Masterson

A Philadelphia man is suing after a table allegedly collapsed and struck him in the head.

Kareem Bishop filed suit in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on Feb. 12 naming Voyeur Nightclub, Esbert LLC and Mayfield Social Club as the defendants.

According to Bishop, he was at the Voyeur Nightclub at 1221 Saint James St. in Philadelphia in October when the incident occurred. Bishop says while he was there, a folded up table or other part of the property which was not properly fastened, collapsed and struck him in the face. Bishop claims he suffered various injuries including lacerations and scarring to his forehead, cheek and lip and post concussion syndrome.

Bishop argues the defendants were negligent in maintaining the nightclub and should be held accountable for the cost of his pain and injuries.

Bishop is seeking more than $50,000 in damages.

He is being represented by attorney Thomas A. Masterson, Jr.

Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas Case No. 140201370.

A Kentucky woman is suing the makers of the anti-coagulant drug Xarelto

W. Steven Berman

in Philadelphia’s Court of Common Pleas over allegations that she experienced severe internal and gastrointestinal bleeding two years ago after being prescribed the drug for atrial fibrillation.

Attorney W. Steven Berman, of the Marlton, N.J. firm Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, filed suit earlier this month on behalf of Virginia G. Stuntebeck, who said she was admitted to the hospital in mid-February of last year, a year-and-a-half after she was prescribed the drug by her physician.

According to the mass tort claim, Xarelto, an anti-coagulant primarily used to reduce the risk of, and/or treat, stroke and systemic embolism in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation, was routinely marketed as a “one size fits all drug.”

The makers of the drug misinformed patients and their healthcare providers as to the necessity of routinely monitoring those requiring a blood-thinning agent.

The lawsuit says that the defendants created a new pharmaceutical that is not, from a safety perspective, any better than another drug called warafin, even though Xarelto may be slightly easier to use and administer.

“The idea of this apparently easier-to-use anticoagulant evidently appealed to physicians, who were subject to extreme marketing and promotion by the Defendants, but ignores patient safety,” the complaint reads.

The marketing materials for Xarelto suggest that the drug represents a therapeutic simplification and therapeutic progress because it didn’t require patients to undergo periodic monitoring with blood tests and because there were no dietary restrictions, the suit states.

The drug companies, however, failed to address in their warning for the product the increased risk of serious and fatal bleeding, despite the fact that the information on their website originating from a clinical trial says patients taking Xarelto, compared to those taking warafin, have more gastrointestinal bleeding incidences and require more blood transfusions.

In spite of this reference, the plaintiff’s complaint states, the information is still “wholly inadequate,” because it is not conveyed in the boxed warning on the Xarelto label.

The drug was first approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in July 2011.

The lawsuit also says that the drug companies “fervently marketed Xarelto using print advertisements, online marketing on their website, and video advertisements with no regard to the accuracy and repercussions of their misleading advertising in favor of increasing sales.”

As a result of the defendants’ “intense marketing,” about 130,000 prescriptions were written for Xarelto in the U.S. during the first three months of 2012, resulting in large profits for the drugmakers, the lawsuit states.

Due to the nature of the drug, however, those prescribed Xarelto, even for a brief period of time, were at an increased risk of developing life-threatening bleeds, the suit claims.

The suit says that people taking Xarelto were told they do not require blood monitoring or frequent doctor follow-ups, even though there are concerns about the risk of stroke and blood clots while taking the pharmaceutical.

There were a reported 968 suspected “undesirable side effects” reported in Germany, including 72 deaths, in just the first eight months of 2013, according to the complaint.

“Defendants concealed their knowledge that Xarelto can cause life threatening, irreversible bleeds from the Ingesting Plaintiff, other consumers, the general public, and the medical community,” the lawsuit states.

The lawsuit contains counts of products liability, negligence, unreasonable marketing of a dangerous drug and unreasonable failure to remove the drug from the market, breach of implied and express warranties, fraud, and violation of consumer protection laws.

The plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, along with litigation costs and attorneys’ fees.

The defendants named in the complaint include Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Bayer Corp., and Johnson & Johnson Research and Development LLC.

On Monday, attorneys representing the defendants, Michael McTigue Jr. and Susan M. Sharko, of Drinker Biddle & Reath, filed a removal petition in federal court in Philadelphia seeking to have the litigation transferred to that venue on the basis of diversity of citizenship, since the plaintiff, a resident of Kentucky, and the defendants are citizens of different states.

The defense attorneys also say the amount-in-controversy requirement is satisfied since the damages are likely to exceed $75,000.

The state case ID number is 140201754 and the federal case number is 2:14-cv-01097-JHS. 

An Upper Darby resident is suing over injuries she allegedly sustained when riding the bus.

Altude Desrosiers and her husband Joel Dorsa filed their lawsuit on Feb. 12, in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, naming Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority as the sole defendant.

Desrosiers says on May 10, near Keystone Street and West Chester Pike in Upper Darby, she got onto a bus. Desrosiers goes on to say after she got onto the bus the driver accelerated then slammed on the brakes. While the bus was stopping, Desrosiers was allegedly thrown when the bus stopped suddenly and she was injured.

Desrosiers says the driver approached the intersection going way too fast and failed to look out for pedestrians or street signs. According to Desrosiers, the driver’s negligence caused her injuries and now she seeks to hold SEPTA liable.

Desrosiers is seeking more than $50,000 in damages.

She is being represented by attorney Val Pleet Wilson.

Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas Case No. 140201348.

A woman is suing the city of Philadelphia after she allegedly injured herself as a result of a negligently maintained sidewalk.

Marsha Kearney is suing the city of Philadelphia in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. Kearney filed her suit Feb. 12, and accuses Philadelphia of failing to fix a defective sidewalk.

Kearney says she was walking near the 8100 block of Bartram Avenue in Philadelphia when the accident occurred. According to Kearney, in November she was walking on the defective sidewalk which caused her to trip, fall and sustain injuries.

Kearney claims Philadelphia had actual knowledge of the defective sidewalk, but negligently allowed it to exist in the dangerous condition. Kearney says her injuries required her to get medical treatment and incur a hospital bill in excess of $1,500.

Kearney is seeking more than $50,000 in damages. She is being represented by attorney Val Pleet Wilson.

Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas Case No. 140201308.

A Philadelphia biker is suing various city of Philadelphia entities and a construction company over injures he allegedly sustained as a result of the city’s maintenance of the roads.

Jerry Hemingway filed suit in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on Feb. 12, naming Philadelphia Gas Works, Philadelphia Facilities Management Corp., the city of Philadelphia, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Transportation and Cedotal Construction Inc. as defendants.

According to Hemingway, on Oct. 2, 2012, he was riding his bike near the intersection of Ninth and Snyder streets in Philadelphia when he hit a pothole. Hemingway says Cedotal was hired to repair it and may have been responsible for excavating the concrete around a pipe.

Hemingway goes on to say when he rode over the pothole on his bike he went flying over the front handlebars. Hemingway says he fell as a result of the pothole and sustained serious injuries.

Hemingway is seeking more than $50,000 in damages. He is being represented by attorneys John F.X. Fenerty Jr. and Margaret M. Fenerty.

Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas Case No. 140201332.

A federal judge has sent back to state court a personal injury complaint

U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick

against a New Jersey trucking company being sued by a cyclist who says he sustained “catastrophic, disabling, life-altering and permanent” injuries after being struck by a big rig in Philadelphia.

Thomas McMillan filed suit against Wilkie Trucking Inc. in late September of last year in Philadelphia’s Court of Common Pleas over the injuries he says he sustained following a May 16, 2013 incident in which a tractor trailer owned by the defendant ran over the plaintiff at the corner of Second and Callowhill Streets.

The defendant’s driver made a right turn and struck McMillan, who had been riding his bicycle parallel to the big rig at the time.

McMillan ended up suffering injuries to his skin, bones, muscles, nerves, tissues and ligaments, and had to spend more than two weeks recovering at Hahnemann Hospital in downtown Philadelphia, according to his complaint.

Records show that he also had to spend time at a rehabilitation facility from late May until mid-June of last year.

The defendant removed the case from Common Pleas Court to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in early December 2013, well beyond the 30-day time frame permitted for removal under procedural rules.

The plaintiff subsequently filed a motion to remand, arguing that the trucking company should have filed its removal petition within 30 days of receiving the complaint.

