Pennsylvania Rule of Professional Conduct 7.4 states:

A lawyer may communicate the fact that the lawyer does or does not practice in particular fields of law. A lawyer shall not state that the lawyer is a specialist except as follows:

(1) a lawyer admitted to engage in patent practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office may use the designation “patent attorney” or a substantially similar designation;

(2) a lawyer engaged in admiralty practice may use the designation “admiralty,” “proctor
in admiralty” or a substantially similar designation;

(3) a lawyer who has been certified by an organization approved by the Supreme Court
of Pennsylvania as a certifying organization in accordance with paragraph (b) may advertise the
certification during such time as the certification of the lawyer and the approval of the organization
are both in effect;

(4) a lawyer may communicate that the lawyer is certified in a field of practice only
when that communication is not false or misleading and that certification is granted by the Supreme
Court of Pennsylvania.

Many lawyers, however, concentrate their practice in specific areas of the law. Some lawyers will do only criminal cases, while others will only handle personal injury cases. The general practitioner, just like in the medical profession, who handles everything that “comes in the door” has become a thing of the past.

It is important when choosing a lawyer to find one who is competent in the field for which you need. While most lawyers have some familiarity with a wide range of legal issues, he or she may not regularly practice in all but a few areas of the law.

Don’t be afraid to ask your lawyer how many active cases he or she in a particular field. The law is a constantly changing field, and a lawyer who does not regularly practice in a particular field may not be aware of the everyday changes that constantly occur.

Terri, originally from the Philadelphia area, lay in a vegetative state in a medical facility in Florida. This was just one of the final chapters in a legal battle which began in 1998.

Fifteen years earlier, in 1990, Schiavo suffered an injury which cut off the oxygen flow to her brain for an undetermined but critical amount of time. This lack of oxygen caused her irreparable brain damage. Her life was sustained by medical machines, including a feeding tube.

Terri did not have a living will.

In 1998, Schiavo’s husband Michael petitioned the courts of Florida to remove Terri’s feeding tube. Michael said Terri had expressed her wishes to him, prior to her accident, that she did not want to be kept alive by machines. Terri’s parents said that Terri was a devout Roman Catholic who would not wish to violate the Church’s teachings on euthanasia by refusing nutrition and hydration.

After seven years of legal battles which involved The United States Congress, the President, the United States Supreme Court, and every conceivable state and federal court below, Terri’s feeding tube was removed on March 24, 2005. On March 31, 2005, Terri passed away.

Pennsylvania law allows individuals a number of options concerning end of life decisions. A Living Will or Advance Health Care Directive is the best way to have your wishes fulfilled if you cannot make that decision for yourself.

You have the right to decide the type of health care you want. Should you become unable to understand, make, or communicate decisions about medical care, your wishes for medical treatment are most likely to be followed if you express those wishes in advance by:

(1) naming a health care agent to decide treatment for you; and
(2) giving health care treatment instructions to your health care agent or health care provider.

An advance health care directive is a written set of instructions expressing your wishes for medical treatment. It may contain a health care power of attorney, where you name a person called a “health care agent” to decide treatment for you, and a living will, where you tell your health care agent and health care providers your choices regarding the initiation, continuation, withholding, or withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment and other specific instructions.

Consulting with an attorney is the first step in making this all important decision. An attorney can advise you on the importance and the specifics of preparing and executing your own living will.

On June 28, 2010, the United States Supreme court affirmed in a 5 to 4 decision the “fundamental right” to bear arms. Justice Samuel Alito wrote: “It is clear that the Framers . . . counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty.”

Ruling Now Applies to all the States

It might seem a bit confusing as to why the Supreme Court would make two rules which appear to say the same thing two years apart. The difference is quite significant.

The original case, two years ago, applied only to the federal government, in that the statute the court struck down was in the District of Columbia.

McDonald v. Chicago involved two ordinances which basically banned the ownership of handguns in the City of Chicago and another suburban Chicago community. The court said these ordinances were unconstitutional on the United States Constitution.

Right to Bear Arms Not Absolute

The Chicago ruling involved the total ban of hand guns in the City. This total ban, the court said, is unconstitutional.

The majority of the court, however, was quick to point out that the “right to bear arms” is not absolute, and that some restrictions were constitutional.

Justice Alito wrote, “our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as ‘prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,’ ‘laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

Case Does Not End the Debate

The McDonald case does not end the debate. There will be many more legal challenges to laws in the future.

Justice Stephen Breyer, in fact, said that the majority opinion set up such a vague standard that the lower courts would face a “mission-almost-impossible” when it came to interpreting ordinances and statutes in the future.

Eight and a half years later, Hughes died, and a will surfaced which gave Dummar $156 million of the multi-billion dollar Hughes estate. This will was challenged in Nevada court, and after a trial lasting seven months, the Nevada court determined the will was a forgery. The court declared that Hughes had died intestate (meaning Hughes had died with no legitimate will.)

