We have exclusive priority access to the largest network of lawyers in the state and work hard to identify and secure the best attorney for your specific case.

Just fill out the form to the right to get started. We do this all at no cost to you.

  1. Montgomery County Medical Malpractice Negligence from Diverticulitis

    May 20, 2015 by admin

    A Montgomery County Medical Malpractice Negligence  Case results in Wrongful Death from Diverticulitis. In March of 2005, a 60-year-old Montgomery County, PA woman underwent a colonoscopy and it was determined that she had diverticulitis. A colonoscopy is a common test that allows a physician to view the inner lining of a patient’s colon, according to WebMD.com.  It is used as a screen for Colorectal Cancer.  In June, 2013, the New York Times postulated that $2.7 trillion that the U.S. spends annually on colonoscopies are the reason that we lead the world in health expenditures.

    On May 5, 2005, the 60-year-old woman went to the emergency room with severe pain in her side, back and abdomen. The emergency physician diagnosed the woman with constipation and prescribed a laxative and sent her home under her own care.  The records indicate that she experienced more pain with attempts to move her bowels, bruises on her abdomen, blood her stool, three days of nearly constant abdominal pain and an elevated white blood count.

    According to the Mayo Clinic, a high white blood cell count indicates an increase in the disease-fighting cells that are circulating in the blood.

    The following morning, she went to see her family doctor, still in pain. The physician noted that the laxative had successfully allowed her to mover her bowels several times; however, she was still in significant pain.  The family physician found an abdominal strain and prescribed a narcotic for pain relief. The woman, needing round-the-clock care, went to the home of a family member.

    Several days later, she went to a different emergency room with the same excruciating abdominal pain, in the company of her family. She was diagnosed with acute diverticulitis with the help of a CT-scan, which also found air in the mesentery and micro perforations of her bowel.

    While in the hospital, another preexisting condition was exacerbated.   The abdominal diverticulitis surgery was postponed until she was stable, in late May of 2005. She left the hospital with a colostomy, which was reversed in February of 2006. In addition, she endured several post-operative complications including the development of a large abscess and hernia. The complications led to a downward spiral of her overall health as well as necrotizing fasciitis, which is also known as Flesh Eating Bacteria, and can destroy skin, fat and the tissue covering muscles in a very short amount of time.

    She died of complications and infection on May 26, 2007. Her estate maintained that the initial emergency room doctor failed to order proper diagnostic tests in light two factors:  the elevated white blood count and recent colonoscopy which revealed diverticulitis. The primary complaint in the trial was the allegations that her death was the result of a delay in treating her diverticulitis. A personal injury lawyer filed the medical malpractice negligence case in Montgomery county.

    The diagnosis of constipation was alleged by the estate to be negligent. In addition, the estate alleged family physician was negligent in failing to order additional studies in light of getting no pain relief from the laxatives. The emergency room physician and the family physician denied negligence.

    The case proceeded to trial against the emergency room physician alone, as the family care physician was dismissed. The jury, however, did not find the emergency room physician to be negligent.

  2. Pennsylvania Construction Accident grants Family $5 Million

    May 16, 2015 by admin

    A Pennsylvania Construction Accident Case grants the victim’s Family $5 Million in Wrongful Death suit. Some jobs are more dangerous than others, but even jobs that pose risks—such as construction—should not cost workers their lives. Many construction sites are properly maintained and run by careful professionals. However, some construction company owners are neglectful and workers can be severely injured or killed. In this case, a construction worker was killed because of the negligence of a company that his company was contracted to.

    In June of 2009, the deceased, a 42-year-old male, was working on a construction project in Spring Township, Pennsylvania. During the course of his work, the worker was in a ditch that was being excavated on a big housing project. During the excavation, approximately three tons of dirt filled the ditch, making it collapse. The deceased plaintiff was buried in the dirt and was killed.

    The estate of the deceased filed suit against the company responsible for the excavation. The plaintiffs personal injury lawyer claimed that the company did not follow all appropriate Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards.  The plaintiffs claimed that the company received a number of OSHA violations on the work site. The citation stated that the walls of the excavation ditch were not dug at the appropriate angle, which caused the ditch to collapse. The citation also said that the company allowed water to collect in the ditch, which made it less stable. The plaintiffs further claimed that the defendant did not inspect the trench enough to keep it safe.