The trucking company then counter-argued that the removal was timely because it was filed within 30 days of being first put on notice that the action was removable; it claims to have learned damages may exceed $75,000 only after receiving the plaintiff’s answer to new matter.

In a Feb. 21 memorandum and order, U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick wrote that the defendants should have “reasonably and intelligently concluded from a fair reading of the damages alleged in the Complaint, particularly in consideration of the extent of the injuries, the multiple surgeries Plaintiff underwent, the time he spent in the hospital and in rehab, the injuries not yet determined, and the loss of earnings, that the damages sought would well exceed the $75,000 jurisdictional amount.

“Plaintiff’s Complaint is not one that sets damages equivocally,” the judge wrote. “Nor does the Complaint merely contain boilerplate language to describe Plaintiff’s injuries.”

Surrick, citing the detailed nature of the civil action, which included dates of surgeries and diagnoses of treatment that the plaintiff received, wrote that the defendants were clearly put on notice that damages sought would likely exceed the jurisdictional amount.

Randy Lovell, the truck driver, is named as a codefendant in the suit.

In the end, Surrick ruled that the defendants’ notice of removal was not timely filed, and he ordered the litigation remanded to the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.

An attorney for U.S. Airways has petitioned a federal judge to take up a

Joseph R. Fowler

personal injury case that was initiated in state court by a woman who says she sustained severe knee and other injuries after tripping over a misplaced floor mat at Philadelphia International Airport.

Lawyer Joseph R. Fowler, of the firm Fowler Hirtzel McNulty & Spaulding LLP, filed a removal notice at U.S. District Court in Philadelphia on Feb. 25 seeking to transfer a suit originally brought at Philadelphia’s Court of Common Pleas to the federal venue.

The complaint alleges that plaintiff Janette Anderson injured herself on Feb. 1, 2012, at about 3:30 in the afternoon while walking in the check-in area at Philadelphia International Airport.

Anderson says she fell to the ground after coming into contact with a mat that had been “crumpled on the side.”

As a result of the incident, the woman claims to have sustained injuries to her left leg and both of her knees.

Some of the injuries required Anderson to undergo surgery, the record shows.

The plaintiff says she experienced pain, discomfort and limitation of motion, all of which may be of a permanent nature.

The airport and the City of Philadelphia are also named as defendants in the litigation, which was filed by Philadelphia attorney James M. Turner, Jr. of Furia and Turner LLC.

In his removal notice, Fowler, the defense lawyer, wrote that the matter qualifies for removal under federal diversity jurisdiction because the parties are citizens of different states.

He also wrote that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, another qualifier for removal to U.S. District Court.

Fowler noted that attorneys for the city, who are also representing Philadelphia International Airport, have also consented to the case’s removal out of Common Pleas Court.

The lawsuit, which also names Anderson’s husband, John, as a codefendant, faults U.S. Airways for failing to maintain the flooring on the premises in a reasonably safe condition and other acts of negligence.

The state case ID number is 140102371 and the federal case number is 2:14-cv-01127-BMS.

A Philadelphia County woman is suing over claims she was injured by tiles falling off a building.

Ruby Foster filed a lawsuit Feb. 11 in the Philadelphia County Circuit Court against Ginark Investments & Management LP, citing negligence.

According to the complaint, on June 28, Foster was standing on the sidewalk outside a property near her own home on Etting Street when a piece of the second-floor tile and wood base of the property owned by Ginark Investments fell on Foster’s neck, shoulder and foot. Grinark is accused of failing to maintain the premises or warn the public of the dangerous condition.

Foster is seeking no more than $50,000 in damages. She is being represented in the case by attorney John M. Rodden.

Philadelphia County Circuit Court Case No. 140201089.

Vitale

A Philadelphia County woman is suing over claims she was injured on the premises of a Lord & Taylor store.

Jessica and Grant Krow filed a lawsuit Feb. 3 in the Philadelphia County Circuit Court against Turner Construction Company, Dale Construction Company, Dale Construction, Dale Corporation, Lord & Taylor LLC, National Realty and Development Corp. and NRDC Equity Partners LLC.

According to the complaint, on Oct. 16, 2012, Jessica Krow was shopping at The Lord & Taylor store on East City Avenue when she tripped on a raised frame left in the middle of the sales area and sustained injury. The defendants are accused of failing to maintain the premises during construction. Grant Krow is suing for loss of consortium.

The Krows are seeking no more than $50,000 in damages. They are being represented in the case by attorney Marc D. Vitale.

Philadelphia County Circuit Court Case No. 140201081.

Falcone

A Delaware County man is suing over claims he was attacked and injured by a group of minors near his home.

Ian Mitchell filed a lawsuit Feb. 11 in the Philadelphia County Circuit Court against Shane Aldridge, a minor, and Sarah Moors as guardian of Aldridge at the time of the incident, Craig Brian Dellapolla Jr., a minor, and Craig and Collette Dellapolla, also known as Collette Higney, as guardians of Dellapolla, Jared Hunt, a minor, and Lynn Potter, as guardian of Hunt, Brandon Nguyen, a minor, and Carrie Donnelly as guardian of Nguyen, Michael Serody, a minor, and Laura and Florence Serody, as guardians of Serody, Dwight Wyli Jr., a minor, and Nicole Gamble as guardian of Wyli, Norcroft Corporation, Merton Price Incorporation and Kenneth Hurwitz.

According to the complaint, on March 31, 2012, Mitchell noticed smoke coming from the wooded area behind his house in Folcroft and when he went to investigate he encountered the defendant minors who then physically assaulted him. Mitchell says he suffered serious injuries, including a punctured lung, concussion, stab wounds and multiple fractures requiring surgery.

The defendant guardians are accused of failing to supervise the minors. The property where the incident occurred was owned by Norcroft, Merton Price and Hurwitz. They are accused of failing to supervise the property where suspicious and disorderly activities were known to occur in the past.

Mitchell is seeking more than $50,000 in damages. He is being represented in the case by attorney Craig A. Falcone of Sacchetta & Falcone.

Philadelphia County Circuit Court Case No. 140201216.

A Philadelphia County woman is suing over claims she was injured on the sidewalk outside a restaurant.

Theresa Pearson filed a lawsuit in the Philadelphia County Circuit Court on Feb. 11 against the city of Philadelphia, Super China Restaurant and Kent and Leanne Heng, citing premises liability.

According to the complaint, on April 16, 2012, Pearson was walking on the sidewalk outside Super China Restaurant, owned by the Hengs, when she slipped on the uneven sidewalk and sustained injuries to her hand and spine.

Pearson is seeking no more than $50,000 in damages. She is being represented in the case by attorney Kenneth S. Saffren.

Philadelphia County Circuit Court Case No. 140201091.

A Philadelphia County man is suing over claims he was injured when his scooter struck a hole in the street.

Samuel Ahmad filed a lawsuit Feb. 11 in the Philadelphia County Circuit Court against Comcast, P.E.C.O., P.G.W., the city of Philadelphia, Verizon Pennsylvania Inc., Philadelphia Water Department, Temple University and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

According to the complaint, on May 22, 2012, Ahmad was riding a Taizhou Scooter on 15th Street at the intersection with Montgomery Avenue in Philadelphia when he struck a hole or depression in the ground and sustained injuries to his elbow, ankle and shoulder. The defendants are accused of being responsible for maintaining the street in this location.

Ahmad is seeking no more than $50,000 in damages. He is being represented in the case by attorney Elizabeth A. Savitt.

Philadelphia County Circuit Court Case No. 140201082.

A judge has disagreed with an argument by Hess Corp. in a negligence

U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick

action that a hazardous condition at one of its gas stations that caused an elderly woman to become injured was trivial, and not actionable as a matter of law.

U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick, of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, issued a ruling last week denying a bid for summary judgment by Hess, which is being sued by Mary Mieloch over injuries the then-81-year-old says she sustained on Dec. 8, 2010, at a defendant-owned gas station on the 6300 block of Oxford Avenue in Northeast Philadelphia.

The plaintiff’s complaint says the woman sustained injuries to her jaw, teeth, face, hands and knees after, while walking to a kiosk to pre-pay for her gas, she tripped on an uneven surface in an area where the asphalt meets a concrete pad on which the gas pumps are located.

