CLE SET FOR THIS WEDNESDAY -- PROCEED WITH CAUTION: INCORPORATING AI INTO YOUR PRACTICE

NEED CLE CREDITS?   

Please consider registering for the below ZOOM CLE set for this Wednesday, October 15, 2025 at noon being presented by myself and my son, Michael.  

Michael, who has been described by a professor of his as a "generational talent" in the field of AI, is a Computer Science and Philosophy major who is focusing on AI studies at Ursinus College in Collegeville, PA just outside of Philadelphia.  Back in high school, he was also his class's Salutatorian, and a two-time State Champion in high school mock trial with the Abington Heights High School Mock Trial Team.

During this ZOOM CLE seminar, at which you can sit back and you enjoy your lunch at your desk or in the comfort of your home, Michael and I will review the increasing use of AI in the practice of law and will offer advice on pitfalls to avoid.

This CLE will contribute towards your meeting the ethical requirement under RPC 1.1 to keep up with the technological changes in society that can impact your ability to represent your individual clients.

The ZOOM CLE is free for members of the Wilkes-Barre Law and Library Association.  Non-members may also register to attend for a small fee.

Details on how to register for THIS WEDNESDAY'S October 15th CLE are set out below.

THANK YOU for considering!! 

Federal Court Allows Civil Rights Claim to Proceed Regarding Fatal Fire Case

In the case of McDonald v. Philadelphia Housing Authority, No. 24-CV-0057 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 18, 2025 Quinones Alejandro, J.), the court granted a Motion to Dismiss a state-created danger claim but denied civil rights claims asserted against the Philadelphia Housing Authority in a case involving a fatal fire.

According to Opinion, this civil rights action arose out of the deaths of twelve (12) individuals following a fire at a residential apartment building owned and managed by the Philadelphia Housing Authority. Among the allegations was an allegation that the Defendant did not have any working smoke detectors in the building at the time, a fact that was allegedly known by certain employees of the Defendant. The Plaintiffs alleged that, because of the lack of working smoke detectors, the occupants of the building were not alerted to the fire until it was too late.

After reviewing the record before the court, the judge dismissed the Plaintiff’s claims of a state-created danger.

However, the court denied the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs’ claims of municipal liability under the civil rights act. The court rejected the Defendants’ argument that the civil rights claims should be dismissed on the grounds that the state-created danger claims were dismissed.

The court emphasized that the Plaintiffs’ civil rights claims were different from the state-created danger claims and had different requirements. Accordingly, the court found that the City’s sole reliance on the court’s dismissal of the state-created danger claims as the basis for its requested dismissal of the civil rights claims was misplaced.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.


Source – Article: “Judge Rejects City’s Efforts To Toss Liability Claims for Phila. Fatal Apartment Fire.” By Nicholas Malfitano of The Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Aug. 20, 2025).

Summary Judgment Granted in Case of Box that Fell From Above and Hit Plaintiff in a Store

In the case of McEntire v. Wal-Mart Supercenter, No. 5:24-CV-5992 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 25, 2025 Leeson, J.), the court granted summary judgment in the case in which the Plaintiff alleged injuries as a result of a box falling and hitting the Plaintiff in the store.

With regards to the Plaintiff’s claim that they needed more time for discovery, the court rejected that claim as being without merit. The court noted that the Plaintiff had already been provided with two (2) extensions. The court stated that litigants who ignore the court’s Orders and deadlines do so at their peril.

With regards to the merits of the Motion for Summary Judgment, the court held that a Plaintiff who fails to produce any evidence beyond the fact that they were simply allegedly hit by a falling box in a store has not adequately proven either a breach of any duty or causation. The court noted that, without any evidence as to why the box fell, summary judgment was appropriate.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE

I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

Source of image:  Photo by Bernard Hermant on www.unsplash.com.

Trial Court Drastically Reduces Punitive Damages Award

In the case of Clemmons v. Lehr, June Term, 2020 No. 0478 (C.P. Phila. Co. April 9, 2025 Bright, J.), the trial court addressed post-trial motions in a tractor trailer accident case, including a Motion for Remittitur relative to a punitive damages award of $25 million dollars. 

The jury otherwise awarded $1.2 million dollars in compensatory damages.

The trial court granted the Motion for Remittitur, holding that the amount awarded by the jury for punitive damages was unduly excessive and out of bounds as compared with the evidence.

In this regard, the trial court noted that the punitive damages award was approximately twenty-one (21) times the amount of the compensatory damages verdict. The court found that the punitive damages award was grossly excessive in comparison to the compensatory damages award.

The trial court reduced the punitive damages award to $1 million dollars.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

Source: The Legal Intelligencer Weekly Case Alert, www.Law.com (Aug. 28, 2025).

Source of image:  Photo by Logan Voss on www.unsplash.com.

NOVEMBER 6, 2025 IS DATE FOR LACKAWANNA PRO BONO ANNUAL GALA

 

Superior Court Grants New Trial in a Medical Malpractice Case

In the case of Lewis v. Reading Hospital, No. 986 MDA 2024 (Pa. Super. Sept. 2, 2025 Bowes, J., Olson, J., and Stabile, J.) (Op. by Stabile, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court issued an Opinion which it reviewed the correct approach to increased risk claims in medical malpractice cases.

In this medical malpractice case, the court vacated the verdict in favor of the Plaintiff and remanded the case for a new trial.

In part, the Superior Court ruled in favor of the defense after finding that the trial court had failed to grant a mistrial after the Plaintiff’s attorney told the jury that the defense was unable to retain an expert on causation, which statement was not consistent in the evidence of the record.  In this case the Plaintiff had been successful in precluding one of the defense experts from testifying at trial.  The appellate court held that a party who succeeds in excluding evidence on legal grounds may not mislead a jury by telling the jury that such evidence never existed in the first place.

The Superior Court also agreed that the trial court erred in giving an instruction and a verdict form to the jury which equated the negligence element of factual cause with an “increased risk of harm” argument.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


I send thanks to Attorney Michael D. Pipa of the Harrisburg, PA law firm of Saxton & Stump for bringing this case to my attention.

Trial Court Refuses to Grant Plaintiff an Extension to Secure a Proper Certificate of Merit

In the case of Winters v. Patient First Pennsylvania Medical Group, No. 2024-03638-PL (C.P. Chester Co. Dec. 17, 2024 Binder, J.), the court denied a Plaintiff’s Motion for Additional Time to Provide a Certificate of Merit in support of a medical malpractice claim.

In this matter, the Plaintiff sued the Defendant medical providers relative to alleged negligence in prescribing certain medications to the Plaintiff’s minor daughter.

The court denied the Plaintiff’s Motion after finding that the Plaintiff failed to demonstrate good cause for an extension of time.

The Court noted that the Plaintiff’s counsel merely cited conflicting litigation and work demands.  Plaintiff's counsel also offered speculative reliance on his hope that the Plaintiff’s former physician would provide the necessary written statement. 

The court otherwise granted the Defendant’s Motion to Strike a Purported Certificate of Merit that the Plaintiff had previously produced. The court found that the previously provided written statement pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1042.3(e) was insufficient given that it was written by a pharmacist.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert, www.Law.com (Aug. 14, 2025).