    The defendant argued that the deceased and his employer were negligent in the accident. The decease’s employer had also been cited with several OSHA citations for unsafe working conditions. The defendant also testified that the deceased was negligent because he should have inspected the trench before entering and realized that it was an unsafe working area.

    Although both sides contended that the other was negligent, they decided to settle prior to a trial. The settlement was in favor of the plaintiff. The estate of the deceased received $5,000,000 in the settlement.

    This case was especially upsetting because the deceased left behind a wife and four children at the time of his death. Poor working conditions and negligence led to this Pennsylvania Construction Accident and it never should have happened. Although the decease’s family will benefit from the settlement, it will not bring back their loved one. Settlements like this one are important because they remind workers and companies that following safety procedures can and does save lives.

  3. Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Accident Case Settles for $880,000

    May 5, 2015 by admin

    A Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Accident Case Settles for $880,000 in Mahoning Township. When motor vehicle accidents occur, often one or more of the participants was negligent. Driving can be dangerous enough, but when a person is negligent while driving, disasters can occur. Filing a suit against a negligent driver is often the only recourse an injured person has after an accident. In this case, a husband and wife were injured by negligent driver, and they filed a suit against him.

    In 2010, both male and female plaintiffs were traveling along Route 11 in Mahoning Township, Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs entered an intersection, traveling through a green left-arrow light. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant driver then entered the intersection illegally through a red light. The vehicles collided in the intersection. The plaintiffs were taken from the accident scene by ambulance and were treated for multiple injuries.

    The male plaintiff suffered a fractured hip and pelvis and other injuries. He eventually had to have a hip replacement, which he contended was because of the injuries he received in the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Accident. The male defendant contented that the hip replacement caused nerve damage and other complications. Because of the initial and ensuing injuries, the male plaintiff claimed that he could not complete many of the activities that he used to. The female defendant suffered from bilateral wrist fractures.

    The defendant at first claimed that he entered the intersection on a green light. However, an eye witness was willing to testify that the plaintiff couple had the right of way at the time of the accident. Later, the defendant said that he had turned on a red light, as he was trying to clear the intersection after the light had turned. However, even though the defendant eventually admitted that the plaintiffs had the right of way, he claimed that the accident did not affect them as much as they claimed. Both the plaintiffs were retired at the time of the accident, and the defendant claimed that the accident did not significantly affect their day-to-day lives.

    Just three weeks before the trial was set to begin, both sides decided to settle the case. The defendant in the case decided to concede negligence in the accident. In the end, the defendant settled with the plaintiff for $880,000. The female plaintiff was awarded $80,000, and the plaintiff husband was awarded $800,000.

    The defendant in the case rightly admitted negligence in the accident. Based on the potential testimony of an eye witness, the defendant had to admit wrongdoing. Because the defendant admitted negligence, it was just a question of what settlement would be given. Since the two plaintiffs suffered physical injuries as well as pain and suffering, it is appropriate that they received a settlement in the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Accident case.

  4. $28 Million, A Wrongful Death, Injuries and One Drunk Driving Accident

    May 28, 2014 by admin

    $28 Million was awarded to victims after a Wrongful Death & Injuries occurred in a Pennsylvania Drunk Driving Accident. Who is at fault when a drunk driver gets into an accident and injuries or kills people? Of course, the driver is at fault, but more and more cases are finding the establishments that furnished the alcohol to be at fault too. In this case, a drunk driver hit a vehicle with four passengers.

    One evening, the driver defendant left an “all you can drink” event at the Pittsburgh Elks Club Lodge. Approximately 0.2 miles away from the lodge, the driver struck a car with four occupants. A 24-year-old female died shortly after the accident because of severe blunt force trauma. Her 26-year-old boyfriend also suffered multiple fractures and blunt force trauma. Two other occupants were also seriously injured: A 22-year-old passenger suffered vertebral fractures, and another passenger in his 20s suffered a fractured femur. Sixth months after the accident, the 26-year-old male died of an overdose of pain medication. The plaintiffs claimed that his death was medically related to the case.

    The plaintiffs filed suit in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs named the driver as a defendant as well as the Elks Club Lodge, which provided the alcohol. The plaintiffs maintained that the defendant driver was found to have a blood alcohol content of 0.19. Also, they said that the plaintiff was visibly drunk while attending the social event at the lodge.