Dying Without a Will

In Pennsylvania, like Nevada, if you die without a will, you die “intestate.” In the case of an intestate death, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has laws in effect which will determine who gets your assets (your estate.) For example, in the case of a married man with children, his wife would receive one half of his estate, while the other half would be equally divided amongst his children. There are a number of other provisions depending on what relatives survive the deceased.

All of this, and the Hughes situation can be avoided by seeking out a lawyer to prepare a simple will. The cost is usually under $100, and the benefits can be enormous.

What is a Will

A will is a legal document which tells all who survive you what you want done with your estate. It is basically a set of instructions. Those instructions can be very detailed or can be as simple as “all my assets to my wife.”

In addition to giving instructions as what to do with assets, a will can instruct how debts are to be paid and give instructions on funeral arrangements, .

How do you Make a Will

You are the sole person who determines what goes in your own will, and that will need not be made public until your death and can be changed time after time until your death. Each subsequent will voids the prior will, hence the often heard term “Last Will and Testament.” Only the last one counts.

Despite the availability of “do it yourself” will kits both on the internet and through other sources, it is advisable to seek the advice of an attorney when you want to put together a will. There are many questions a kit cannot answer but your attorney can. Many of the decisions you make in putting a will together can have significant tax and legal ramifications. These decisions are best made with the advice of an attorney.

What many people fail to realize is that speeding violations do not just carry fines and costs. They also carry point assessments on one’s driver’s license. (The Pennsylvania driver point system will be discussed in a future article.)

Increased Insurance Premiums

Most insurance companies will add a surcharge to your insurance premium if you have a requisite number of points on your license. In other words, you get a speeding ticket, you plead guilty, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) assigns points to your license, and your insurance company sends you a rate increase or sends you a cancellation notice.

What are Points on Your Driver’s License

Unlike in a sporting event, points on a license are not a good thing. Once you accumulate a certain number of points, your license can and will be suspended.

When you receive your driver’s license, you begin at zero points, but moving violations, such as speeding, will add points to your license. These point eventually do disappear with time or certain driver improvement programs, but the best way to avoid problems is to never accumulate points in the first place.

Points for Speeding Offenses

• Exceeding the speed limit by six to 10 mph: 2 points
• Exceeding the speed limit by 11 to 15 mph: 3 points and a 15-day suspension if in a work zone
• Exceeding the speed limit by 16 to 25 mph: 4 points and a 15-day suspension if in a work zone
• Exceeding the speed limit by 26 to 30 mph: 5 points and a 15-day suspension if in a work zone
• Exceeding the speed limit by 31 mph or more: 5 points, a 15-day suspension if in a work zone, and possible other penalties as determined by a hearing examiner

What to Do if You Get a Speeding Ticket

If you do get a speeding ticket, and remember, even the most cautious drivers can and do get speeding tickets, contact an attorney immediately. Time is of the essence, because if you do not respond to a speeding ticket within 10 days, your license may be suspended
We do not condone speeding by any stretch of the imagination, but there is no reason to accumulate points if they can be avoided.
An attorney will be able to evaluate your case and provide you with advice on how to reduce the number of points you receive or may be able to eliminate the imposition of points on your license. The money you spend retaining the services of an attorney familiar with driving offenses could be only a fraction of the money you end up paying in increased insurance premiums.

Thomas Rogan and Denise Garofalo, the parents of Joseph Rogan, filed the lawsuit Tuesday afternoon through their attorney, Edward Ciarimboli.

The lawsuit alleges Richard Rody, of Hudson, Ohio, the driver of a tractor-trailer owned by A. Duie Pyle Inc., acted negligently and caused a crash that killed Joseph Rogan.

Two people were killed and two others injured this year in crashes on the hilly highway.

Rogan’s parents are seeking more than $100,000 in the suit, which names Rody and A. Duie Pyle Inc. as defendants.

Rogan was killed on Sept. 13, 2008, shortly after 1 a.m.

According to the lawsuit, Rogan was southbound in his Jeep on Route 115 and had the right of way. Rody, the suit says, was making an illegal U-turn from the north lane to the south lane in a dangerous fog.

The suit states Rogan was unable to stop his Jeep before colliding with the side of the tractor-trailer. The Jeep was dragged approximately 50 feet, and the force of the collision caused the top portion of the Jeep to be ripped off, killing Rogan.

The suit alleges Rody failed to maintain proper and adequate control of his vehicle, pay proper attention, and abide by the state Motor Vehicle Code. Among other claims, the suit also states Rody allegedly ignored clearly marked signs prohibiting travel on Route 115 if the vehicle weighs more than 21,000 pounds and failed to take proper precautions.

The suit states Rogan’s parents are seeking damages for wrongful death, survival action and punitive damages.

Michelle Lewis of Forty Fort says her daughter did not get paid for an entire summer of work. “To some people may not be a lot but when you work and you’re a kid a college student, she needs the money. She worked hard for it,” says Lewis.

Lewis’s daughter, Danielle, picked outside Little Steps Daycare in Kingston last August. She was one of 16 people that filed wage complaints against the daycare last year.

