On August 25, 2022, after extensive debate and consideration, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court adopted amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure to eliminate restrictions regarding Venue (where a lawsuit can be filed) that provided preferential treatment to Hospitals and Doctors in Medical Malpractice cases.

The amendments level the playing field between Victims and Health Professionals by removing a special Venue restriction providing that a lawsuit could only be filed in the County where the Malpractice occurred. Instead, Malpractice cases are treated like any other Injury case or Civil Lawsuit in which Venue is proper not just in the County where the incident occurred, but also any County where the Defendant can be served or regularly conducts business.

It is expected that the Venue change will level the playing field for Malpractice Victims by eliminating the huge advantage that Hospitals and Doctors enjoyed when defending Malpractice cases in suburban and rural counties which are notorious for Defense Verdicts or low monetary awards that do not fully compensate injury Victims.

Nevertheless, it is uncertain as to whether the Pennsylvania Legislature will take steps to attempt to reverse the Supreme Court’s action through legislation or a Constitutional Amendment.

What is Venue?

Venue is the place where something happens and, in the context of a lawsuit in Pennsylvania, it’s the County or Counties in which a lawsuit can be filed.

The general Venue rule for Civil Lawsuits in Pennsylvania is that a Defendant can be sued in the County (1) where the transaction or occurrence happened; (2) where the Defendant can be served with lawsuit papers; or (3) where the Defendant regularly conducts business.

So, when the Victim has an Injury claim, often he/she can choose from multiple Counties when deciding the Venue for the lawsuit.

The procedural rules allow the Victim to choose the Venue. However, the rules also allow the Defendant to object to the Venue if the chosen Venue for a particular case is very inconvenient for the parties or witnesses, in which case a Judge can decide to transfer Venue to a more appropriate County.

How Did Medical Malpractice Defendants Get a Preferential Venue Rule?

In 2002, in response to a perceived “Medical Malpractice Crisis” of a high number of case filings, high verdicts and increasing insurance premiums, the Pennsylvania legislature passed the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Act which, in part, implemented preferential Venue rules for Medical Malpractice cases.

Rather than Medical Malpractice Victims having a right to choose from multiple Counties, the Venue rule change provided that Venue of Medical Malpractice case was limited to “the county in which the cause of action arose.”

So, if an injury occurred in a Hospital in Chester County, the Venue for the Malpractice claim had to be Chester County, even if the Hospital had other locations in other Counties.

What Was the Problem with the Special Medical Malpractice Venue Rule?

On its face, the special rule may seem to make sense. Why not have the lawsuit Venue be limited to the location where the injury occurred?

The answer is fundamental fairness. Why should Hospitals, Doctors and other Medical Professional be entitled to special rules? Other injury cases can have Venue in multiple counties, so why limit the choices of a Malpractice Victim?

More importantly, the special Venue granted a clear advantage for Defendants in many cases.

Statistically, it is known that the urban counties of Pennsylvania, particularly Philadelphia and Allegheny Counties, have more favorable results in terms of both win/loss percentages and amount of compensation awarded in Medical Malpractice cases compared to suburban or rural counties.

So, if a Medical Malpractice Victim was injured in a suburban or rural County, he/she was put behind the eight ball by the special Venue rule, making it much more likely that he/she would lose the case outright or get a low verdict. This results in Medical Malpractice Victims receiving unfair treatment from our Court system compared to other litigants.

At the same time, there is no doubt that the special Venue rule, resulted in many non-catastrophic Medical Malpractice cases in suburban or rural Counties not being filed at all because of the risk of losing or getting and unfair Verdict in an unsympathetic Venue. It can also be argued that lack of accountability for all Medical Mistakes have likely made Pennsylvania’s medical institutions less safe. Accountability creates a financial incentive to improve safety.

Why and How were the Medical Malpractice Venue Rules Changed?

After extensive study and debate, the Rules Committee proposed the change to eliminate the special Venue rules for Medical Malpractice claims.

The Committee determined that the basic rationale in favor of the special Venue rules was the premise that juries in less populous counties are more likely to side in favor of Medical defendants and/or to award less compensation and that this was fundamentally unfair to the Victims.

The Committee concluded that Medical Malpractice claims should have the same Venue rules as any other Injury claim. The Committee also noted that the general Venue rules have safeguards for Defendants allowing them to object to improper or inconvenient Venue.