    On the day of the accident, the Elks Lodge held an all-you-can-drink event that lasted most of the day. At the event, the participants could pay one price and have unlimited drinks. The attendees served themselves beer at the event. An expert for the plaintiffs testified that the defendant driver most likely had about 17 drinks during the 6 hours he attended the event. A paramedic from the night of the accident explained that the defendant driver had physical signs of inebriation, including glassy eyes.

    The plaintiffs maintained that Elks Club Lodge never should have had a self-serve, all-you-can drink event. Further, they said that the lodge should have monitored people who had been drinking at the event to ensure no one was drinking and driving. Also, the plaintiffs said that the staff at the lodge had not been properly trained to see the signs of inebriation and “cut off” people who were drunk.

    The defendant maintained that  the 26-year-old deceased male took an intentional overdose of pain medication, making his death unrelated to the accident. However, the plaintiffs maintained that the post-mortem examination revealed a number of drugs in the man’s system, leading medical professionals to believe the overdose was unintentional and, therefore, related to the accident.

    In the end, the jury awarded the plaintiffs a huge $28 million award. The jury award the deceased female $7,750,000 of the total. They then awarded $500,000 for pain and suffering, $7,000 for past economic loss, $1,300,000 for future economic loss and $7,000,000 for the wrongful death claim for the 26-year-old male. The two other occupants received approximately $1.4 million. Of the award, $10 million was meant for punitive damages.

    The jury clearly believed that the Elk Club was at fault in the drunk driving accident, and the jury members felt this large sum was appropriate because of the severe repercussions of the accident. This case shows that many people believe that drunk driving is a serious offense, and even those furnishing the alcohol are at fault.

  5. $5 Million Awarded to Man Paralyzed in Portable Toilet Prank Accident

    May 18, 2014 by admin

    A Pennsylvania Man was Paralyzed due to Accident in Portable Toilet Prank & Receives $5 Million. Accidents are an unfortunate part of life. However, when other people’s negligence and ill-advised actions lead to accidents people can get seriously injured or killed. In this unfortunate case, a man filed suit  because negligent and harmful actions led to his being paralyzed from the neck down.

    The plaintiff in the case enjoyed the outdoors, and agreed to go on a trip with his cousin-in-laws. The plaintiff traveled to a lodge with his family members on a camping, hunting and fishing trip. The plaintiff and the defendants were visiting a lodge in Sullivan County, Pennsylvania. The establishment had no indoor plumbing or toilet, but it did have a portable restroom facility, a Poly-San portable toilet.

    The plaintiff in the case  was using the Poly-San portable toilet when the defendants decided to play a trick on him. They pulled their truck up against the portable toilet and blocked the door so the plaintiff could not exit. Then, they started to bang on the walls of the toilet to scare and startle the plaintiff. Eventually, the defendants overturned the toilet with the plaintiff still inside.

    When the toilet overturned, the plaintiff landed on his neck. The impact of the fall caused several major injuries. The plaintiff suffered laminar fractures to his fourth and fifth vertebrae. He also suffered from a burst fracture to his fifth vertebrae. The injuries to his spine were so severe that he became paralyzed from the shoulders down. The accident cause the plaintiff to be a quadriplegic.

    After the accident, the plaintiff filed suit in Sullivan County Court of Common Pleas. The plaintiff named Poly-San, Corp. as a defendant because the plaintiff claimed the toilet had a high center of gravity and was a tipping hazard. Furthermore, he argued that the toilet should have had stakes to secure it to the ground. The plaintiff also named Lewis C. as a defendant. This individual dropped off and installed the Poly-San portable toilet in which the accident occurred. Those two original defendants named Gerald G. and Barry W. (the plaintiff’s family members) as co-defendants. The original defendants claimed that these two men were solely responsible for the unit falling over and for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff. The case was resolved before it went to court, and the plaintiff received a settlement of $5 million.

    Because this case saw a man have his entire life changed, it was not a surprise that the defendants decided to settle before the case went to trial. Although the plaintiff will forever be paralyzed because of the accident, at least he and his family will have some financial help to get their lives back in shape.

  6. Family Awarded $125,000 in Pennsylvania Wrongful Death Case

    May 5, 2014 by admin

    A Family was Awarded $125,000 in a Pennsylvania Wrongful Death Case. For many Americans, driving or riding in vehicles is a part of everyday life. We usually don’t think about the dangers that motor vehicles can cause, but accidents involving motor vehicles are very common. Sometimes pedestrians get seriously injured or even killed because of these accidents. In this case, a woman was killed when she was struck by a vehicle that was allegedly moving too fast for conditions.

