Ohio settles lawsuit over workers’ comp overcharging

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

A years-long legal fight over allegations that hundreds of thousands of Ohio employers were overcharged workers’ compensation premiums from 2001 to 2009 was settled last night.

The state agreed to create a $420 million fund to pay claims to employers — many of them small businesses — that had sued over the premiums. The Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation and a group called Pay Us Back Ohio BWC announced the agreement.

The $420 million is about half of the $860 million that a Cleveland judge had ordered the bureau to pay in March 2013.

An appeals court upheld the bulk of that ruling this spring but ordered a recalculation of the damages that reduced the award to $651 million. The bureau also had been pursuing an appeal with the Ohio Supreme Court.

Both sides praised the settlement last night.

“Ohio has made major changes to its workers’ compensation system over the past several years,” Steve Buehrer, the bureau’s administrator and CEO, said in a statement. “The policies that were at issue in this litigation in 2007 are not the same ones in place today, and we’re pleased that we have reached a settlement so we can move forward. Improvements have been made to how premiums and discounts are calculated, as well as to billing practices, and premiums are continuing to go down as a result.

“Sound management of the trust fund made it possible to return $1 billion in rebates to customers last year, and major…

[Click here to see the rest of this post]

The Dram Shop Case

If the title to this article sounds like the title to a Sherlock Holmes story that is no coincidence. After all, the term “dram” is an ancient term which, in merry old England, described a measure of liquid, more properly known as a fluid dram. The fluid dram was equivalent to 1/8th of a fluid ounce, or approximately the amount that a teaspoon would hold in the Middle English era. Of course, the term was also used to describe a taste of the spirits, usually Scotch Whiskey. Establishments that served spirits became known as dram shops. That is, as they say, where the trouble began. As we all know, the consumption of whiskey and other intoxicating brews has led to a world of problems for both the consumers of alcohol, and for those who came in contact with consumers who overindulged.

The problems caused by drunks came to the attention of courts and legislatures who, in many instances, determined that justice required that those who profited from the sales of intoxicating beverages should bear responsibility for providing alcohol to those who should not have it, principally those who are already inebriated. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures thirty (30) states have laws that allow licensed establishments such as bars, restaurants, and liquor stores to be held liable for selling or serving alcohol to individuals who cause injury or death as a result of their intoxication. Happily, Pennsylvania is one of the states which have created a law which spells out the responsibility to the public of those licensed to dispense alcohol in the state.

The Pennsylvania “Dram Shop Act” provides in relevant part: 

No licensee shall be liable to third persons on account of damages inflicted upon them off of the licensed premises by customers of the licensee unless the customer who inflicts the damages was sold, furnished or given liquor or malt or brewed beverages by the said licensee or his agent, servant or employee when the said customer was visibly intoxicated. Pa. Stat. tit. 47, §4-497

Stated otherwise, the owner of an establishment which is licensed to sell intoxicating beverages is prohibited from selling, furnishing, or giving such beverages to a customer who is visibly intoxicated. This does not mean that a bar or restaurant is responsible for everything that their patrons may eventually do. It does, however, require that they monitor the conduct and appearance or their customers, and that they refuse to serve anyone who is already displaying evidence of intoxication. Failure to do so will effectively cause the bar or restaurant to answer for the damage the drunk inflicts.

It goes without saying that the most common type of Dram Shop case involves automobile accidents caused by individuals who were served at a point after which they were already visibly intoxicated. The combination of the speed and size of an automobile and a severely impaired driver is often devastating to others. Under certain limited circumstances the Dram Shop Act affords the victim of a drunk driver a remedy in addition to that of pursuing the drunk, who may have little or no collectible insurance or assets.

If it can be shown through competent evidence that the drunk driver was served after he or she was visibly intoxicated the bar or restaurant that served him can be held responsible for all of the damage the drunk driver causes. The public policy is so strong on this point that, unlike virtually every other type of personal injury case, the liquor licensee will be required to pay 100% of a joint verdict against it and the drunk, even if the drunk is found to be 99% at fault, and the liquor establishment only 1%. In other joint cases each defendant will pay only its percentage share of verdict, and the victim may be unable to secure payment of the entire verdict due to limited insurance or assets of the defendant found to be primarily liable. The Legislature specifically excluded Dram Shop cases from the general rule, and created a greater likelihood that the victim of joint negligence of a bar and a drunk driver will be fully compensated.

This firm has successfully litigated cases involving Dram Shop claims. In one instance, the eventual victim of the drunk driver actually witnessed a bartender serve the driver when he should not have done so. The victim left the establishment and went home while the drunk stayed and drank some more before eventually driving to the victim’s home and hitting him with the vehicle. Detailed and timely investigation revealed other witnesses who saw the driver’s condition shortly after leaving the bar and their testimony corroborated that of the victim. Further, by issuing subpoenas to the State Police it was possible to obtain the police cruiser videotape of the drunk driver’s arrest. Finally, a toxicologist was retained to review the available evidence, and he provided an expert opinion that the driver was indeed visibly intoxicated when served by the defendant bar. A favorable settlement followed.

