I have had a few Personal Injury cases in my career that I expected to be straightforward and simple; that the negligence of the defendant and injuries to my client seemed so clear that, surely, there would be no fight and I would be able to obtain swift justice.  That was certainly the case for my client who was injured in an operating room fire.  Unfortunately for her, I was wrong, and the doctors and their insurance companies took the case to the eve of trial before finally agreeing to settle and pay fair compensation.  This is the case of two careless doctors and the operating room fire.

Fire In The Operating Room

The Case
The trouble all began when my client noticed a suspicious looking mole above her right eyebrow and, fearing cancer, her family doctor recommended that it be removed by a general surgeon.  The surgeon promised that it would be a simple, forty-five minute outpatient procedure and that my client would be home before lunch.  He was wrong and, in reality, she would spend eight days (including Christmas) in the hospital before returning home.

There were two doctors involved with the mole removal surgery; a surgeon and an anesthesiologist.  The anesthesiologist put my client to sleep and was monitoring her.  He also chose to administer oxygen during the surgery to my client by way of a face mask.  At the same time, the surgeon was to remove the mole and close the wound.

After the surgery started, the anesthesiologist who began the procedure took his lunch break and was relieved by one of his partners.  Shortly thereafter, the surgeon removed the mole and decided to use a Bovie Cautery device to control some bleeding points on the wound.  A Bovie Cautery is a surgical tool that uses an electrical charge to cauterize wounds and stop bleeding.  Unfortunately, as the surgeon used the Bovie, the client’s eyebrow started singeing and the Bovie sparked.  This source of fire mixed with the 100% oxygen leaking from my client’s face mask and ignited a fire which engulfed her face, chest and shoulder.  Although the substitute anesthesiologist quickly turned off the oxygen and the surgeon and nurses put out the fire, my client suffered widespread first and second degree burns, spent eight days in a burn center wrapped up like a mummy, and relied on morphine for pain control.  After her release from the burn center, she spent about six months in painful recovery from her wounds and suffered from some scarring and extreme sun sensitivity.

The Malpractice Case
To prove our case of medical malpractice, we retained expert doctors to study the fire.  These experts concluded that both doctors committed malpractice.  The surgeon should not have used the Bovie while oxygen was being delivered by mask and the anesthesiologist should have seen the Bovie and turned off the oxygen.  The negligent failure of the two doctors to work together and properly communicate with each other caused the fire and serious injuries.  If they had followed proper procedures, the fire would have been avoided.

 The Result
Much to my surprise, the doctors and their insurance companies did not immediately offer my client fair compensation for her medical bills, pain and suffering, and disfigurement.  Instead, each doctor hired its own expert and said that either the fire was a freak accident or that it was the other doctor’s fault.  In effect, each doctor tried to push blame to the other.  This strategy continued until just a week before trial.  At that time, realizing that we had properly prepared for trial and that a jury might be outraged by the fire itself and the defense tactics of calling it a freak accident or blaming each other, the insurance companies finally paid full and fair compensation to my client.

 The Lesson
This case taught me an important lesson to prepare every case like a trial is certain, because only if you are ready to win will the insurance company treat you and your client with respect.

Tim is a graduate of Widener University School of Law (J.D.) and the Temple University Beasley School of Law (Master’s Degree in Trial Advocacy). Tim focuses his practice in Personal Injury law, including car, truck, motorcycle, bicycle and pedestrian accidents, slip and falls, dangerous products/products liability cases and medical malpractice. Tim is a partner in the Chester County, PA, law firm of MacElree Harvey and has offices in Kennett Square and West Chester, PA, and Centreville, DE. Tim is the author of numerous publications on Personal Injury law and writes a Blog providing news and information on Personal Injury law at www.macelree.com/traynelaw and is a columnist for The Kennett Paper writing a column titled “Legal Lines.” Tim has also published two books on Personal Injury law: “A Lawyer’s Guide to Purchasing Car Insurance” and “A Lawyer’s Guide to Personal Injury Cases.” In 2007, Tim was named by Main Line Today as one of the area’s Top Personal Injury Litigators. In addition, Tim is a member of the Million Dollar Advocates Forum which recognizes the “Top Trial Lawyers in America,” with membership limited to attorneys who have won million dollar awards and settlements on behalf of their clients.