Mieloch, a frequent customer who has been going to that gas station for about a decade, claims that she didn’t notice the defect in the ground on that December day until she fell.

The plaintiff originally filed suit in Philadelphia’s Common Pleas Court but the defense removed the action to federal court in late December 2012, records show.

In its motion for summary judgment, which was filed this past December, attorneys for Hess argued that the negligence claim fails because the condition in the gas station parking lot was de mimimus, or trivial.

The plaintiff counter-argued that the change in elevation between the asphalt and concrete pad is not so obviously trivial and that her claim should be allowed to proceed to a jury.

Among other things, Surrick, the judge assigned to the case, noted that in its argument, Hess ignored Pennsylvania Supreme Court guidance that there is “no definite or mathematical rule” for determining whether a defect is trivial.

“Each case must be examined based on the facts presented and upon all of the surrounding circumstances,” Surrick wrote. “We reject Defendant’s invitation to apply a numerical delineation between defects that qualify as trivial and those that do not. The case law does not support this approach.”

Surrick wrote that even if he did accept the defendant’s argument that defects less than two inches are categorically trivial, a factual dispute still exists as to the actual depth of the depression at the parking lot.

“Accepting Plaintiff’s version of the facts, the change in elevation between the asphalt and the concrete pad was at least two inches, if not more,” Surrick wrote. “This undermines Defendant’s entire premise for summary judgment.”

The judge wrote that after reviewing the evidence by the parties, which included nine photographs and the transcript of the plaintiff’s deposition, “we are unable to conclude as a matter of law that the defect at the Hess parking lot is obviously trivial.”

“The change in elevation between the asphalt and the concrete pad is somewhere between 1.5 inches and over three inches, which although not significant, is certainly not trifling,” Surrick wrote. “Moreover, the elevated portion of the concrete pad over which Plaintiff tripped and fell is located in between the gas pumps and the payment kiosk, an area that customers are required to walk through because of Hess’ practice of requiring customers to pre-pay for fuel.”

Under the circumstances, Surrick wrote, the court could not grant the defense summary judgment at this juncture, since the question of whether the condition in the parking lot constituted a trivial defect is best left for a jury to decide.

Hill

A woman is suing the Salvation Army after she slipped on ice and fell.

Katrina German filed a lawsuit Feb. 10 in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas against The Salvation Army, citing negligence.

According to the complaint, on Jan. 5, German was at Salvation Army, 729 Long Lane, Upper Darby, when she slipped and fell due to snow and ice on the property. German says she sustained injuries due to her fall.

German is seeking damages in excess of $50,000.

She is being represented in the case by attorney Leonard K. Hill.

Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas Case ID. 140200973.

Schneider

A woman is suing after she tripped and fell down steps while allegedly trying to avoid an attack by a dog.

Lakeya Salaam filed a lawsuit Feb. 11 in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas against Jurea Wilson, citing negligence.

According to the complaint, Wilson owned a dog at her residence, 5235 N. Hutchinson St. The complaint states on March 9, 2012, Salaam was at the defendant’s property when she was attacked and chased by the dog, causing her to trip and fall down several steps. The plaintiff says she suffered injuries due to her fall, including losing several teeth.

Salaam is seeking damages in an amount exceeding the limits of compulsory arbitration, plus costs and interest. She is being represented in the case by attorney Andrew J. Schneider.

Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas Case ID. 140201044.

Rosenbaum

A Pennsylvania resident is suing over claims he was injured on a metal bolt.

Antonio Deseignoria filed a lawsuit Feb. 10 in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas against Alpha Shirt Co., 9250 Ashton Road Inc., Velocity Express, Alphabroder and Broder Bros. Co., citing premise liability.

According to the complaint, on May 24, 2012, Deseignoria was injured while on the defendant’s premises at 9250 Ashton Road, Philadelphia, when he tripped and fell due to a metal bolt protruding from the floor. The plaintiff contends the defendants’ negligence caused his injuries.

Deseignoria is seeking damages in excess of arbitration limits.

The plaintiff is being represented in the case by Jeffrey M. Rosenbaum of Rosenbaum & Associates PC.

Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas ID. 140200921.

Miller

Petco is facing a personal injury lawsuit after a Philadelphia woman allegedly slipped and fell while on its premises.

Dorothy Tangredi filed her lawsuit in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on Feb. 11, naming Petco Animal Supplies Inc. as the sole defendant.

According to Tangredi, on the morning of July 5, 2012, she was shopping at the Petco store at 917 Roosevelt Blvd. in Philadelphia. While at the store, Tangredi allegedly stepped into an accumulation of liquid which caused her to slip and fall. Tanredi says she suffered serious injuries to her hip, back and head when she fell.

Tangredi is suing for negligence, accusing Petco of allowing a dangerous condition to exist on its premises. She claims Petco’s negligence caused her physical pain and monetary loss for which she is hoping to recover damages from Petco.

Tangredi is seeking an undisclosed amount in damages. She is being represented by attorney Robert S. Miller of Wapner, Newman, Wigrizer, Brecher and Miller.

Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas Case No. 140201196.

A Philadelphia man is suing over injuries he allegedly sustained when he slipped in the restroom of a fast food chain.

Darnell Robinson filed suit in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on Feb. 11, naming Wendy’s Inc. as the defendant. Robinson claims he sustained injuries as the result of Wendy’s negligence.

Robinson claims he was at the Wendy’s at Broad and Champlost streets in Philadelphia in December 2012 when the accident occurred. He was allegedly walking into the bathroom when he unknowingly encountered slippery floors, which caused him to lose his balance and fall.

Robinson says he couldn’t tell the floors were slippery and there was no warning that the floor was wet or dangerous. He apparently suffered serious injuries to his back when he fell and seeks to hold Wendy’s liable.

Robinson is seeking more than $50,000 in damages. He is being represented by attorney Jared S. Zafran.

Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas Case No. 140201194.

A Philadelphia County woman is suing a property owner over claims she sustained injuries while shopping.

Deborah A. King filed a lawsuit Feb. 11 in the Philadelphia County District Court against McMenamin Family Shoprite Inc. and Levin Management Corporation, citing negligence.

King claims on June 22, she suffered injuries when she fell in an aisle of the Shoprite at Morrell Plaza at 9910 Frankford Ave. in Philadelphia. According to the brief, there was a liquid substance on the floor that the defendant failed to clean up, causing King to fall, resulting in severe injuries to her right knee and buttock including an ACL tear and aggravation of underlying osteoarthritis.

King is seeking damages for an amount less than $50,000. She is being represented in the case by Philadelphia attorneys Robert H. Nemeroff and Andrew S. Brown of Friedman Schuman P.C.

Philadelphia County District Court Case No. 140201058.

A Philadelphia County couple are suing a property owner over claims the wife sustained injuries as a result of a poorly maintained sidewalk.

Rita Churnestski and Joe Churnestski filed a lawsuit Feb. 11 in the Philadelphia County District Court against Janet Kennedy, formerly known as Janet Cross, citing negligence.

The plaintiffs claim on April 26, 2012, Rita suffered injuries when she fell due to a cracked and uneven sidewalk at 5422 N. Fairhill St. in Philadelphia. According to the brief, the defendant failed to inspect and maintain the sidewalk, causing Rita to fall, resulting in severe injuries to her head, neck, back, arms, legs and body, including sprained left wrist and broken finger.

The plaintiffs are seeking damages for an amount less than $50,000. They are being represented in the case by Philadelphia attorney Tristram Heinz.

Philadelphia County District Court Case No. 140201067.

Robert M. Silverman

A Philadelphia County woman is suing over claims she sustained injuries as a result of a poorly maintained drain at a playground.

Crystal Jones filed a lawsuit Feb. 11 in the Philadelphia County District Court against the Philadelphia Housing Authority and the city of Philadelphia, citing negligence.

Jones claims on Aug. 22, 2012, she suffered injuries when she fell due to a dangerous condition of the walkway at a playground on North 11th Street between West Berks Street and West Norris Street in Philadelphia. According to the brief, the defendant failed to inspect and keep the property safe, causing Jones to fall, resulting in severe injuries to her leg, ankle and back, including a herniated disk.

Jones is seeking medical expenses in excess of $1,500, interest, attorney’s fees and court costs. She is being represented in the case by attorneys Louis T. Silverman and John R. Trotman Jr. of Silverman Trotman and Schneider LLC.