Because recovery against liquor establishments is limited to those instances where it can be proven that the driver was served while visibly intoxicated these cases are difficult to win. However, when such a case is properly pursued it can provide full financial recovery in cases involving serious injuries that might otherwise go begging. Prompt and aggressive investigation is key. Please contact us if you have any questions concerning Dram Shop cases, or other cases involving serious injuries arising from automobile, truck, motorcycle, or construction accidents.

Lawsuit: Inflatable sumo wrestling led to brain injury at Miami-Dade charter school

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

During a Hialeah Gardens school “Spirit Day,” a teen girl dressed in an inflatable sumo wrestler suit for what was supposed to be a goofy match with a classmate.

But a lawsuit claims the sumo fun went horribly wrong, leaving the teen with severe brain damage after her head repeatedly struck the floor.

The girl, 15-year-old freshman Celaida Lissabet, and her mother late last week sued charter school Mater Academy and Mega Party Events, the company that supplied the inflatable suits, which the lawsuit contends are designed for use in “violent recreational sumo wrestling games.”

Adrian De La Rosa, owner of Mega Party Events, said the girl was outfitted according to instructions from the suit’s manufacturer.

“The suit is fairly safe. We’ve never had an injury like this,” De La Rosa said. “I really hope she is doing OK.”

The Lissabets allege the school and company failed to ensure her helmet fit properly during the event last October. She was later rushed to the hospital after complaining of “blurred vision, dizziness, nausea and headaches,” according to to the negligence lawsuit filed by Davie attorney Lance Rudzinski.

The…

[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Tom Baumann receives award

Abes Baumann, P.C. is please to congratulate Tom Baumann on being awarded the 2014 George F. Douglas Jr. Amicus Curiae Award by the Pennsylvania Association for Justice, formerly the Pennsylvania Trial Lawyers Association, for his work in representing the interests of injured workers. The award is given to a member who has written numerous friend of the court legal briefs on behalf of the organization.

This award is further evidence of Tom’s commitment to injured workers.

Congratulations Tom.

Newark: Whistleblower lawsuit against stem cell therapy company alleges dangerous practices

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

Posted:   07/17/2014 03:03:42 PM PDT

OAKLAND — A Santa Clara county man is suing a Bay Area stem cell research and development company on allegations he was fired from a senior management job for voicing concerns about a manufacturing practices he says puts stem cell therapy patients’ lives at risk.

Rob Williams’ wrongful termination and retaliation lawsuit against StemCells was filed in Alameda County Superior Court this week and seeks punitive damages against the Newark-based, publicly traded company that receives millions in government and private grants.

StemCells hired Williams in December to oversee the facility where stem cells cultures are cultivated for clinical trials. The lawsuit alleges he was fired in May in retaliation for making complaints about “dangers/defective products that the company was releasing into the commerce stream for human clinical trials.”

StemCells, Inc. spokeswoman Andrea Flynn said the allegations are without merit and Williams was terminated for performance deficiencies.

“The elements of manufacturing practices that concerned Mr. Williams were immediately and carefully reviewed by the company,” Flynn wrote in an email. “The company’s primary concern has always been, and will continue to be, the safety and tolerability of stem cell transplantation in its clinical trials.

“To date, no patients participating in the clinical studies have experienced any product related safety concerns,” Flynn wrote.

Daniel…

[Click here to see the rest of this post]

DARE alleges in lawsuit that Providence is violating hiring ordinance

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

PROVIDENCE — An advocacy group is suing the City of Providence, asserting that the city has failed for years to follow and enforce an ordinance that requires businesses that receive city grants or subsidies to give hiring preference to Providence residents.

Direct Action for Rights and Equality, or DARE, announced it was filing the suit Tuesday in Superior Court, Providence.

DARE said in a news release that “any entity with more than four employees that receives $25,000 or more in public investment” is supposed to follow procedures “to ensure that Providence residents have the first opportunity to access any and all job openings.”

But DARE contends that just 41 out of 1,110 new job openings reported by companies covered under the law were filled by using “First Source” job referrals, the name for the law, citing what DARE said is the city’s own reports.

The lawsuit seeks a court-appointed monitor to ensure that Providence notifies employers of the law and starts sanctioning employers who don’t comply.

It also asks for a temporary restraining order to prevent the city from issuing any new tax-stabilization agreements, Providence Economic Development Partnership loans or other financing covered by the ordinance until it has “improved its compliance with the ordinance.”

The ordinance covers “tax concessions, and/or abatements,…grants-in-aid, grants from the office of community development, office of…

[Click here to see the rest of this post]

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.