Tim can be reached by phone at 610-840-0124, by email at trayne@macelree.com or on his Blog at www.macelree.com/traynelaw.

 Kennett Square, PA - June 4, 2009:  Tim Rayne, a partner with the Chester County law firm of MacElree Harvey, was recently named a “2009″ Super Lawyer in the field of Personal Injury law by Super Lawyers Magazine.  The most recent Super Lawyers list appears in the June 2009 issues of both Super Lawyers Magazine and Philadelphia Magazine.

The objective of the Super Lawyer designation is to create a credible, comprehensive, and diverse listing of outstanding attorneys that can be used as a resource for attorneys and consumers searching for legal counsel.

The Super Lawyers selection process involves three basic steps:  (1) Creation of a candidate pool through Peer Nominations; (2) Super Lawyers’ staff research of candidates regarding such things as verdicts; settlements; experience, honors and awards; special licenses and certifications; position within law firms; lectures and writings; and others; and, (3) Peer Review of research by other attorneys in the field.

Only 5% of the lawyers in the jurisdiction can be recognized as Super Lawyers.

Tim is proud to be named a Super Lawyer in the highly competitive field of Personal Injury law, where he focuses his practice on helping people who have been injured in accidents receive fair compensation from insurance companies.  Tim’s experience includes a wide variety of cases including motor vehicle accidents (car, truck, motorcycle and pedestrian), medical malpractice, slip and falls, and accidents caused by dangerous and defective products.

Tim publishes articles and books and writes a monthly column in The Kennett Paper to educate his clients and the general public on matters related to Personal Injury cases.  Tim has a Master’s Degree in Trial Advocacy and tries Personal Injury cases in state and federal courts.

Tim can be reached at 610-840-0124 or trayne@macelree.com.  Check out Tim’s Blog at
www.macelree.com/traynelaw.

Timothy F. Rayne
online at

visit superlawyers.com

Recently, the Pennsylvania Superior Court decided a Personal Injury case, Wittrien v. Burkholder, which arose out of a shooting which occurred in Lancaster County.  The central issue was whether parents of an adult child who lived with them and who legally purchased a gun could be held liable when he shot someone.  Although the parents were held blameless by the Court, the case teaches an important lesson about potential liability for the tort of Negligent Entrustment, which is allowing someone to use property which you control when they are likely to harm someone with it.

The Wittrien v. Burkholder Case

Gary Burkholder was 20 years old and lived with his parents.  When he was 18, Burkholder bought a shotgun and, at all times other than a short period when he had threatened suicide and his parents had briefly confiscated the gun, Burkholder had control of the gun.  About 5 to 7 months after his parents gave him the gun back, Burkholder shot Steven Wittrien and a New Holland police officer.  Wittrien sued Burkholder’s parents, alleging that they had been negligent in allowing their son to have the gun even though they knew that he had violent propensities, had a drinking problem and was heavily involved in the white supremacy movement.  Ultimately, the Court dismissed the lawsuit, primarily because Burkholder’s parents did not own the gun and because Burkholder was an adult who had ownership and control of the gun at all times, except during the brief period 5 to 7 months prior to the shooting when he had threatened suicide.

The Law of Negligent Entrustment

The state of Pennsylvania has adopted the Restatement (Second) of Torts provision regarding Negligent Entrustment which states:

Section 308:  Permitting Improper Persons to Use Things or Engage in Activities

It is negligence to permit a third party to use a thing or to engage in an activity
which is under the control of the actor, if the actor knows or should have know
that such person intends or is likely to use the thing or to conduct himself in a
manner as to create an unreasonable risk of harm to others.