Ultimately, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed with the Committee and, on August 25, 2022, amended the Venue rules eliminating the special treatment for Medical Malpractice claims. The Rule change becomes effective on January 1, 2023.

A backlash is expected from the insurance industry and it remains to be seen whether it will be able to convince the Pennsylvania Legislature to reinstate the Venue restriction through legislation or Constitutional Amendment.

However, for the time being it appears that the playing field for litigation between Victims of Medical Malpractice and the Medical Providers will be leveled on January 1, 2023.

Tim Rayne is a Medical Malpractice and Personal Injury Lawyer with the Chester County based law firm MacElree Harvey. For over 25 years, Tim has been helping injured victims of accidents and Medical Malpractice understand their legal rights and receive fair compensation for their injuries. Contact Tim at 610-840-0124 or trayne@macelree.com or visit his Website www.TimRayneLaw.com.

According to the US Consumer Product Safety Commission, 3,000 people are injured each year by beach umbrellas. The most common and sometimes deadly injuries involve bystanders being hit or even impaled by a flying beach umbrella dislodged by high winds.

A flying beach umbrella turned lethal this week in South Carolina when it struck and killed a 63 year old woman.

A similar death occurred in 2016 when a 55 year old woman was impaled by a windblown beach umbrella in Virginia Beach.

Summer Safety Lesson – Be Careful with Beach Umbrellas

When using your beach umbrellas make sure that the conditions are appropriate for umbrellas. If it’s too windy, don’t risk it.

If conditions allow safe use of a beach umbrella, don’t half-ass it! Make sure that you properly anchor the umbrella so it won’t fly away and injure someone.

Also, never leave the area with the umbrella still up. If you plan to take a long walk or go back to the house for lunch, put the umbrella down. Weather conditions can change quickly in the Summer resulting in high winds and dangerous/deadly flying umbrellas.

Case in Point from My Law Practice – Case of the Flying Umbrella

It wasn’t on the beach, but I recently represented a woman who was injured by a flying beach umbrella.

A private club had plastic picnic tables with large beach umbrellas threaded through the center of them that they failed to anchor securely in a heavy base. On a night that strong thunderstorms were forecasted and many elderly guest were present, the facility decided to leave the umbrellas up.

When a storm arrived, strong gusts of wind blew through the area and sent the umbrellas flying.

One of the umbrellas struck my client, knocked her over and she broke her hip, requiring surgery and a long and painful rehab.

Our lawsuit against the facility was ultimately successful because it was Negligent for failing to properly secure the umbrellas.

The PACT Act (Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxins) was signed into Law on August 10, 2022 which, among many other benefits to Veterans, opens the door to Victims of Contaminated Water at Camp Lejeune (Camp Lejeune Justice Act) to seek fair compensation for their injuries. So, if you or a loved one lived at Camp Lejeune or MCAS New River between 1953 and 1987, then you may be entitled to compensation for a number of illnesses related to contaminated water.

What Happened at Camp Lejeune to Contaminate the Water Supply?

US Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, North Carolina was opened in 1942. In 1982, the Marine Corps discovered that there were toxic volatile organic compounds (VOC’s) in the Base’s drinking water. The contamination had come from irresponsible waste dumping on the Base as well as illegal waste disposal practices by an off-base dry cleaning firm.

It is estimated that as many as one million military personnel, civilian staff and family members were exposed to the contaminated drinking water.

What Health Issues and Illnesses Resulted from the Water Contamination at Camp Lejeune?

Many health conditions are presumed to have been caused by the Water Contamination at Camp Lejeune including but not limited to:

• Adult Lukemia
• Aplastic anema
• Bladder Cancer
• Kidney Cancer
• Liver Cancer
• Multiple myeloma
• Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma
• Parkinson’s Disease

If you or a loved one have one of these conditions and lived at Camp Lejeune, then you may have viable legal claims.

What are Your Rights If you Lived at Camp Lejeune and Have an Illness that Resulted from the Water Contamination?

If you resided at Camp Lejeune between 1953 and 1987 and have been diagnosed with an illness listed above, then you may be entitled to compensation or other benefits. You should gather proof of your service at Camp Lejeune as well as your medical records and contact an attorney to learn more about your legal rights.

There are Time Limits so do not delay.

Contact Tim Rayne at trayne@macelree.com or 610-840-0124 to learn more.