    On November 24, 2008, the plaintiffs were walking near Horace Avenue in Abington Township, Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs, including the deceased, then crossed the street at Highland Avenue. They were about to step onto the curb when the defendant driver approached, driving very quickly. Then, the defendant struck the deceased, and she was thrown 60 feet from the impact. The deceased’s son, who was with her at the time, tried to pull her away from the vehicle, but his hand was struck by the vehicle.

    After the deceased was struck, her son waited with her until first responders arrived. An ambulance took the woman to the hospital, where she was pronounced dead. The son then filed suit against the defendant driver in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs alleged that the driver was negligent in the accident. They claimed that the driver was traveling too fast for conditions, did not maintain a proper lookout, and did not pay close enough attention to pedestrian traffic. The plaintiffs also filed suit against the defendant township. They alleged that the township was also negligent in the accident. They claimed that the township should have had safer sidewalks and appropriate lighting installed in the area where the accident occurred.

    The defendant driver denied all negligence in the accident. The defendant township also claimed that they were not negligent in the accident. Both defendants in the case claimed that the accident happened because of the plaintiff’s negligence. Although the defendants denied responsibility, both sides decided to settle before taking the case to court. The defendant driver agreed to pay $100,000 to the plaintiffs, and the defendant township paid $25,000 to the plaintiffs. Although the original suit covered the son’s injury and intentional infliction of emotional distress, this settlement covered only the wrongful death and survival actions of the deceased.

    The family in this case endured a great loss that the monetary award cannot change. However, the award will help the family move past the terrible event. The settlement also proves that drivers must be held accountable when their negligence leads to accidents.

  7. A Tractor Trailer Accident Survivor was Awarded $1.25 Million in PA

    April 28, 2014 by admin

    A Tractor Trailer Accident Survivor was Awarded $1.25 Million in PA. Tractor trailers help move goods across the United States, but they can also be quite dangerous and can cause terrible accidents. In this case, three separate tractor trailers were involved in a serious collision.

    On April 23, 2008, the plaintiff and the two co-defendants were all traveling along the Pennsylvania Turnpike in Cranberry Township, Pennsylvania. The first co-defendant was pulling out onto the turnpike when the second co-defendant struck the first. This collision caused the first tractor trailer to overturn and block the traveling lane. The plaintiff, P. Keifer, was driving a third tractor trailer along the same route. At approximately 4:30 a.m., he struck the first tractor trailer, which blocked the roadway.

    The plaintiff filed suit against the first truck driver, the second truck driver, and both their trucking companies. J. Bathazar, the first defendant driver, pulled into the right westbound lane from a pull-off area at the time of accident. He claimed that the second defendant was negligent for striking the rear of his vehicle. The first defendant’s company was Werner Enterprises. The second defendant was S. Matheney, and his trucking company was Reinhart Foodservices. The plaintiff claimed the second defendant was negligent for not avoiding the original rear collision.

    Because of the trucking accident, the plaintiff suffered a subarachnoid-subdural hematoma and had to undergo a craniotomy. He also suffered from rips in the colon and from internal bleeding. He also received a number of bone fractures because of the accident. The plaintiff claimed that the he lost $300,000 because of the accident due to lost wages and medical expenses. The plaintiff was 61 at the time of the accident, and he claimed that he had to retire early (three years after the accident) because of injuries he sustained during the accident.

    An expert for the plaintiff claimed that the two defendant drivers were negligent for the tractor trailer accident. The expert claimed that the overturned tractor trailer’s illuminated parts were all out of the viewing area of the plaintiff, so he could not have seen the trailer in enough time to avoid the accident. The expert testified that the plaintiff could not have avoided the accident.

    After the trial, the jury found that the first defendant was 50 percent negligent, and the second defendant was also 50 percent negligent. The jury found that the plaintiff was not negligent in the accident. The jury awarded the plaintiff a total of $1,257,458 in damages.

    Since tractor trailers are large, fast-moving vehicles, it is vital that drivers operate these vehicles responsibly. The jury in this case decided that the two defendant drivers had been negligent in their driving. Although the plaintiff was harmed seriously in the accident, he was justly compensated in this case.