Philadelphia County District Court Case No. 140201068.

Wilf

A Philadelphia County couple are suing over claims the husband sustained injuries as a result of tripping on a ramp.

Tonovila Hicks and Wilele Hicks filed a lawsuit Feb. 11 in the Philadelphia County District Court against Bruce Zeiger, Barbara Zeiger and Le John, citing negligence and loss of companionship.

The plaintiff claims on Aug. 20, 2012, plaintiff Tonovila Hicks suffered injuries when he tripped and fell on an unsafe ramp in the back room of Metro PCS at 6117 Woodland Ave. in Philadelphia. According to the brief, the defendant failed to provide a safe ramp for his workers, causing Hicks to trip and fall, resulting in severe injuries to his right knee and back.

The plaintiffs are seeking damages in excess of $50,000 from each defendant, interest, attorney’s fees and court costs. They are being represented in the case by attorney Adam D. Wilf of Lundy Law.

Philadelphia County District Court Case No. 140201071.

Liss

A Philadelphia County couple are suing over claims the wife sustained injuries as a result of tripping on a sidewalk outside Bank of America.

Merlene A. Strunk and Charles Fisher filed a lawsuit Feb. 11 in the Philadelphia County District Court against Bank of America Corporation, Stanbery Development LLC, doing business as The Shoppes at English Village, Tristate Fre I LP and Famestarr I Corp., citing negligence.

The plaintiffs claim that on Sept. 1, 2012, Strunk suffered injuries when she tripped and fell down on a sidewalk outside Bank of America in The Shoppes at English Village at 1460 Bethlehem Pike in North Wales. According to the brief, the defendant did not properly care for the walkways outside the bank, causing Strunk to trip and fall, sustaining injuries.

The plaintiffs are seeking damages in excess of $50,000 from each defendant. They are being represented in the case by attorneys Ricky L. Liss and George S. Marion of Liss and Marion P.C.

Philadelphia County District Court Case No. 140201078.

Leonard G. Villari

A couple visiting a casino is suing the establishment after one of them fell and sustained injuries.

Doreen and John McGettigan filed a lawsuit Feb. 10 in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas against Chester Downs and Marina L.L.C., doing business as Harrah’s Philadelphia Casino and Racetrack and/or Harrah’s Philadelphia, and Harrah’s Chester Downs Management Company L.L.C., doing business as Harrah’s Philadelphia Casino and Racetrack and/or Harrah’s Philadelphia, citing negligence.

The lawsuit states the McGettigans were in the casino on Feb. 15, 2012, when Doreen was walking in a foyer and her foot unexpectedly dropped into an unmarked metal gutter in the casino floor. She tripped and sustained permanent and debilitating injuries, the complaint states.

The McGettigans are seeking in excess of $50,000 in damages. They are being represented by Leonard G. Villari of Villari, Lentz, & Lynam L.L.C. and Zarella Law Offices.

Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Case No. 140200938.

A Philadelphia couple is suing a Newtown couple after a woman fell in a grassy area while attempting to get into her son’s car.

Mary and Eugene Lewis filed a lawsuit Feb. 6 in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas against Roy and Margaretta Neitheimer, citing negligence.

The lawsuit states Mary Lewis was leaving property at 6518 N. Mascher St., Philadelphia, on March 10, 2012, when she stepped off the sidewalk onto the berm to get into the vehicle. She fell in an area of sunken ground and sustained severe and permanent injuries, the complaint said. The Neitheimers own the property, according to the complaint.

The plaintiffs are seeking in excess of $50,000 in damages. They are being represented by Michael Mednick.

Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Case No. 140200704.

A New England-based trucking company being sued by a woman who

Nigel A. Greene

allegedly sustained traumatic brain injury following a vehicle accident with a tractor-trailer belonging to the defendant is seeking to transfer the matter from state to federal court.

Attorney Nigel A. Greene, of the Philadelphia law firm Rawle & Henderson, filed a removal petition with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania seeking to transfer a lawsuit by Montgomery County couple Kathy and Alan Scott Leister from the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas to the federal venue.

The Leister’s, who live in Oaks, Pa., filed suit in late January in Common Pleas Court against Vermont-based Jewell Transport Inc. and driver Nathan Pelletier over a June 22, 2012, vehicle accident between Pelletier and Kathy Leister.

On that day, the plaintiff was driving her vehicle with her minor daughter Kaitlyn as a passenger along Route 422 in Upper Providence Township, Pa. when Pelletier crashed his tractor trailer into the woman’s car, according to the civil action.

As a result of the collision, Kathy Leister sustained a host of injuries to her body, including a concussion, a closed head injury, and traumatic brain injury.

She also reportedly suffered cognitive dysfunction, post traumatic stress disorder, sleep dysfunction, traumatic shingles and an aggravation of pre-existing medical conditions, the lawsuit states.

The plaintiffs say they have had to spend large sums of money for medicine and medical attention to treat Kathy Leister’s injuries.

In their complaint, they accuse Jewell Transport of hiring inexperienced drivers and placing corporate profits over public safety resulting in unsafe vehicles and careless drivers being placed on public roadways.

The suit also accuses Pelletier, the driver, of operating his tractor-trailer at an excessive speed, failing to have his vehicle under proper and adequate control, disregarding a steady red traffic signal and other acts of negligence.

In their state court complaint, the couple says they are seeking more than $50,000 in compensatory damages plus unspecified punitive damages, interest and litigation costs.

They are being represented by Philadelphia lawyer Michael O. Pansini of the firm Pansini & Mezrow.

In the defense removal petition, which was filed on March 7, attorney Greene wrote that he believes that based upon a “fair reading” of the complaint, the damages sought by the plaintiffs are likely to exceed $75,000, which is the trigger for federal court jurisdiction.

The lawsuit can also be removed to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, Greene wrote, since the parties are citizens of different states.

The state case ID number is 131203826 and the federal case number is 2:14-cv-01411-EL.

An Ohio woman claims in a newly filed products liability suit that her child

Bryan Aylstock

was born with infant respiratory distress syndrome and a ventricular septal defect, diagnoses she blames on the fact that she took the antidepressant drug Paxil during pregnancy.

Kathryn Kiker, who resides in Columbus, OH, is suing drugmaker GlaxoSmithKline over claims that her child’s birth defects are directly attributed to the defendant’s medication.

The medication “paroxetine,” which is marketed under the brand name Paxil, is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor that was first approved for use in the United States by the Food and Drug Administration back in 1992 for the treatment of depression in adults.

The drug, however, has never been approved by the FDA for use by pregnant women, the lawsuit claims.

The plaintiff says her family physician prescribed her the pharmaceutical, which she continued to ingest while she was pregnant with her child, identified in the suit only as “C.S.”

She gave birth to C.S. in the spring of 2001, records show.

“At the time Paxil was prescribed to Mrs. Kiker, GSK knew through pre-market studies and post-marketing studies and reports that Paxil was associated with a significant increased risk of cardiac birth defects in babies whose mothers ingested Paxil during pregnancy,” the complaint reads. “Notwithstanding this knowledge, GSK aggressively and actively promoted Paxil for use with pregnant women.”

The drug company, the lawsuit alleges, encouraged its sales force to promote Paxil to pregnant women and touted the medication as being a safer alternative to other similar drugs for women who were pregnant.

“Indeed, GSK even suggested that Paxil was safer and more efficacious than other SSRIs on the market, such as Prozac and Zoloft,” the complaint states. “In fact, none of this was true.”

The defendant’s “illegal and improper” marketing of drugs such as Paxil were done to give a “false impression of both the safety and efficacy of the drug to the medical community, prescribing doctors and patients,” the lawsuit says.

The complaint goes on to allege that GSK did not begin to inform doctors of the serious risk associated with Paxil until September 2005, when third party research was released showing the association between Paxil and cardiac birth defects.

The complaint says that prior to Kiker’s pregnancy with C.S., the defendant had the “knowledge, the means and the duty to provide the medical community and the consuming public with a stronger warning regarding the association between Paxil and birth defects through all means necessary including but not limited to labeling, continuing education, symposiums, posters, sales calls to doctors, advertisements and promotional materials, etc. GSK breached this duty.”

The suit contains counts of negligence and negligence per se, negligent pharmaco-vigilance, strict liability, failure to warn, breach of express and implied warranties, fraud, negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligent design, negligent misrepresentation, and violations of unfair trade practices and consumer protection laws.

