Philadelphia Injury Attorney Blog

In one of our recent cases, counsel for the defendant sought to discover information posted by our client on Facebook and sought to delve deeper into the client’s private and personal life involving sexual and confidential matters.

The lawyers at Reiff & Bily successfully argued to the Court that the intrusions of privacy that such discovery would cause were not offset by any showing that the discovery would assist the requesting party in presenting its case. Many cases involving social medial networking are weaving their way through Pennsylvania courts and case law continues to accumulate with rulings governing when social media content may be discoverable during litigation.

Earlier this year, I wrote several articles regarding problems with social media postings as we had received reports from clients who had been friended on Facebook by individuals they could not identify. Our office policy is to always advise clients never to accept friends that they do not know on any social media as more likely than not, there is probably not a good purpose to this friending or meeting. As a matter of fact, we strongly recommend that all of our clients involved in litigation suspend any and all messaging and posting on social media websites until the conclusion of their legal case.

In a recent opinion by the Court of Common Pleas in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, the Court was called upon wherein defendants sought to access a plaintiff’s Facebook profile. The Court discussed opinions of other state courts and Federal courts pertaining to the discovery of Facebook content and denied the defense request with the reasoning that intrusions caused by such discovery were not offset by any showing that the discovery would assist the requesting party in presenting its case. The Court based its ruling on Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 4011(b) which bars discovery that would cause “unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, oppression …” The Court further noted that a Court Order which gives an opposing party access to Facebook postings that were intended to be available only to persons designated as “friends” is intrusive because the opposing party will likely gain access to a great deal of information that has nothing to do with the litigation and may cause embarrassment if viewed by persons we were not “friends”. In interpreting this opinion, it appears that the party seeking such Facebook discovery would be imposed with the burden to show that such discovery would produce relevant evidence not otherwise available that will support the case of the party seeking discovery.

As an experienced Pennsylvania car accident lawyer, I believe that the decision of the Court is an excellent, well-reasoned decision and a step in the right direction for protecting litigants’ rights and privacy in matters not directly related to pending litigation.

With record-high temperatures across the country, water parks will be overcrowded with families looking to cool off and enjoy a day of fun shooting down slides and splashing around in pools. As an experienced water park accident lawyer, I am aware of many improper practices taking place in the water park industry with regard to safe ride management, safe ride and water slide operation, proper ride and slide maintenance, and accident investigation.

Yesterday I learned about an 8-year-old girl from Iowa who was seriously injured at Lost Island Water Park. The young girl was riding in an inner tube with her father when the tube flipped over, resulting in her suffering a brain bleed and a broken collar bone. While the park claims this was a “freak accident”, I disagree. In almost every water park accident that our water park accident law firm handles, we are told by park officials that this is the “first accident” on this water slide or ride, and that this particular case was a “random chance encounter”. Based upon our experience, this assertion has almost never been true. Close to 90 percent of reported water park injuries occur on water slides and a high number of these accidents occur on slides that require riders to shoot down slides on a tube.

When patrons enter a water park, they are unaware of the potential dangers that exist. I have investigated a number of cases involving children and adults suffering catastrophic injuries and, in the worst cases, a wrongful death due to the water flow and water level in a pool or on a slide.

Many water parks have non-existent safety related resource manuals and the control of water flow of such rides is many times not carefully monitored. Each water park attraction has identifiable hazards and hazards that are unidentifiable until an accident occurs. Due to the different weight and size of each rider, everyone has a different physical experience. One rider’s experience, such as that of an 8-year-old girl, may be vastly different than another due to pressure of the device in which a rider is situated, ride position, weight, displaced water, water flow rates, contact with other riders, splash and entry position, and speed at run out.

Our skilled water slide accident attorneys have litigated cases involving improperly designed, improperly maintained, and improperly filled, and defective water slides. If you or a loved one has been injured on a water slide or while visiting a water park, please contact the water slide accident law firm of Reiff & Bily for a free, no obligation consultation toll free at (800) 421-9595 or online at www.reiffandbily.com.

Two amputees have instituted a lawsuit against Universal Studios Amusement Park for allegedly denying them access to ride. According to news sources, Angel Castelan, whose arms were amputated in his youth in an electrical accident, and Marvin Huezo, who lost his legs in a car accident, filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles in June claiming that they were kept off an indoor roller coaster ride at Universal Studios Hollywood Amusement Park. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act.

As an experienced amusement park accident attorney who normally is on the opposite side of the fence of amusement park and theme park owners and operators, my gut reaction is to agree with the decision taken by the owners and operators of the theme park in this case. I have been attacked in the past by many parents and individuals who claim that amusement accident lawyers take the fun out of life. However, I would like to believe that we are honestly performing a valuable service to many parents and children who don’t recognize safety issues and regulation concerns in the amusement park industry.