  8. Pennsylvania Wrongful Death Case Awarded $4 Million Dollars

    April 24, 2014 by admin

    Pennsylvania Wrongful Death Case Awarded the Victim’s Family $4 Million Dollars due to Medical Malpractice. When we are sick or are injured, we rely on doctors and other medical professionals to diagnose and care for us. However, when doctors fail to diagnose serious ailments, people can be severely injured or can die. In this case, a 42-year-old woman died when her doctor and medical team failed to diagnose an intercrainial bleed.

    On May 19, 2008, the deceased went to the hospital complaining of pulsating pressure from her neck to the top of her head, a severe headache, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. Although the deceased made these complaints, the attending physician ordered a CT scan and an X-ray of the head and spine for the next day, instead of that day. The next day (May 20, 2008), the deceased arrived at the physician’s hospital and received the CT scan and X-ray. The radiologist read the CT scan and said it was “unremarkable,” not diagnosing the subarachnoid hemorrhage the deceased suffered from. The medical team diagnosed the deceased with nuchal rigidity based on the X-ray. The deceased was prescribed physical therapy, but no further tests were done.

    On May 26, 2008, the deceased went back to the same hospital complaining of tailbone pain, neck spasms, throbbing in the head, and stiffness in the back. A second emergency room physician saw the deceased. This physician prescribed pain medication, believing that the patient was just suffering from the previously diagnosed nuchal rigidity. The deceased went home without being properly diagnosed.

    On June 1, 2008, the deceased suffered from nausea and vomiting. She was taken to a different hospital emergency room. There, she was correctly diagnosed with a large right anterior frontal lobe parenchymal hematoma with intraventricular hemorrhage. The patient was taken to another hospital. Despite the correct diagnosis, the deceased’s condition worsened, and she died on June 4, 2008.

    The emergency room physicians were both named as defendants, and they settled with the plaintiffs before the trial. The other plaintiff was the radiologist that reviewed the CT scan and X-ray from the first time the deceased came the hospital. The radiologist testified that malpractice did occur, but it was the two emergency room physicians who were negligent. The radiologist maintained that the first emergency room physician deviated from the standard of care by not ordering the CT scan and X-ray on the first day. Also, the defense said the second physician should have recognized that the deceased’s symptoms were consistent with subarachnoid hemorrhage. The plaintiff and the two emergency room physicians claimed that the defendant radiologist deviated from the standard of care by not diagnosing the intercrainial bleed.

    The jury found that each of the two emergency room physicians were 15 percent negligent in the case. They also found the radiologist defendant was 70 percent medically negligent. The jury awarded the plaintiffs a total of $4,049,544. This included $3,749,424 for the decedent’s son, $75,070 for the decedent’s husband, and $225,050 for the decedent’s estate.

    The plaintiffs in this case suffered a terrible loss of a mother, wife, breadwinner, and caretaker. Although the court could never bring back their loved one, it rightly awarded the plaintiffs a significant amount of money. This decision proves that medical professionals must be held accountable when they make mistakes that harm, instead of help, their patients.

  9. Distracted Driving Accident Case Results in $250,000 Award for Victim

    April 21, 2014 by admin

    PA Motor Vehicle Negligence Case Results in $250,000 Award for Victim. Distracted driving is becoming an epidemic in the United States. Far too often, people are texting, answering phone calls, eating, or completing other activities while driving. These activities are keeping them from driving attentively. Distracted driving can cause devastating accidents, and many people have been injured or killed because of these accidents. The plaintiff in this case was injured because of the defendant’s negligence and thus resulting distracted driving accident.

    On November 25, 2009, the female plaintiff was walking southbound on the north side of Bristol Pike in Bensalem, Pennsylvania. Around 10:30 a.m., the defendant was traveling the same route. The defendant lost control of the vehicle and struck the plaintiff without warning. The plaintiff contended that the defendant lost control of the vehicle because of distracted driving. At the time of the accident, the defendant was distracted by trying to pick up his cell phone. Reaching for the phone distracted the defendant from the road, and he swerved directly into the plaintiff, giving her no time to avoid the accident.