The plaintiff seeks unspecified past and future general damages and economic damages, earnings losses, medical expenses, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs.

The plaintiff is being represented by attorneys Bryan F. Aylstock and R. Jason Richards of the Pensacola, FL firm Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis & Overholtz.

The federal case number is 2:14-cv-01445-CMR.

A father’s lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson over his son’s death, allegedly

U.S. District Judge Gene E.K. Pratter

due to a dose of Children’s Tylenol, will remain in federal court after a U.S. District judge denied the plaintiff’s motion to remand the matter to Philadelphia’s Court of Common Pleas.

U.S. District Judge Gene E.K. Pratter agreed with the defense in the case, which argued that McNeil PPC is a New Jersey citizen and that all the other defendants who were said to have presented an impediment to removal were fraudulently joined to the litigation.

The lawsuit stems from the death of 4-year-old Joshua Arndt who died on Nov. 2, 2009, in his New York home after his father, Shawn Arndt, the plaintiff, gave the child one dose of Infant’s Tylenol.

Within minutes of receiving the medication, the boy started bleeding from the nose and mouth.

Joshua was rushed to the hospital, but he was pronounced dead upon arrival, according to the father’s complaint.

More than five months later, the record shows, Johnson & Johnson, one of the defendants in the litigation, announced a recall of defective Infant’s Tylenol and other children’s medicine, which covered the bottle purchased by Shawn Arndt.

Johnson & Johnson and subsidiary McNeil also shut down the McNeil manufacturing plant in Fort Washington, Montgomery County, which is located just outside of Philadelphia, after which a Congressional investigation determined that that plant had pervasive quality control problems for many years, according to court records.

In his lawsuit, Arndt argued that several of the other defendants in the case had a hand in the decision-making that led to the contaminated products reaching store shelves.

Arndt filed his lawsuit on Oct. 31, 2012, at the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas naming 16 defendants in total.

The defense subsequently removed the case to the U.S. District Court in Philadelphia and the plaintiff sought to remand the case back to Common Pleas Court.

The defendants argued that some of the defendants were fraudulently joined to the litigation and that McNeil’s principal place of business is in New Jersey, not Pennsylvania, as the plaintiff contended.

They argued that complete diversity of citizenship exists and that the forum defendant rule was not violated by removal to federal court.

Records show that shortly after Arndt field his motion to remand, U.S. District Judge Mary McLaughlin denied a similar motion to remand another case involving Children’s Tylenol pending at the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

In her March 5 memorandum and order, Pratter wrote that individuals in Skillman, N.J., unlike those in Fort Washington, Pa., direct, control or otherwise coordinate McNeil’s business as a whole, and therefore the court adopted the reasoning in Judge McLaughlin’s case that determined McNeil’s principal place of business is in that New Jersey municipality.

Therefore, Pratter wrote, McNeil’s status as a defendant does not prevent removal to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

As for the fraudulent joinder claim, Arndt had contended that he asserted viable claims against the various individual defendants, many of who are Pennsylvania residents.

The plaintiff in Moore v. Johnson & Johnson, the similar case handled by McLaughlin, had brought claims against a few of the same people named in the Arndt suit.

In that case, McLaughlin held that the individuals had been fraudulently joined to the litigation.

In the present case, Pratter wrote that the issue turns on whether Arndt has alleged successfully that the individuals actually participated in tortious conduct, or rather whether the allegations reflect misfeasance as opposed to mere nonfeasance.

Under Pennsylvania law, Pratter noted, corporate officers can be held personally liable if they “specifically direct the particular act to be done or participate, or cooperate therein.”

Arndt claimed that the individual defendants substantially reduced resources for quality control, failed to address quality control warnings from the Food and Drug Administration, dismantled corporate compliance groups, planned and implemented a secret recall of various medications, concealed dangers from the public, and continued to ship products despite knowledge of their defects.

For the most part, Pratter wrote, the allegations conjure up “classic nonfeasance,” meaning they involve alleged failures to act.

“Despite an attempt to set forth more fulsome allegations against a much larger number of individual defendants in this case as compared with Moore, nowhere does the Complaint contain allegations suggesting that any of the individual defendants were directly involved in the manufacture or distribution of Infant’s Tylenol,” the judge wrote.

Pratter wrote that because the plaintiff has not alleged any conduct on the part of the individual defendants that is causally connected to his injury and amounts to misfeasance, as opposed to nonfeasance, the individual defendants were fraudulently joined to the case, and the claims against them would have to be dismissed, meaning they present no impediment to diversity jurisdiction necessary for removal to federal court.

Philadelphia personal injury firm Ross Feller Casey filed suit in state court

Matthew A. Casey

in Philadelphia late last week on behalf of an Alabama man who claims he suffered a stroke due to his use of the testosterone drug Testim.

The complaint is believed to be the first such civil action filed in Philadelphia’s Common Pleas Court against a maker of medication used to treat low testosterone in males.

“The pharmaceutical industry created a condition called Low T as part of a multi-billion dollar marketing and sales campaign,” firm partners Robert Ross, Joel Feller and Matt Casey said in a joint statement. “There was sufficient medical evidence to reasonably know that these drugs would cause injuries.”

The complaint was filed on behalf of Robert and Kathleen Hoehl, a husband and wife who reside in Anniston, Alabama.

The defendants named in the litigation are Chesterbrook, Pa.-based Auxilium Pharmaceuticals Inc. and drugmaker GlaxoSmithKline.

Robert Hoehl, 64, who had no prior history of cerebrovascular disease or neurological impairments, began taking the testosterone replacement drug Testim in the fall of 2011, the complaint states.

The following summer, Hoehl experienced a cerebrovascular accident and was ultimately diagnosed with concomitant erythrocytosis and clinical hyperviscosity syndrome, which the plaintiff claims was caused by the “exogenously administered testosterone-containing medication Testim.”

The man immediately discontinued his use of Testim, and after about three to four months of monitoring his blood counts, his hematocrit returned to normal levels, according to the civil action.

“Robert Hoehl’s cerebrovascular accident and neurologic sequelae were directly and proximately caused by the testosterone-containing topically applied medication Testim,” the complaint reads.

The lawsuit, which Ross Feller Casey maintains is one of only a handful of such cases to have been filed to date across the country, says that Testim received Food and Drug Administration approval in October 2002.

It was launched in the United States the following year.

The plaintiff’s firm alleges that Testim was defective in its condition and unreasonably dangerous with respect to its design, warnings, instructions and/or indications for use.

The suit claims that the medical information concerning the “syndrome,” “disease” or “condition” classified as “Low T” was false and misleading, and conveyed inaccurate medical information for the purpose of creating a condition that would need to be treated with testosterone replacement therapy, such as through use of the drug Testim.

The complaint says that a decrease in testosterone levels is a “normal and expected component of the male aging process,” and is neither a “syndrome” nor “disease” nor “condition,” as described by the defendants.

“Defendants repeatedly and knowingly represented, through deeds, actions, and words, including an aggressive and pervasive direct-to-consumer advertising campaign, that low testosterone levels and ‘Low T’ were pathologic entities requiring treatment,” the lawsuit states.

Hoehl, the plaintiff in the case, maintains that he was never provided with information with respect to the risks of cerebrovascular accident and neurologic disability.

As a result of his using the defendants’ product, the plaintiff says he suffered neurologic impairment, cognitive deficits and impairments, loss of life’s pleasures, fear and fright, embarrassment and humiliation, economic loss, requirement for medical monitoring relating to this stroke, and a loss of earnings.

He also says he has incurred past, present and future medical expenses.

The plaintiff’s wife, Kathleen, has a loss of consortium claim in the litigation.

The complaint contains counts of strict liability, negligent design, breach of implied and express warranties, fraud and recklessness, and negligent misrepresentation.

The Hoehls’ seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, plus interest, costs and delay damages.

The state case ID number is 140301684.

Relatives of a harness-racing driver who sustained traumatic brain injuries

Joseph G. DeAngelo

during a crash at a suburban Philadelphia racetrack have filed suit against the owners and operators of the venue.