Examples of Negligent Entrustment

The following are a few examples of situations that could be considered Negligent Entrustment and result in legal liability:

• Allowing a child or any novice to use a gun or other weapon without proper training and supervision;
  
• Allowing a child or any novice to use a tractor, power tool or any dangerous equipment or device without proper training and supervision;
  
• Lending a vehicle to someone when it is known that the person is a very bad driver or is under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

So, the lesson is to be careful who you lend things to or what you let inexperienced people do with things under your control because, if you could have anticipated the danger, you may be held liable for any accidents which occur.

Tim is a graduate of Widener University School of Law (J.D.) and the Temple University Beasley School of Law (Master’s Degree in Trial Advocacy). Tim focuses his practice in Personal Injury law, including car, truck, motorcycle, bicycle and pedestrian accidents, slip and falls, dangerous products/products liability cases and medical malpractice. Tim is a partner in the Chester County, PA, law firm of MacElree Harvey and has offices in Kennett Square and West Chester, PA, and Centreville, DE. Tim is the author of numerous publications on Personal Injury law and writes a Blog providing news and information on Personal Injury law at www.macelree.com/traynelaw and is a columnist for The Kennett Paper writing a column titled “Legal Lines.” Tim has also published two books on Personal Injury law: “A Lawyer’s Guide to Purchasing Car Insurance” and “A Lawyer’s Guide to Personal Injury Cases.” In 2007, Tim was named by Main Line Today as one of the area’s Top Personal Injury Litigators. In addition, Tim is a member of the Million Dollar Advocates Forum which recognizes the “Top Trial Lawyers in America,” with membership limited to attorneys who have won million dollar awards and settlements on behalf of their clients.

Tim can be reached by phone at 610-840-0124, by email at trayne@macelree.com or on his Blog at www.macelree.com/traynelaw.

In 1988, in Newark, New Jersey, Rose Cippollone’s family won the first civil suit victory against a tobacco company in United States history.  What the Cippollone family did not realize, however, was that its legal battles were only beginning and that Liggett would fight the verdict to the Supreme Court, and beyond.

The Case

Rose Cippollone was born in New Jersey in 1925 and, like many young people lured by slick tobacco industry advertising, she began smoking at an early age.  Although there were medical studies linking smoking to health problems, they were not widely publicized.  The U.S. Surgeon General did not begin looking into the issue until 1962, and federal laws requiring warning labels were not passed until 1966.  Meanwhile, cigarette companies like Liggett had spent billions of dollars advertising the pleasures of smoking without any mention of the risks.

In 1982, Rose was diagnosed with lung cancer caused by smoking and, in 1983, she sued Liggett, the manufacturer of her favorite brands of cigarettes, Chesterfield and L&M.  Although Rose died in 1984, her family continued with the case and it went to trial in 1988.

During the four-month trial, the Cippollones introduced evidence establishing:

• Not only did the tobacco companies not warn of the risk of smoking but, to the contrary, they suggested that cigarette smoking was safe, harmless and had the support of medical doctors.
• Tobacco company documents showed a sophisticated conspiracy to refute, undermine, neutralize, confuse and mislead the public for the purpose of having people continue and start smoking.
• The tobacco companies challenged all evidence of smoking dangers while conducting no research until the 1950s and then set up a bogus Tobacco Institute Research Committee that was highly publicized as the industry’s good faith effort to search for the truth, but never did any legitimate research.

The Verdict

In the first ever verdict against a tobacco company, the jury found Liggett 20% responsible and Rose 80% responsible for her death and awarded $400,000.

Appeal and Surrender

Unfortunately for the Cippollones, the jury’s verdict was not the end of the case.  Liggett immediately appealed and the case crawled through the appellate courts, ultimately reaching the United State’s Supreme Court docket in 1991.  The central issue on appeal was whether or not federal legislation requiring cigarette warning labels prohibited personal injury lawsuits for failure to warn against the tobacco company.  In 1992, the Supreme Court held that the lawsuit was not prohibited, but that certain evidence was improperly admitted during the first trial which required a new trial.