A Texas Jury awarded a Verdict totaling nearly $50 Million after a Defamation Trial against conspiracy theorist and personality Alex Jones who claimed that the Sandy Hook School Massacre was a government-staged hoax designed to take away Second Amendment right to own guns.

The parents of a 6 year old victim of the Sandy Hook Shooting had sued Alex Jones for $150 Million after he told followers on his website and his Infowars broadcast that the shooting was staged to push an anti-gun agenda. The parents alleged that they were repeated harassed by Jones’ followers who claimed that they were lying about the death of their son. In reality, the Sandy Hook shooting was the second-deadliest shoot shooting in which 20 six and seven year olds along with 6 adults were shot and killed.

Over the last decade, Jones has built a media empire based in Texas with reported 2021 income of nearly $62 Million but this lawsuit and others threaten to put him out of business.

In the middle of this Texas Trial, Jones attempted to stay the trial by filing for Bankruptcy but his efforts were unsuccessful.

The Jury Verdict came in two parts, $4.1 million in Compensatory Damages designed to make up for the damages and emotional distress suffered by the parents and $45.2 Million in Punitive Damages designed to punish Jones and deter him from engaging in this outrageous conduct in the future.

Coming on the heels of the Johnny Depp/Amber Herd Defamation Trial, this is another high profile Defamation Trial and Verdict. Like the Johnny Depp Verdict, the question remains as to whether the Verdict will stand and be paid.

Tim Rayne is a Pennsylvania Personal Injury Lawyer with the Chester County Law Firm MacElree Harvey. Tim can be contacted at 610-840-0124 or trayne@macelree.com or you can check out his website at www.TimRayneLaw.com.

On July 22, 2022, a Chester County Jury awarded a record-setting $18 Million Verdict in a Medical Malpractice Cancer Delayed Diagnosis Case.

Although it was not my case (I wish it had been), the case serves as a good example of how a Jury Verdict holds careless medical providers accountable and encourages all medical providers to follow standard medical procedures to protect their patients from unnecessary harm.

At the same time, a fair Jury Verdict provides compensation to the victim of Malpractice to make up for his/her harm and losses.

What Happened in the Kerri Downes Medical Malpractice Case?

In March of 2018, 22 year old Kerri Downes felt a small lump in her right breast. She schedule an appointment with her doctor, but like many of us, found that she would only be seen by a Nurse Practitioner(NP), not a Doctor.

During her appointment, Kerri showed the NP the location of the lump, but the NP did not properly document its location, size or feel. More importantly, the NP did not send Kerri for any follow-up diagnostic testing. Instead, she directed Kerri to return in a few weeks during her menstrual cycle for another breast check.

The supervising Doctor for the NP reviewed the note of Kerri’s visit and signed off on the treatment plan.

When Kerri returned, she again pointed out the lump but, like before, the NP did not properly document her physical exam of the lump and did not recommend any diagnostic testing. Rather, she told Kerri that there was nothing to worry about and to return on an as needed basis.

Yet again, the supervising Doctor signed off on the NP’s office note and treatment plan.

By December, Kerri’s lump had grown to the size of a golf ball and she made a return appointment. This time, Kerri was sent for immediate diagnostic testing that revealed Stage II Breast Cancer that had metastasized into the lymph nodes.

Kerri then required a double mastectomy and chemo and faces an increased risk of dying of cancer.

Conversely, had the NP done a proper examination back in March and sent Kerri for diagnostic testing, the cancer would have been caught much earlier, in Stage I, and a lumpectomy would have likely cured her cancer, saving her breasts and avoiding chemo and a decreased life expectancy.

What Was the Malpractice Claim Against the Nurse Practitioner, Doctor and Medical Practice?

Medical Providers are required to follow the Standard of Care when treating patients and if they don’t and either injure someone or increase the risk of harm, then they are held liable for the injuries and damages they cause.

In this case, the medical providers had a duty to properly evaluate and treat the breast lump that Kerri Downes discovered. The malpractice case was centered around the NP’s failure to properly examine the lump, document her findings and, most importantly to send Kerri for diagnostic testing that would have caught the cancer earlier and allowed prompt treatment to cure the cancer.

Kerri’s lawyers argued that the violation of the standard of care was clear and that Kerri suffered grave harm in the form of the need for more aggressive and disfiguring treatment and a worse long term outcome, including a significantly reduced life expectancy.

The Defense presented experts to challenge both the Standard of Care Violation and the Damage argument.