District judges ordered more than $7,600 be paid to those employees. But some, like Lewis say they’re still haven’t received anything.

That’s the rough road of wage complaints says lawyer Gregory Fellerman. He’s not a part of this case, but says, “They’re already spending a lot of money, time and resources. It comes to a point when do you stop chasing the money? That’s the unfortunate thing.”

Fellerman and attorney Ed Ciarimboli say have everything in order when filing a wage complaint. “So that when you do go or if you do have the ultimately go to court then everything’s documented so that your claim is that much stronger,” says Ciarimboli.

The state can ask a district judge to make a ruling, but past that, you’re on your own. If the employer doesn’t pay up, paying for a lawyer might be your next step. “This is just one problem when you have a full time schedule on your hands and other stuff to deal with but it’s important enough to make time for,” says Lewis.

Little Steps Daycare wouldn’t talk to us on camera about any wage case rulings. Lewis says her daughter placed a lien on Little Steps Wilkes-Barre location in hopes that will lead to payment.

The daycare’s Kingston location closed shortly after Lewis’s protest. The state Bureau of Labor and Industry says Little Steps has settled and paid 9 wage cases. Those cases involved 9 employees, with more than $3,700 paid out.

“Our concern is about the children,” said one of the family’s attorneys, Greg Fellerman.  “Mr. Martin was a crossing guard at the time, and thank God we don’t have four kids who were hit by this vehicle.”

But the 79-year-old’s family says he’s been hit twice at this intersection — once in 1998, and again in January.  Back in 2000, Martin wrote a letter to the city, saying the corner was “an accident waiting to happen.”

“He told them and foresaw there would be another problem,” added Fellerman.  “He said in his letter it could be him getting struck again.”

The crossing guard’s attorneys say the section along Coal Street is not clearly marked as a school zone.   They say there aren’t enough signs, and the crosswalk no longer has painted lines.

“In his letter, he had advocated for some additional signage and a flashing light,” said Attorney Ed Ciarimboli, “something similar to what they have at Wilkes University, giving the driver’s speed as they’re approaching the intersection.”

74-year-old Alfred Gurnari told police he was blinded by the sun when he hit Martin.  The attorneys say signs placed further in advance could have prevented the accident.

“We’ve been promised and assured they’re looking at it,” concluded Fellerman.  “But obviously this is an urgent situation, and the last thing we want is another incident. So we’re hoping the city and school district act immediately and resolve this issue.”

And then we have the tried-and-tested scapegoat for all of America’s ills and woes: trial lawyers.

Let’s face it: Trial lawyers — and all attorneys, for that matter — aren’t revered by the public at large (unless you need one). But for those who want to stick it to the trial bar, this bill is your chance. We can lower costs, help cover the uninsured and even put trial lawyers out of business.

No, it’s not tort reform. We’re demanding solutions that actually work. And preventing medical errors in the first place — an epidemic that plagues our entire health care system — will result in less litigation, lower costs and healthier patients.

Let’s cut the wheat from the chaff: Tort reform will do nothing to fix health care. Forty-six states have already done it, and costs have continued to skyrocket. The Congressional Budget Office and Government Accountability Office have said tort reform will save practically no money, and they found no evidence of defensive medicine. Medical malpractice suits are less than 1 percent of all civil filings — and this has declined 8 percent during the past decade. The research is definitive and absolute, and those claiming otherwise are just trying to obstruct health care reform altogether.

More than 98,000 people die every year from preventable medical errors, according to the Institute of Medicine. That report is 10 years old, and estimates are the number has gotten significantly worse. This is the equivalent of two 737s crashing every day for a whole year. If planes were crashing like this today, would we focus on giving airlines immunity or making air travel safer?

So this is how you really put trial lawyers out of business: Just cut down on the errors. Fewer errors mean fewer complications — or fewer people who will need legal recourse. Electronic medical records, bar-coding equipment, tagging surgical instruments and routine operating room checklists are just a few measures that can decrease errors. And there are countless more that can corral this epidemic and make patient safety a priority once again.

In the past few weeks, some pundits or talking heads have demanded to know, “What have the trial lawyers sacrificed to get health care passed?” But this isn’t about trial lawyers. It’s about patients, hurt through no fault of their own, left with debilitating injuries or worse. This bill is about health care, not bargaining away people’s legal rights.

But health care reform may still provide ample opportunity to put away the trial bar. We would welcome it. Fewer people who need legal recourse means injuries are more infrequent and health care is getting safer.

But taking away people’s legal rights is the entirely wrong way to do it. That’s saying it is acceptable for 98,000 people to die every year, with thousands more injured, because of preventable medical errors. And that’s also saying it is OK to dictate what their lives are worth or whether they should have any recourse at all. Such a proposition is ridiculous.

We welcome a health care system that has fewer injuries, safer patients and lower costs. But bargaining away people’s legal rights isn’t a suitable alternative. That isn’t a bill we can call health care or reform.

Anthony Tarricone is president of the American Association for Justice.
© 2009 Capitol News Company, LLC