Back to square one, facing the prospects of another lengthy trial against Liggett, the Cippollone family chose to give up rather than retry the case.  The lesson was that tobacco companies could be beat, but that it would take a very determined plaintiff to get the job done.

Tim is a graduate of Widener University School of Law (J.D.) and the Temple University Beasley School of Law (Master’s Degree in Trial Advocacy).  Tim focuses his practice in Personal Injury law, including car, truck, motorcycle, bicycle and pedestrian accidents, slip and falls, dangerous products/products liability cases and medical malpractice.  Tim is a partner in the Chester County, PA, law firm of MacElree Harvey and has offices in Kennett Square and West Chester, PA, and Centreville, DE.  Tim is the author of numerous publications on Personal Injury law and writes a Blog providing news and information on Personal Injury law at www.macelree.com/traynelaw and is a columnist for The Kennett Paper writing a column titled “Legal Lines.”  Tim has also published two books on Personal Injury law:  “A Lawyer’s Guide to Purchasing Car Insurance” and “A Lawyer’s Guide to Personal Injury Cases.”  In 2007, Tim was named by Main Line Today as one of the area’s Top Personal Injury Litigators.  In addition, Tim is a member of the Million Dollar Advocates Forum which recognizes the “Top Trial Lawyers in America,” with membership limited to attorneys who have won million dollar awards and settlements on behalf of their clients.

Tim can be reached by phone at 610-840-0124, by email at trayne@macelree.com or on his Blog at http://www.macelree.com/traynelaw .

On March 23, 1989, the Exxon Valdez oil tanker ran aground on a reef in the Alaskan Prince William Sound, spilling 11 million gallons of oil and contaminating 1,300 miles of beaches.  It was the worst oil spill in American History and evidence quickly surfaced that the tanker’s captain had been drinking and was absent from the wheelhouse at the time of the crash and that Exxon had knowingly put a “recovering” alcoholic in charge of a ship carrying 55 million gallons of crude oil through pristine Alaskan waters.  Shortly after the disaster, a class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of 32,000 fisherman, Alaskan natives, property owners and others whose livelihoods were destroyed by the spill.  Not surprisingly, due to its magnitude, this case made it all the way to the United States Supreme Court.

The Trial

The millions of gallons of spilled oil spread through the Prince William Sound, killed thousands of sea creatures and contaminated fishing grounds and beaches.  Separate and apart from the environmental damage, the spill caused massive economic losses to local businesses, workers and property owners.  Hundreds of lawsuits were filed as a result of the Valdez disaster.

The largest lawsuit was the federal class action suit filed on behalf of local fisherman and property owners.  Because Exxon admitted that it had been negligent and caused the spill, there were essentially three issues in the case:  (1) What compensatory damages should be paid to the people harmed by the spill?; (2) Had Exxon been reckless so as to justify an award of punitive damages?; and, if so (3) What amount of punitive damages would be appropriate? 

In a lawsuit, “compensatory damages” are meant to make up for the actual loss suffered, while “punitive damages” are designed to punish or deter a defendant who has acted recklessly and outrageously.

After years of trial preparation involving the production of millions of documents and the interviewing of thousands of injured parties and expert witnesses for both the class and Exxon, trial started on May 2, 1994.  The critical evidence at trial for the main issue in the case, punitive damages, involved proof that:

• Exxon was aware of the risks of transporting crude oil in the Prince William Sound;
• Exxon ignored the risk of having a known alcoholic captain a supertanker;
• Exxon was reckless in returning the caption to sea without proper supervision;
• The captain abused alcohol on the night of the disaster (he admitted to drinking at least three vodkas);
• The captain was reckless for turning over the tanker to an inexperienced, unqualified and fatigued third mate when they were crossing treacherous reefs;
• In terms of an adequate amount of punitive damages (to punish and deter), the class proved that Exxon had average net profits of $15 billion per year and had its stock increase in value by $20 billion since the spill.