The parents of New Jersey resident Anthony Coletta filed a lawsuit in Philadelphia’s Common Pleas Court on Tuesday alleging that the Harrah’s Philadelphia Casino in Chester, Delaware County, which is where the racetrack is located, knew for two years prior to the accident that the track was “dangerously defective” and posed a safety threat to drivers and their horses.

The defendants in the litigation – Caesars Entertainment Corp., Caesars Entertainment Operating Corp., Chester Downs and Marina LLC, Harrah’s Philadelphia Casino & Racetrack Inc. and Harrah’s Chester Downs Management Co. LLC ­– are accused of knowing about the hazardous conditions at the track but failing to take corrective measures because it didn’t want to spend the necessary time or money.

“It is now clear, and asserted in the Complaint, that the track owners turned a blind eye when it came to track maintenance and they permitted an unreasonably dangerous condition to exist at the exact location where the chain-reaction accident began,” Michael F. Barrett, one of the attorneys who filed the lawsuit, said in a statement.

The complaint says that the defendants, in not taking any action to remedy the alleged defects in the racetrack, put the lives of the professional harness drivers at risk.”

“Harrah’s Philadelphia and Caesars failed to take any action with respect to assessing and/or redoing the track during the September 2013 racing season break, which was just two months prior to Anthony Coletta’s injuries,” the complaint reads.

The 31-year-old Coletta sustained numerous fractures, as well as brain and skull injuries, as a result of being thrown from his sulky, the device pulled by the horse, and then trampled by other harness racers.

The law firm that represents his parents maintains that it was impossible for Coletta to avoid the horse in front of him that stumbled on the defective surface, an act that set off the “horrific accident.”

Coletta, who was once a widely acclaimed harness racer, remains hospitalized following several surgeries, according to the law firm of Saltz Mongeluzzi Barret & Bendesky.

During the firm’s investigation, attorneys learned that drivers at Harrah’s repeatedly attempted to warn the owners of the racetrack of the imminent danger and urgent need for repairs, but the concerns apparently fell on deaf ears.

“They knew there was an unreasonably dangerous condition because horses were routinely losing their footing,” co-counsel Joseph G. DeAngelo said in a statement. “There is no question that this was an accident waiting to happen and that corrective actions were not seriously considered until after Mr. Coletta nearly died.”

The plaintiffs’ attorneys said they received a court order back in January permitting them to conduct a forensic investigation of the racetrack’s surface.

The plaintiffs in the case, Hammonton, N.J. residents Alfred and Rosemary Coletta, the injured driver’s parents, turned to the law firm to use “all legal means necessary to determine what caused the accident, hold those responsible fully accountable for their actions, and ensure that no other drivers and their horses are put at risk,” reads a statement from Saltz Mongeluzzi.

“We look forward on behalf of Anthony and his family to presenting this case of corporate greed and indifference to a jury,” stated Robert Mongeluzzi, a partner with the firm.

The plaintiffs seek more than $50,000 in damages.

The case ID number is 140102714.

For the second time in as many weeks, a Philadelphia personal injury law

Joel Feller

firm has filed a lawsuit on behalf of a man who claims he suffered injuries due to his use of a testosterone supplement medication.

Lawyers with Ross Feller Casey on Tuesday filed a civil complaint at Philadelphia’s Common Pleas Court on behalf of Edwin Rios and his wife, Eileen, who reside in southern New Jersey.

The Vineland couple claims Edwin, who is 67 and has no history of cardiovascular problems, suffered a myocardial infarction last spring, something the plaintiffs attribute to the man’s use of the medication Testim.

The plaintiff, who is also a Type II diabetic, began using Testim in May 2012.

He suffered the heart attack about a year later.

The lawsuit says that the injury was caused by the “exogenously administered testosterone-containing medication Testim,” which is manufactured and distributed by Chesterbrook, Pa.-based Auxilium Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Philadelphia’s GlaxoSmithKline, the two defendants named in the litigation.

The civil complaint accuses the drug companies of knowing Testim was dangerous, but nevertheless failing to provide adequate safety warnings.

Testim, like other testosterone gels that are applied to a man’s upper arms, provides a “continuous transdermal delivery system for testosterone for 24 hours following a single application to the skin,” according to the lawsuit.

Testim, which received approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration back in October 2002, was “defective in its condition and unreasonably dangerous with respect to its design, warnings, instructions, and/or indications for use,” the lawsuit reads.

The drug companies are accused of orchestrating a “national awareness campaign and multi-platform media initiative and program to purportedly educate male consumers about the signs and symptoms of ‘Low T,’ and to introduce a ‘cure’ for ‘Low T’ in the form of, among other prescription testosterone-containing preparations, Testim,” according to the complaint.

The complaint alleges that the defendants knew a decrease in testosterone levels in men is part of the natural aging process, and that returning testosterone levels to so-called “physiologic levels to treat the contrived and pharmaceutical industry created and driven diagnosis of ‘Low T’ was a recipe for grievous harm in the form of cardiovascular events.”

Just last week, lawyers from Ross Feller Casey filed a similar lawsuit on behalf of an Alabama man who says he suffered a stroke due to his use of Testim.

The firm claims that suit was the first of its kind to have been filed at the Philadelphia Common Pleas Court.

Like the other suit, the Rios complaint says that a decrease in testosterone levels is a “normal and expected component of the male aging process,” and, despite assertions by the defendants, is not a “syndrome” nor “disease” nor “condition.”

“Increasing testosterone levels via the administration of exogenous testosterone in men who have experienced a physiologic decrease in testosterone levels during the aging process presents unreasonable health hazards, and is manifestly dangerous,” the complaint reads. “Defendants repeatedly and knowingly represented, through deeds, action, and words, including an aggressive and pervasive direct-to-consumer advertising campaign, that low testosterone levels and ‘Low T’ were pathologic entities requiring treatment.”

As a result of his use of Testim, Edwin Rios, the plaintiff, experienced pain and suffering, loss of life’s pleasures, physical debility, mental anguish, fear and fright, embarrassment and humiliation, economic loss, requirement for medical monitoring, and past, present and future medical expenses, the complaint states.

His wife, Eileen, brings a claim for the loss of marital consortium.

The suit contains counts of strict liability, negligence, breach of implied and express warranties, fraud and recklessness, and negligent misrepresentation.

The couple seeks unspecified compensatory damages along with interest, costs and delay damages.

Drug company Johnson & Johnson and medical device manufacturer

Eric H. Weitz

Ethicon Inc. have filed a removal petition in U.S. District Court in Philadelphia stating that a South Carolina woman’s product liability claim involving allegations of faulty pelvic mesh belongs in that venue, not the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.

Judy Abrams, of Honea Path, S.C., filed suit in early February in Common Pleas Court over claims that she was injured in February 2009 after a physician implanted the defendants’ Gynecare Prolift +M Pelvic Floor Repairing System inside of her body during a surgery at AnMed Health Medical Center in Anderson, S.C.

The lawsuit, which was filed by lead attorney Eric H. Weitz, of the Philadelphia firm Messa & Associates, alleges that Abrams, as a result of the defendants’ conduct, has been injured “catastrophically,” and that she sustained severe and permanent pain, suffering, disability, impairment and loss of life’s enjoyment.

The complaint says that patients implanted with the defendants’ product have suffered from mesh erosion, mesh exposure, mesh contraction, infection, inflammation, scar tissue, organ perforation, pelvic floor damage and other problems associated with the device.

Despite knowledge of the catastrophic injuries and complications caused by the pelvic mesh, however, the defendants have continued to market and sell their products while failing to adequately warn of its dangers.

The suit even points out that in January 2012, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ordered the defendants to conduct randomized, controlled clinical testing of the pelvic mesh products and mesh components or to be ordered to cease their manufacturer, marketing and sale.

As of the date of the filing of the complaint, the plaintiff’s lawyers’ note, it is unknown whether Ethicon or Secant Medical, another defendant, ever began or completed any of the clinical testing ordered by the FDA.

The defense’s removal petition, filed on March 17 by Drinker Biddle & Reath attorneys Kenneth A. Murphy, Melissa A. Graff and Andrew P. Reeve, states that the lawsuit should play out in federal court for various reasons.

For starters, the defense attorneys contend that regardless of the assertion that the plaintiff’s monetary damages claim falls within the jurisdiction of a Pennsylvania state court, it’s clear that the woman is actually seeking damages in excess of $75,000, the amount triggering federal court jurisdiction.