    Because of the accident, the plaintiff suffered a number of medical problems. She suffered a  grade I open tibia fracture, a right distal segment, and a distal third fracture. The plaintiff also testified that after undergoing a number of medical procedures, she suffered from  surgical scarring. Because of the trauma of the accident, the plaintiff also claimed that she suffered from post-traumatic stress after the accident. The plaintiff filed suit against the defendant in Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, in this motor vehicle negligence case.

    The defendant in the case did not answer the plaintiff’s complaint, so he did not testify or have counsel testify in the trial. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was negligent in the accident. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant probably would not have collided with her if he had not reach for his cell phone while driving. She also claimed he did not exercise the appropriate caution while operating his motor vehicle.

    The judge in the case decided in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendant was found to be negligent. The judge awarded the plaintiff $250,000 in damages. The judge in this case made the right decision by awarding money to the plaintiff. The defendant driver was clearly negligent by allowing himself to become distracted while driving. If the defendant had focused on his driving, the accident would most likely have been avoided. This case is important because the public has to be aware that distracted driving is dangerous, and it can have serious consequences.

  10. Jury Awards $1.5 Million in Dangerous Road Car Accident Case

    April 17, 2014 by admin

    A Jury Awards $1.5 Million in Dangerous Road Car Accident Case in Lawrence County, Pennsylvania. Driving on the roadways can be dangerous even when road conditions are perfect. However, when roads are poorly maintained, driving can be even more perilous. We expect state and local governments to properly construct and care for the roads we drive on every day. In this case, a man was severely injured in a car crash because the road he was traveling on was not properly cared for.

    On September 16, 2000, the plaintiff in the case was traveling along State Route 2028 in Lawrence County, Pennsylvania. While driving, the plaintiff saw a dog in his lane of traffic (the road had only one lane in either direction). He swerved into the eastbound lane to avoid hitting the dog. Then, he swerved back into the westbound lane to avoid oncoming traffic. When he moved back into his lane, the plaintiff’s car tires dropped off the paved part of the road onto the berm. The plaintiff tried to move the vehicle back onto the paved road, but the vehicle did not respond. The plaintiff’s vehicle rolled a number of times down an embankment.

    At the time of the Car accident, the plaintiff was 49 years old. As a result of the accident, he suffered brain damage, cognitive defects, and other injuries. The plaintiff spent three weeks in the hospital and six weeks in a nursing home following the accident. An economist testified that the plaintiff suffered wage losses totaling close to $750,000 because he filed for permanent disability after the accident.

    An engineering expert for the plaintiff testified in the case. The expert stated that PennDOT (the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation) considered a berm drop-off of two inches or more to be a hazard. The expert testified that the berm drop-off in question ranged in size from two inches to seven inches. Furthermore, the expert claimed that this type of berm would have made it extremely difficult to safely steer the plaintiff’s vehicle back onto the roadway.

    The defendant in the case, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, claimed that the berm drop-off did not have an effect on the plaintiff’s accident. An expert for the defendant testified that the plaintiff’s accident would have happened regardless of the berm because the plaintiff never actually tried to steer back onto the roadway. Instead, the expert said that the plaintiff over corrected too much and drove off the embankment without attempting to steer back onto the roadway.

    After a short deliberation, the jury found that the defendant was 100 percent negligent in the case. Because of this, they awarded the plaintiff a total of $1.5 million in damages. They found that the plaintiff should receive $700,000 for pain and suffering and $750,000 for lost income. The defendant’s liability was capped at $250,000.

    The jury in this case made the right decision. They realized that the plaintiff likely would not have been in an accident and injured if it was not for the defect in the road. The jury most likely wanted to make a statement that local and state governments must be more vigilant about caring for the roads so that similar accidents do not happen in the future.

CategoriesPosts by Date
December 2017
« May    

Recent Posts

Montgomery County Medical Malpractice Negligence from Diverticulitis

A Montgomery County Medical Malpractice Negligence  Case results in Wrongful Death from Diverticulitis. In March of 2005, a 60-year-old Montgomery County, PA woman underwent a colonoscopy and it was determined…

Pennsylvania Construction Accident grants Family $5 Million

A Pennsylvania Construction Accident Case grants the victim's Family $5 Million in Wrongful Death suit. Some jobs are more dangerous than others, but even jobs that pose risks—such as construction—should not…

Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Accident Case Settles for $880,000

A Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Accident Case Settles for $880,000 in Mahoning Township. When motor vehicle accidents occur, often one or more of the participants was negligent. Driving can be dangerous…

Practice Areas