Exxon denied that the captain was drunk and claimed that he was carefully supervised.Ultimately, the jury decided that Exxon had been reckless and that punitive damages were appropriate.  The jury awarded $287 million in compensatory damages (much less than claimed by the class) and $5 billion in punitive damages.The Appeals

Tim is a graduate of Widener University School of Law (J.D.) and the Temple University Beasley School of Law (Master’s Degree in Trial Advocacy).  Tim focuses his practice in Personal Injury law, including car, truck, motorcycle, bicycle and pedestrian accidents, slip and falls, dangerous products/products liability cases and medical malpractice.  Tim is a partner in the Chester County, PA, law firm of MacElree Harvey and has offices in Kennett Square and West Chester, PA, and Centreville, DE.  Tim is the author of numerous publications on Personal Injury law and writes a Blog providing news and information on Personal Injury law at www.macelree.com/traynelaw and is a columnist for The Kennett Paper writing a column titled “Legal Lines.”  Tim has also published two books on Personal Injury law:  “A Lawyer’s Guide to Purchasing Car Insurance” and “A Lawyer’s Guide to Personal Injury Cases.”  In 2007, Tim was named by Main Line Today as one of the area’s Top Personal Injury Litigators.  In addition, Tim is a member of the Million Dollar Advocates Forum which recognizes the “Top Trial Lawyers in America,” with membership limited to attorneys who have won million dollar awards and settlements on behalf of their clients. Tim can be reached by phone at 610-840-0124, by email at trayne@macelree.com or on his Blog at www.macelree.com/traynelaw.  

Federal FDA Law Does Not Preempt State Failure to Warn Claims

On March 4, 2009, the United States Supreme Court decided the case of Wyeth v. Levine, holding that federal FDA regulations regarding drug warning labels do not preempt state law failure to warn claims.  The court determined that the drug manufacturer had the option to strengthen warnings beyond those required by the FDA and, accordingly, a failure to do so could lead to a valid state products liability claim.

THE FACTS
Wyeth manufactured a drug called Phenergan, which is an antihistamine used to treat nausea.  Phenergan can be injected into the patient by two methods — either directly using a syringe or indirectly through an IV drip method where the drug is introduced into a saline solution before entering the body.  Wyeth knew and provided warnings that, if Phenergan was mistakenly injected into an artery, it was extremely corrosive and would likely cause irreversible gangrene which would lead to amputation.

In April 2000, Diana Levine had a migraine headache and a physician’s assistant administered a combination of Demerol and Phenergan via direct injection.  Tragically, the Phenergan entered her artery, either because the needle penetrated her artery directly or because it escaped from her vein, entered surrounding tissue and contacted arterial blood.  Levine developed gangrene.  Doctors first amputated her right hand and then her entire forearm.

THE LEGAL CLAIMS
After settling her claims against the health clinic and physician’s assistant for the negligent injection, Levine sued Wyeth for common-law negligence and strict liability.  Levine alleged that, although Phenergan’s labeling warned about the danger of intra-arterial injection, the labeling was defective for failing to instruct clinicians to use the IV drip method as opposed to the higher risk direct injection method.

At trial, the jury found that Wyeth was negligent and that Phenergan was a defective product as a result of inadequate warnings.  It awarded damages of $7.4 million, which was reduced to account for the earlier settlement with the clinic and physician’s assistant.

THE APPEAL
Wyeth appealed, claiming that FDA drug labeling judgments preempt state law product liability claims based on the allegation that the warning labels were inadequate and made the drug unreasonably dangerous.  Wyeth made two arguments in support of its position that federal regulation of its drug should preclude state law claims.

First, Wyeth asserted that it would be impossible for it to comply with its federal law labeling duties and also be subjected to state law improper warning claims.  Specifically, Wyeth stated FDA regulations require pre-market approval of the exact text of labels and, generally speaking, the FDA must approve all labeling changes.  However, the Supreme Court indicated that there is an FDA regulation which allows changes to labeling before receiving FDA approval, and the Court found that such changes could have been implemented to prevent Levine’s injury.