The petition also states that there is complete diversity of citizenship between the plaintiff and the “properly joined” defendants.

As for the other defendants, the attorneys wrote that Bucks County-based Secant Medical was fraudulently joined to the litigation because it has no involvement with the Ethicon pelvic mesh product that is the subject of the lawsuit.

A plaintiff such as Abrams, the lawyers wrote, cannot defeat a defendant’s federal right of removal by fraudulently joining a forum defendant such as Secant in this case.

As proof of fraudulent joinder, the defense lawyers attached to the petition the affidavit of a man identified as Marc Kisielnicki, who notes that Ethicon manufactured and sold the Prolift +M pelvic mesh device prior to “decommercialization” of the product in 2012.

Secant, the petition states, was not involved in any manner in the knitting of the composite material that was utilized to make the mesh device, and Johnson & Johnson never used any materials provided by Secant in the making of the Prolift +M.

“Because no cause of action exists against it, Secant is an unnecessary and dispensable party to the dispute between Plaintiff and Removing Defendants,” the petition states.

The state case ID number is 140200307 and the federal case number is 2:14-cv-01599-PD.

The widow of a man who died from renal failure and intracerebral

Michael M. Weinkowitz

hemorrhage allegedly tied to his use of the medication Pradaxa has filed a federal wrongful death complaint against the makers of the drug.

Nancy L. Standish is suing Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals over the death of her husband, James Standish, Jr., who died on April 10, 2012, after suffering a bilateral cerebellar and left frontal subarachnoid and intraparenchymal hemorrhage.

The injuries led James Standish to spend two days in Crozier Chester Medical Center in suburban Philadelphia before he ultimately passed away, the suit claims.

James Standish, the complaint states, had been taking Pradaxa since July 2007 for treatment of non-valvular atrial fibrillation.

The medication is a direct thrombin inhibitor that is designed to reduce the risk of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation, which is a heart rhythm disorder.

Pradaxa, which received Food and Drug Administration approval in the fall of 2010, was promoted as being more effective than a drug called warfarin in preventing stroke and systemic embolism, the lawsuit states, but in reality the makers of the drug failed to properly warn of its dangers.

The defendants, the suit says, also failed to warn emergency room physicians, surgeons and other critical care medical professionals than unlike generally-known measures taken to treat and stabilize bleeding in users of warafin, there is no effective agent to reverse the anticoagulation effects of Pradaxa, and therefore no effective means to stabilize patients who experience uncontrolled bleeding while taking Pradaxa.

The complaint says that as of Dec. 31, 2011, the FDA has received more than 500 reports of deaths of people in the United States linked to Pradaxa.

There have additionally been more than 900 reports of gastrointestinal hemorrhages, more than 300 reports of rectal hemorrhages, and more than 200 reports of cerebrovascular accidents suffered by Americans associated with Pradaxa use, according to the lawsuit.

As a result of the defendants’ claims regarding the effectiveness, safety and benefits of Pradaxa, the plaintiff’s husband and his doctors were unaware that the man would have been exposed to the risks of excessive and/or uncontrollable bleeding and other health issues associated with the medication, the complaint states.

The suit contains counts of strict products liability, negligence, negligent misrepresentation and/or fraud, breach of implied and express warranties, negligence per se, and fraudulent concealment.

The plaintiff says she has incurred medical, funeral and estate expenses relating to the death of her husband.

She seeks compensatory damages in excess of $75,000, unspecified punitive damages, damages for pain and suffering, interest, attorneys’ fees and costs.

The complaint was filed in U.S. District Court in Philadelphia on March 19 by attorney Michael M. Weinkowitz of the firm Levin, Fishbein Sedran & Berman.

The federal case number is 2:14-cv-01627-ER.

A federal judge has ruled that the City of Philadelphia is not liable for

U.S. District Judge Cynthia M. Rufe

injuries sustained by a woman who was just a child when she suffered a years-long period of sexual abuse at the hands of a city police officer.

U.S. District Judge Cynthia M. Rufe earlier this month also determined that three former Philadelphia police commissioners and the city’s Department of Parks and Recreation are not to blame for the abuse perpetuated upon Deborah Grooms by Tyrone Wiggins, who is currently serving out a 17-and-a-half-to-35-year state prison sentence for his conviction on criminal charges stemming from his eight-year campaign of “horrifying sexual abuse” of Grooms beginning when the woman was 10 years old.

Background information on the case shows that Wiggins, also defendant in the civil action, taught a karate class at a city rec center operated by the Parks and Recreation Department at which Grooms was enrolled.

The former officer became acquainted with the girl’s family, and soon after gaining their trust began to sexually abuse Grooms, actions he continued for a total of eight years.

“Wiggins used his physical strength, proximity to Grooms’ family, and his status as a police officer to intimidate Grooms,” the judicial memorandum states. “He threatened her with incarceration if she ever told anyone about his actions.”

Wiggins even committed some of his crimes against Grooms while on duty; he was known to lie to dispatchers when they asked where he was, during times when he was sexually assaulting the girl in Fairmount Park.

Wiggins, the record shows, got so loud at Grooms’ apartment at times that police officers would respond to the home, although Wiggins was able to get the responding officers to retreat after flashing his badge and saying that everything was alright.

Grooms finally reported the abuse to police in 2006, after which Wiggins was suspended by former Police Commissioner Sylvester Johnson.

The former officer was still allowed to teach karate at the rec center, however, and later, as criminal charges approached, Wiggins was allowed to resign from his job so as to keep his pension, according to the court record.

As for the civil case, Johnson, another former police commissioner, Richard Neal, and the city itself filed motions to dismiss, arguing that while Grooms stated an injury cognizable under Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act, the complaint fails to state a sufficient factual basis to impose liability on defendants other than Wiggins.

Grooms had argued that the other defendants should be held liable for failing to train police officers, and because the city caused her constitutional violations pursuant to official policies or customs.

Rufe, the judge, wrote that with respect to the failure-to-train accusation, the complaint did not give sufficient indication of the factual basis of the two essential elements needed to state a plausible claim for relief, in this case indifference and causation.

“Beyond alleging that Neal and Johnson were the Commissioners of Police at the times when Grooms’ constitutional rights were violated, she alleges no facts to support the inference that at the time she was abused there was any known or obvious condition that required training that either individual defendant failed to address,” Rufe wrote. “Groom argues in both her complaint and in her opposition to the motions to dismiss that the individual defendants had a continuing duty to review police officers’ conduct and credentials, but this does not rise to the level of ‘actual or constructive notice that a particular omission in their training program causes city employees to violate citizens’ constitutional rights.’”

The judge also wrote that Grooms pleaded no facts that could support the inference that Neal, who was commissioner until 2002, was on actual or constructive notice of Wiggins’ behavior at any point.

“It is not enough that Wiggins abused her,” Rufe wrote. “The abuse or the conditions that permitted the abuse to continue must have been known or obvious to the moving defendant and he must have chosen to ignore them in order to be held liable on a failure to train theory.”

Grooms, Rufe wrote, also failed to plead facts that could subject the city to liability under a theory that an official policy or custom caused the woman’s injuries.

“She never alleges with any specificity what the policy or custom was or any facts beyond her injuries to suggest that [an official policy] existed,” the judge wrote. “Therefore, Grooms fails to allege how a fact finder could infer that a policy, rather than a rogue officer, caused her injuries.

“In short,” Rufe wrote, “Grooms unquestionably alleges sufficiently that she was injured, but beyond conclusory statements, she never alleges that police commissioners or other municipal officials knew or had reason to know of her injuries or that they enforced a specific custom or policy pursuant to which she was injured.”

Rufe concluded by stating that while Grooms undoubtedly suffered “grievous, abominable injuries,” the woman failed to allege facts that could support a legal theory that would impose liability on the municipal defendants.

A three-judge state appellate court panel has affirmed a Philadelphia

Pennsylvania Superior Court Senior Judge William H. Platt

judge’s grant of summary judgment to Dave & Busters Inc. in a personal injury case brought by a man who says he hurt himself while bowling at the city business.

In a March 21 non-precedential opinion written by Superior Court Judge William H. Platt, the appeals panel determined that a Philadelphia trial judge was correct this past June to weigh in favor of the defense in a case brought by Lynell Pettigrew, who sued in late March 2012 over an incident that occurred two years prior at the Dave & Busters location at 325 N. Columbus Boulevard in Philadelphia.