In the end, the Jury reached a record-setting Verdict of $18 Million, which is believed to be one of if not the largest Medical Malpractice Verdict in Chester County.

Why is this $18 Million Chester County Medical Malpractice Verdict Significant?

Medical Malpractice Verdicts are difficult to win, particularly in suburban counties like Chester County. The Counties outside of Philadelphia are typically considered to be doctor and defense-friendly, resulting in a large percentage of defense verdicts. Chester County, in particular, is generally viewed as a conservative jurisdiction where defense verdicts or low Personal Injury and Medical Malpractice awards are prevalent.

Nevertheless, the huge verdict in the Kerri Downes case should be a wake up call to doctors, defense lawyers and insurance companies. It proves that a good case (with great lawyers) can result in a large verdict.

I’m not sure it played a part, but to me there is something wrong in our medical system when we pay for treatment by Doctors but seem to be increasingly seen by Nurse Practitioners or Physician Assistants who, although usually well-trained and competent, just do not have all of the education and training of a licensed Doctor. This seems to be motivated by profit-seeking, having lower paid personnel see dozens of patients every day, while freeing up the Doctors to see other patients.

In addition, the Jury probably viewed the Doctor “supervision and oversight” of the NP as a mere rubber stamp which, in this case, was harmful and could have been fatal.

Tim Rayne is a Personal Injury, Medical Malpractice and Car Accident Lawyer with the Chester County Law Firm MacElree Harvey. For over 25 years Tim has been helping accident victims understand their legal rights and receive fair compensation from Insurance Companies and Juries. Contact Tim Rayne for a Free Consultation at 610-840-0124 or trayne@macelree.com.

When you buy Car Insurance in Pennsylvania, you have to choose Full Tort or Limited Tort. When you make the election, it’s an important decision because valuable Legal Rights are at stake for both you and your family members who are covered by the Policy.

Here are some things that your Car Insurance Agent may not have told you about the Full Tort versus Limited Tort issue.

What is the Difference Between Full Tort and Limited Tort?

Full Tort costs more money in insurance premiums, but it preserves your full legal rights to compensation after being injured in a car accident caused by someone else.

Limited Tort costs less, but important legal rights to compensation are sacrificed.

With Limited Tort, in exchange for lower premiums, you are usually prohibited from making a claim to be compensated for non-economic damages (things like Pain and Suffering, Scarring and Disfigurement and the negative impact on your lifestyle and activities caused by the injuries).

In most car accidents, if you are covered by Limited Tort you cannot recover money for your non-economic damages unless you suffer a Serious Injury which is defined as death, serious and permanent disfigurement or serious impairment of body function.

Who is Impacted By the Full Tort/Limited Tort Election?

The Full Tort/Limited Tort Election usually impacts more people than just you. The Election can impact all of the family members who reside with you.

If you buy the car insurance for your family and have the only policy in your household, then your Tort Election covers every family member who resides in your home. So, if you choose Limited Tort, your spouse, children and other family members residing in the home are bound by that election, unless they have their own car insurance policy in which case their own Tort Election will govern their rights.

What Types of Accidents are Covered by the Limited Tort Election?

There is some good news. Even if you are covered by Limited Tort, that election will limit your recovery of damages only for car accidents.

If you are injured as a motorcycle or bicycle rider, as a pedestrian, or as a bus passenger, the Limited Tort Election will not limit your legal rights to compensation.

Limited Tort Does Not Apply to All Car Accidents

More good news. There are other circumstances in which the election of Limited Tort will not impair your legal right to compensation. They are called Limited Tort Exceptions. If one of these Exceptions applies, then you can recover non-economic damages even though you chose Limited Tort.

Limited Tort Exceptions include the following: 1- a car accident caused by someone driving a vehicle registered outside of the state of Pennsylvania; 2- the person who caused the accident was convicted of or pled guilty to driving under the influence; or 3- the person who caused the accident was uninsured.

If one of those scenarios occurs, then you can claim non-economic damages even though you elected Limited Tort.

Tim Rayne is a Pennsylvania Car Accident Lawyer with the law firm MacElree Harvey. Tim has offices in Kennett Square and West Chester Pennsylvania and also meets with clients at their homes or virtually via Zoom or FaceTime. Contact Tim Rayne for a Free Consultation at 610-840-0124 or trayne@macelree.com or check out his website at www.TimRayneLaw.com.