Second, Wyeth argued that requiring it to comply with a state-law duty to supply a stronger warning would obstruct the purposes and objectives of FDA labeling regulations.  Wyeth contended that Congress entrusted the FDA with the authority to make labeling decisions, thereby establishing both a floor and a ceiling on drug regulation.  More specifically, Wyeth argued that once the FDA approved a label, no jury could find the label inadequate.

The Supreme Court rejected this argument too.  The Court reasoned that if Congress thought that state products liability lawsuits posed an obstacle to its objectives, then federal legislation would have outlawed those lawsuits.  Congress’ silence on preemption, coupled with its awareness of the prevalence of state lawsuits, was powerful evidence that Congress did not intend FDA oversight to be the exclusive means of assuring drug safety.  Further, the Court found that state lawsuits provide incentives for manufacturers to promptly disclose safety risks and serve a compensatory function that may motivate injured parties to come forward with information to improve drug safety.  Ultimately, the jury’s verdict was upheld.

Tim is a graduate of Widener University School of Law (J.D.) and the Temple University Beasley School of Law (Master’s Degree in Trial Advocacy). Tim focuses his practice in Personal Injury law, including car, truck, motorcycle, bicycle and pedestrian accidents, slip and falls, dangerous products/products liability cases and medical malpractice. Tim is a partner in the Chester County, PA, law firm of MacElree Harvey and has offices in Kennett Square and West Chester, PA, and Centreville, DE. Tim is the author of numerous publications on Personal Injury law and writes a Blog providing news and information on Personal Injury law at www.macelree.com/traynelaw and is a columnist for The Kennett Paper writing a column titled “Legal Lines.” Tim has also published two books on Personal Injury law: “A Lawyer’s Guide to Purchasing Car Insurance” and “A Lawyer’s Guide to Personal Injury Cases.” In 2007, Tim was named by Main Line Today as one of the area’s Top Personal Injury Litigators. In addition, Tim is a member of the Million Dollar Advocates Forum which recognizes the “Top Trial Lawyers in America,” with membership limited to attorneys who have won million dollar awards and settlements on behalf of their clients. Tim can be reached by phone at 610-840-0124, by email at trayne@macelree.com or on his Blog at www.macelree.com/traynelaw

Under Pennsylvania law, the spouse of a person injured in an accident has his or her own legal claim for compensation.  This is called a Loss of Consortium claim.  In order to be entitled to compensation, the spouse must have been married to the injured person at the time of the accident and at the time of trial.

The jury decides what is full and fair monetary compensation for the following items:  the loss of the company, society, cooperation, affection and aid of the spouse and the loss of the ability to engage in sexual relations.

At trial, the couple testifies concerning the elements of Loss of Consortium and then the jury decides what is full and fair compensation for past and future Loss of Consortium.

Tim is a graduate of Widener University School of Law (J.D.) and the Temple University Beasley School of Law (Master’s Degree in Trial Advocacy).  Tim focuses his practice in Personal Injury law, including car, truck, motorcycle, bicycle and pedestrian accidents, slip and falls, dangerous products/products liability cases and medical malpractice.  Tim is a partner in the Chester County, PA, law firm of MacElree Harvey and has offices in Kennett Square and West Chester, PA, and Centreville, DE.  Tim is the author of numerous publications on Personal Injury law and writes a Blog providing news and information on Personal Injury law at www.macelree.com/traynelaw and is a columnist for The Kennett Paper writing a column titled “Legal Lines.”  Tim has also published two books on Personal Injury law:  “A Lawyer’s Guide to Purchasing Car Insurance” and “A Lawyer’s Guide to Personal Injury Cases.”  In 2007, Tim was named by Main Line Today as one of the area’s Top Personal Injury Litigators.  In addition, Tim is a member of the Million Dollar Advocates Forum which recognizes the “Top Trial Lawyers in America,” with membership limited to attorneys who have won million dollar awards and settlements on behalf of their clients.

