constituted an unconstitutional delegation of authority by the Pennsylvania State Legislature.

If an injured worker received 104 weeks of total disability benefits, the employer/insurance carrier can compel the injured worker to submit to a rating examination. The injured workers’ whole body impairment is evaluated under the AMA Guides. If the whole body impairment comes out as less than 50%, compensation can be converted from total disability to partial disability merely by sending a form to the Claimant if the examination is requested within a certain time frame. The AMA Guidelines change over time, being reissued approximately every seven (7) years. When the State Legislature amended the Workers’ Compensation Act in 1996 to mandate use of the Guides, the 4th Edition of the Guides was in effect. The language of the law stated that when an examination is performed, it shall be done under the most recent version of the Guides. Commonwealth Court has interpreted that to mean that the examining physician should use the Guides that are in effect at the time of the evaluation not at the time the law was originally passed. Since the Guides change without any input from anyone affected by the Guides, including injured workers and employers and insurance companies, Abes Baumann argued that this was unconstitutional as the legislature could not adopt the future work product of the AMA sight unseen.

The Commonwealth Court has taken significant interest in the argument as it scheduled an en banc argument meaning 7 of the 13 Judges sitting on the Court participated in oral argument. No matter what happens, the issue is likely to end up at the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Interested readers may watch the video of the oral argument here.

TALK WITH AN ATTORNEY TODAY!

We only get paid when you win, so you don’t have to worry about hourly rates or fees. That means you’ll never see a bill unless you win. Fill out the form below and you’ll hear back from us immediately.