I often meet with parents of children who are catastrophically injured or who unfortunately suffered a wrongful death on an amusement ride due to improper maintenance, inspection, or implementation of proper safety regulations and guidelines. Just last year, a U.S. Army veteran, who also happened to be an amputee, was killed when he was thrown from a 200 foot tall roller coaster in an upstate New York theme park. The 29-year-old Army veteran was ejected from the Ride of Steel roller coaster at the Darien Lake Theme Park resort.

Unbelievably, I have witnessed several catastrophic amusement park accidents on seemingly simple roller coasters despite the fact that the rides were brand new and inspected several times prior to the incident. Two decades later, after reviewing and litigating a number of amusement park cases, I have become cautious and a stalwart of public and consumer safety when it comes to amusement thrill rides, and in the case at hand, it is my personal opinion that the amusement park operator barring the amputees from the ride should be viewed positively from a safety standpoint.

While I am not fully informed as to all of the facts of this case, at first glance, placing the risk of injury or death on a scale with safety concerns on the other side, it is my opinion that the loss of Mr. Castelan’s forearms would prevent him from safely riding the roller coaster due to the fact that he may not be able to grip the safety bars in a safe and proper fashion.

The amusement park accident lawyers of Reiff & Bily are committed to public and consumer safety and always offer a free, no obligation consultation to those involved in amusement park and theme park accidents.

As swimming pool drowning lawyers in Pennsylvania, we have investigated many situations involving a lack of proper supervision by a parent or caretaker resulting in injuries or death to children.

Recently, the parents of an Illinois toddler who drowned in a lake were charged with child endangerment as they were accused of allowing the boy and his twin brother to routinely wander from the child’s home through a basement window whereupon the child was found unresponsive and submerged in a lake near the child’s home. Unfortunately, one of the children died four days later in the hospital while his brother luckily escaped with only minor cuts. The Prosecutor claimed that an investigation revealed that the children were knowingly left unsupervised and they managed to climb out of the house or window. According to news sources, the parents were charged with endangering the life and health of a child (a felony punishable by up to five years in prison) and they also face misdemeanor child endangerment counts each carrying sentences of up to a year in prison.

Drowning and swimming accidents are the most common cause of injury and fatalities to children under the age of 5. There is an estimated 10 deaths per day related to drowning and approximately 76% of these fatalities involve children. Pool and water safety remains one of the most serious public health issues. The main contributing factor of submersion injuries and drowning is lack of supervision. The U.S Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) continues to urge all parents to watch their children at all times around swimming pools and water areas and encourages education in water safety including, but not limited to, water rescue skills such as CPR.

Most drowning incidents occur in back yards, community pools, lakes, bathtubs, spas, or even smaller bodies of water and the majority of infant and toddler drownings occur in bathtubs or buckets within only a few short minutes. Most of these types of drownings are easily preventable.

Our experienced water accident lawyers have investigated numerous water and drowning accidents and understand that many different complex factors can result in unfortunate accidents causing death or permanent disability.

In the last few months, I have received horrifying reports of funeral and burial abuse. Recently, a news story was published noting that a funeral home failed to embalm a body, causing a horrific smell during an open casket funeral. A lawsuit was filed against the funeral director and funeral home alleging that the body had begun to decompose due to the fact that it had not been embalmed as agreed. The Complaint alleged that the family, friends, and other mourners were horrified by the smell and stench that penetrated the room. The lawsuit further alleged that the deceased’s finger nails and other parts of the body were discolored and humiliated the family. The funeral home and its Chief Executive Officer were sued for breach of contract, negligent intention and infliction of emotional distress, and misrepresentation.

The Philadelphia funeral home and burial abuse lawyers of Reiff & Bily understand that funerals are often the most heartfelt and devastatingly emotional moments that individuals and families will encounter in their lifetime.

Funerals rank as one of the most expensive and emotional purchases a consumer will make and it always comes with the expectation that a funeral will be conducted in a dignified, holy, and healing manner. Unfortunately, many funeral homes are more concerned with their “bottom line” and profitability rather than the personal and familiar interests of the deceased, leading to atrocities that are forever embedded as emotional scars in the minds of the family and mourners. No one entrusting the remains of a loved one to a funeral service provider should ever have to experience the lack of emotional closure via a funeral due to misadventure, neglect, or ineptitude of a funeral director or funeral home. It is the inherent nature and calling of the funeral industry that sacred trust must be given by a funeral provider to survivors and a higher standard of care exists with respect to identification of deceased persons while entrusted to a funeral director’s care.

The wrongful burial, funeral abuse, and wrongful cremation lawyers of Reiff & Bily recently concluded a wrongful cremation and funeral home abuse case for a substantial confidential figure. We understand the grief and emotional turmoil surrounding the loss of a family member and understand that when a funeral home or cemetery makes a mistake, it leaves even more emotional damage to the family.