Tim can be reached by phone at 610-840-0124, by email at trayne@macelree.com or on his Blog at www.macelree.com/traynelaw.

Commonly referred to as “Pain and Suffering,” compensation for losses which are not to be measured dollar-for-dollar are required to be paid by a person determined to be responsible for an accident.  Although subject to criticism by lobbyists for insurance companies, awards for “pain and suffering” damages are required to be awarded to attempt to make victims of accidents whole for their injuries.

Victims of accidents are entitled to be reimbursed for any monies needed for past and future medical expenses, lost wages and out-of-pocket expenses.  This reimbursement is known as Economic Damages.

But, as we all know, injuries result in real human losses above and beyond monies needed to reimburse for Economic Damages.  Injuries cause physical pain, emotional upset, stress, aggravation, physical disability, reduction of activity level and even disfigurement.  Unfortunately, we cannot turn back the clock and erase the negative consequences of an accident.  That being the case, the law requires a full and fair monetary award to make up for these losses.  The purpose of a pain and suffering award is to balance out or make up for the harm caused.

In Pennsylvania, the following types of Non-Economic “pain and suffering” Damages are recoverable:

• Pain and Suffering:  physical pain, mental anguish, discomfort, inconvenience and distress
• Embarrassment and Humiliation
• Loss of Enjoyment of Life:  loss of ability to enjoy the pleasures of life
• Disfigurement

In considering the amount of the award for the Non-Economic Damages, the jury is to consider (1) the age of the injured party; (2) the severity of the injury; (3) whether the injuries are temporary or permanent; (4) the extent to which the injuries affect the ability of the injured person to perform daily life activities; (5) the type and duration of medical treatment; (6) the extent of physical pain and mental anguish; and (7) the health and condition of the injured person prior to the accident.

Tim is a graduate of Widener University School of Law (J.D.) and the Temple University Beasley School of Law (Master’s Degree in Trial Advocacy).  Tim focuses his practice in Personal Injury law, including car, truck, motorcycle, bicycle and pedestrian accidents, slip and falls, dangerous products/products liability cases and medical malpractice.  Tim is a partner in the Chester County, PA, law firm of MacElree Harvey and has offices in Kennett Square and West Chester, PA, and Centreville, DE.  Tim is the author of numerous publications on Personal Injury law and writes a Blog providing news and information on Personal Injury law at www.macelree.com/traynelaw and is a columnist for The Kennett Paper writing a column titled “Legal Lines.”  Tim has also published two books on Personal Injury law:  “A Lawyer’s Guide to Purchasing Car Insurance” and “A Lawyer’s Guide to Personal Injury Cases.”  In 2007, Tim was named by Main Line Today as one of the area’s Top Personal Injury Litigators.  In addition, Tim is a member of the Million Dollar Advocates Forum which recognizes the “Top Trial Lawyers in America,” with membership limited to attorneys who have won million dollar awards and settlements on behalf of their clients.

Tim can be reached by phone at 610-840-0124, by email at trayne@macelree.com or on his Blog at www.macelree.com/traynelaw.

If you are injured due to someone else’s negligence, the law in Pennsylvania provides that the responsible person is legally responsible to compensate you to try to make up for the harm.  Unfortunately, there is no way to turn back the clock and force the person who caused the accident to be more careful and prevent it from happening.  Accordingly, the law provides that victims of accidents are entitled to fair compensation to try to make up for the harm.  There are two types of recoverable compensation:  Economic Damages and Non-Economic Damages.

Economic Damages

Economic Damages provide compensation for harm that can be measured and reimbursed dollar-for-dollar.  Economic Damages include past and future medical expenses, lost wages and other out-of-pocket expenses incurred due to the injuries.

Non-Economic Damages

An injured person is also entitled to fair compensation to make up for harm that cannot be specifically accounted for dollar-for-dollar.  Injuries cause physical and mental pain and suffering.  Injuries often cause disability from normal activities and disfigurement.  These items cannot be measured in dollars, but are all real harms which the law says must be compensated.

In a legal case, the jury decides what is full and fair compensation for the following Non-Economic Damages: 

• Pain and Suffering
• Embarassment and Humiliation
• Loss of Life’s Pleasures
• Disfigurement

Tim is a graduate of Widener University School of Law (J.D.) and the Temple University Beasley School of Law (Master’s Degree in Trial Advocacy).  Tim focuses his practice in Personal Injury law, including car, truck, motorcycle, bicycle and pedestrian accidents, slip and falls, dangerous products/products liability cases and medical malpractice.  Tim is a partner in the Chester County, PA, law firm of MacElree Harvey and has offices in Kennett Square and West Chester, PA, and Centreville, DE.  Tim is the author of numerous publications on Personal Injury law and writes a Blog providing news and information on Personal Injury law at www.macelree.com/traynelaw and is a columnist for The Kennett Paper writing a column titled “Legal Lines.”  Tim has also published two books on Personal Injury law:  “A Lawyer’s Guide to Purchasing Car Insurance” and “A Lawyer’s Guide to Personal Injury Cases.”  In 2007, Tim was named by Main Line Today as one of the area’s Top Personal Injury Litigators.  In addition, Tim is a member of the Million Dollar Advocates Forum which recognizes the “Top Trial Lawyers in America,” with membership limited to attorneys who have won million dollar awards and settlements on behalf of their clients.

Tim can be reached by phone at 610-840-0124, by email at trayne@macelree.com or on his Blog at www.macelree.com/traynelaw.  

Injuries from car accidents often lead to lost time from work and lost wages.  One of the first questions I hear from clients is, “Who will pay for my lost wages?”  The answer depends on what insurance coverage you purchased before the accident.

Car Insurance Covers First

When you buy car insurance, you have a choice as to whether or not to get coverage for lost wages.  Such coverage provides 80% of gross income reimbursement up to maximum monthly and total benefits.  Such coverage also has a five-day waiting period.  If you purchased Lost Wage Coverage, it will pay first.  Lost Wage Coverage pays regardless of who caused the accident.

Disability Coverage Pays Second

If you have private Disability Coverage and cannot work, it will cover your lost wages regardless of who was at fault for the accident.  How much you will receive depends on the terms of your Disability policy.

Unreimbursed Lost Wages

If you have lost wages which are not reimbursed by car insurance, your lawyer can claim them in your lawsuit.  You have the burden of proving the wages you could have earned.  This is straightforward for wage earners, but more challenging for self-employed or commission-based employees.

So, if you are injured in an accident, here’s what to remember about lost wages:

• Consider buying car insurance for lost wages;
• Car insurance pays first;
• Consider buying disability insurance;
• Disability insurance pays second; and
• Document lost wages for recovery in lawsuit.

Tim is a graduate of Widener University School of Law (J.D.) and the Temple University Beasley School of Law (Master’s Degree in Trial Advocacy).  Tim focuses his practice in Personal Injury law, including car, truck, motorcycle, bicycle and pedestrian accidents, slip and falls, dangerous products/products liability cases and medical malpractice.  Tim is a partner in the Chester County, PA, law firm of MacElree Harvey and has offices in Kennett Square and West Chester, PA, and Centreville, DE.  Tim is the author of numerous publications on Personal Injury law and writes a Blog providing news and information on Personal Injury law at www.macelree.com/traynelaw and is a columnist for The Kennett Paper writing a column titled “Legal Lines.”  Tim has also published two books on Personal Injury law:  “A Lawyer’s Guide to Purchasing Car Insurance” and “A Lawyer’s Guide to Personal Injury Cases.”  In 2007, Tim was named by Main Line Today as one of the area’s Top Personal Injury Litigators.  In addition, Tim is a member of the Million Dollar Advocates Forum which recognizes the “Top Trial Lawyers in America,” with membership limited to attorneys who have won million dollar awards and settlements on behalf of their clients.

Tim can be reached by phone at 610-840-0124, by email at trayne@macelree.com or on his Blog at www.macelree.com/traynelaw.