Our skilled Pennsylvania lawyers always offer a free, no obligation consultation toll free at (800) 421-9595 or online at www.reiffandbily.com.

Each year in the United States, approximately 10,000 people are medically treated for fireworks-related injuries. Males sustain about 72% of the injuries. Parts of the body most frequently injured are hands and fingers, eyes, and head and face. More than half of the injuries reported involve burns. Injuries are most commonly associated with fire-crackers, sparklers, and rockets.

With dry land all around us right now, fireworks can start fires once the sparks hit the ground causing great risk, injuries, and property loss. Additionally, the sparks could hit a person causing them to suffer severe burns or catch fire.

It is important to remember that Pennsylvania law only allows sparklers, sparkler fountains, and smoke bombs — nothing that explodes or propels itself. While sparklers may look pretty to young children, use extreme caution when playing with them because they burn between 1,000 and 1,800 degrees.

If you or a loved one has been injured by a firework accident this Fourth of July, the experienced personal injury attorneys at Reiff & Bily may be able to help you.

Over the last year, as an experienced Pennsylvania DePuy hip replacement lawyer who is litigating a good number of defective hip implant cases, I have spoken with hundreds of individuals who had safety and medical issues as a result of metal on metal hip implants.

Our PA product liability law firm is currently representing many individuals who received the DePuy ASR hip implant and finally, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has agreed to call a two day meeting starting this week to scrutinize the safety of all metal on metal implants following numerous patient reports of pain and swelling that many times requires surgical removal of the devices.

Although medical science is far from perfect, our experts and the FDA apparently have reason to believe that the metal on metal hip implants may actually be more dangerous than its predecessors. Prior to metal on metal hip implants, the stems and sockets of hip implants were made from plastic or ceramic materials.

In Europe, experts and governmental bureaus began to notice problems with metal on metal hip implants and found that many patients had metallic poisoning and the newer metal upon metal implants had to be replaced more often than other implants. Typically, a hip replacement is supposed to last 10 to 15 years but many of the patients with metal hip implants needed replacements in 5 years. 2% of the people with ceramic or plastic joints prior to the usage of metal implants were found to experience less problems and a longer time lapse between replacements.

Approximately 500,000 Americans have received metal upon metal hip implants. A well-known expert claimed that other hip implant alternatives on the market are most likely safer and more effective than metal on metal hip implants. The FDA statistics indicate that they have received 16,800 event reports concerning metal hip problems between 2000 and 2011. However, many patients and doctors do not report problems to the FDA, so this number may be inaccurate.

The Pennsylvania product liability firm of Reiff & Bily is currently investigating all metal hip implant cases and is actively moving forward with the prosecution of DePuy ASR hip implant cases. We are making all clients aware that there are definite time limitations under law in which to successfully bring a potential claim if their legal interests are to be properly protected. If you notice increasing pain and elevation of metal levels in your blood and a failure of the metal upon metal hip implant within a short period of time after implantation, our Pennsylvania DePuy hip implant lawyers always offer a free, no obligation consultation toll free at (800) 421-9595 or online at www.reiffandbily.com.

The Philadelphia funeral home abuse lawyers at Reiff & Bily have reached a substantial confidential settlement against a Pennsylvania funeral home and funeral director after the funeral home wrongfully cremated the body of the decedent rather than providing a proper funeral and burial as the family requested and contracted for.

The agreement by and between the claimants and the funeral home required the funeral home to prepare the decedent’s body for viewing and burial. However, instead of holding and preparing the decedent’s body for viewing and burial as requested, the funeral home proceeded without authorization to wrongfully cremate the decedent’s body.

A Complaint was filed against the funeral home and funeral director alleging that the defendant’s unauthorized actions in cremating the decedent’s body constituted a breach of its express duties and responsibilities under its term and therefore a breach of contract. The surviving children and next of kin alleged that the willful disregard by the funeral home with the requirements of its contractual obligation constituted such outrageous reckless and wanton conduct that the surviving family members and next of kin suffered from extreme anguish and emotional distress, and hence grief and extraordinary mental anguish.

The wrongful cremation Complaint filed by Reiff & Bily also alleged that the next of kin and other surviving family members were prevented from providing and experiencing a significant event in the grieving process. Plaintiffs sought and received compensation for intentional infliction of emotional distress and additionally claimed punitive damages based upon the fact that the funeral home’s unauthorized cremation of decedent constituted such extreme reckless, outrage, and wanton conduct for which punitive damages were claimed.

In the case that we currently resolved, a renowned expert opined that despite all arrangements to provide a dignified and honorable funeral, the funeral home acted in direct contravention to the wishes of their survivors as expressed in writing reduced to contract, and acknowledged by a representative of the funeral home. The expert concluded that the Funeral Director’s behavior, actions, or non-actions rose to a level of callous indifference to the emotional well-being of survivors who trusted them to provide services in accord with what they wanted and what the funeral home had agreed to do.