Pettigrew claimed he sustained an injury after slipping and falling on the floor of the facility while bowling, the record shows.

A board of arbitrators initially found in favor of Dave & Busters, and a Philadelphia judge ultimately agreed with the arbitrators.

Pettigrew subsequently appealed the judge’s decision to Superior Court, arguing that the trial court erred in granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment because genuine issues of fact existed over both the ownership of the premises and whether the defendant possessed constructive or actual notice of the alleged defect or hazardous condition at the facility.

The Superior Court judges wrote that the trial judge properly found that the record did not contain sufficient evidence to show that the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff because Pettigrew was not injured at the facility named in the complaint but rather at another Dave & Buster’s location.

When responding to the complaint, lawyers for Dave & Busters argued that the incident couldn’t have occurred at the Columbus Boulevard location because that facility has no bowling alley.

The defendants in the case, which also included Dave & Busters of Pennsylvania Inc., also denied that they owned the Dave & Busters located at Franklin Mills Circle in Northeast Philadelphia, which is where the incident may have occurred since that facility does have bowling lanes.

The defendants stated that that facility may be owned by Tango of Franklin Inc., the record shows.

Pettigrew, however, never sought to amend his complaint to reflect the aforementioned issues, the Superior Court noted.

In his response to the defendants’ summary judgment motion, however, Pettigrew “tacitly conceded” that the incident didn’t not occur at the Columbus Boulevard location, and he stressed that the Franklin Mills location was not properly put on notice of his injuries.

The appeals judges wrote that the defendants did not owe a duty of care to Pettigrew because, as the plaintiff conceded in his response to the defendants’ summary judgment motion and in his brief to the Superior Court, he was not injured at the Columbus Boulevard location owned by the defendants.

“On appeal, as he did in his response to summary judgment, [Pettigrew] attempts to skirt this problem by alleging that [the defendants] also owned the Franklin Mills facility,” the Superior Court ruling states. “We agree with the trial court that this contention did not raise a genuine issue of material fact at summary judgment because [Pettigrew] never pleaded in his complaint nor sought to amend his complaint to assert that the incident occurred at the Franklin Mills facility.

“Here, by pleading in the complaint that [Pettigrew] was injured at the Columbus [Boulevard] facility and by persisting in that averment until the response to summary judgment, [Pettigrew] failed to give [the defendants] fair notice of the material facts that support his claims.”

The panel stated that even if it concluded that the defendants had fair notice that Pettigrew was claiming he was injured at the Franklin Mills facility, the grant of summary judgment would still be proper because Pettigrew failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact with respect to the ownership of that facility.

“It is long settled that, under Pennsylvania law, it is the ‘possessor of land’ that is subject to liability for harm caused to invitees by dangerous conditions on the land,” the panel wrote. “Thus, in order to defeat [the defendants’] motion for summary judgment [Pettigrew] could not rest on his pleadings, but needed to show record evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact as to [defendants] possession of the Franklin Mills facility.”

The other participating jurists were Superior Court President Judge Susan Peikes Gantman and Judge Judith Ference Olson.

A Bucks County man who says he sustained serious and irreversible injuries

Clifford D. Bidlingmaier

when his fingers were amputated by a metal shearer while at work has filed a products liability complaint against the makers of the device.

Albert Mueller, a resident of Levittown, Pa., is suing Tennessee-based Tennsmith Inc. over injuries he says he sustained back on April 28, 2012, while at work at Sherwood Steel Inc.

The plaintiff’s job in the metal fabrication department requires him to use a Tennsmith metal shearer, the lawsuit states.

It was during one of those times that Mueller had his right index, right middle and right ring finger on his hand amputated by the defendant’s product.

The injuries occurred on the plaintiff’s right hand, which is his dominant hand, the complaint states.

Mueller required surgery, physical therapy and other medical care and attention due to his injuries.

He says he experienced great physical pain and suffering, mental anguish, chronic pain and agony as a result of the workplace incident.

Mueller also maintains he will continue to incur lost wages as a result of the accident due to his inability to work using his hands.

The lawsuit contains counts of negligent product liability, strict liability, and warranty.

The defendant stands accused of manufacturing and selling a product in a defective condition.

The metal shearers in question were “unreasonably dangerous to its users,” the complaint says, specifically because it has no guard or safety devices to protect workers from possible amputation.

“The lack of a guard, safety devices and/or warnings on the Defendant’s mechanical shears was the direct and proximate result of the negligence, carelessness and recklessness of the Defendant …,” the complaint reads.

The plaintiff says he has been left permanently partially disabled due to the workplace incident.

Mueller seeks more than $150,000 in damages plus attorney’s fees, interest, costs and delay damages.

The lawsuit was filed on March 26 by attorney Clifford D. Bidlingmaier of the Bucks County firm Kardos, Rickles, Hand & Bidlingmaier.

The federal case number is 2:14-cv-01785-JHS.

A Philadelphia man claims in a newly filed civil suit that he was severely

Adrian J. Moody

injured after falling on a patch of ice that had accumulated near a mailbox at a city post office.

Glen Guy filed a personal injury claim March 28 at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against the United States Postal Service over allegations that he was left unconscious for about a minute and required medical care after he fell on a patch of ice on the steps leading to a mailbox outside of the postal facility at 2601 N. 16^th St. in Philadelphia back in early February of last year.

The plaintiff’s alleged injuries occurred while he was walking down the steps to the mailboxes, which the suit says were not properly maintained by the Postal Service.

After he fell backward, Guy was rendered unconscious for almost a minute, the complaint states.

He had to be taken by ambulance to Temple University Hospital where he was diagnosed as having a right-sided pneumothorax fracture and rib fractures.

After he was transported to the hospital, the suit says, Guy had to have a chest tube inserted into his right side.

The Postal Service is accused of breaching its duty of care by failing to keep the area around the outside mailboxes clear from ice and other hazardous conditions.

“As a further direct and proximate result of Defendant Postal Service’s breach of its duty of care as described herein, Plaintiff Guy suffered extreme physical and mental pain and discomfort, and was forced to incur medical expenses in being treated for his injuries,” the complaint reads.

Guy seeks $150,000 in compensatory damages.

He is being represented by attorney Adrian J. Moody.

The federal case number is 2:14-cv-01867-LFR.

The local law firm that has been at the forefront of testosterone

Matthew A. Casey

replacement therapy injury claims in Philadelphia has filed another complaint against the makers of the “Low T” drug Testim, this one claiming a 45-year-old Virginia man died from a sudden heart attack as a result of using the product.

Ross Feller Casey last week filed its fourth such suit in two weeks, the latest complaint alleging that Stephen T. Hardwich died from a heart attack on March 9 in what the plaintiff’s attorneys says was an injury induced by the man’s use of the testosterone medication.

Hardwich, of Midlothian, Va., who began using Testim in mid-2013, had no prior history of cardiovascular or cerebrovascular disease, the complaint says, but he ended up dying after suffering a sudden heart attack early last month, allegedly as a result of the testosterone-containing medication.

The medication either “directly and proximately caused, or increased the risk of harm,” to the plaintiff, the suit states.

The complaint contains counts of strict liability, negligence, breach of implied and express warranties, fraud and recklessness, negligent misrepresentation and wrongful death.

The defendants are Auxilium Pharmaceuticals Inc. and GlaxoSmithKline.

The attorneys representing Hardwich’s widow, Rosemary, maintain that the defendants’ defective, inadequate and unreasonably dangerous warnings and instructions for use, as well as product design and testing, have caused injuries and even death in those who have used testosterone gels such as Testim.

Three other suits previously filed by Ross Feller Casey at Philadelphia’s Common Pleas Court allege that a New Jersey man had a heart attack, an Alabama man suffered a stroke, and a Scranton, Pa. man sustained severe heart damage all as a result of taking testosterone replacement therapy.

Drugs similar to Testim include AndroGel, Axiron, AndroDerm and Fortesta.

Ross Feller Casey says it believes its suits are the first and only ones to have been brought in Philadelphia’s Common Pleas Court and one of only a small handful of similar cases filed nationwide.

Just days after the Hardwich wrongful death claim, the law firm filed another testosterone suit, this one on behalf of a Grapevine, TX man who alleges he suffered a pulmonary embolism back in the fall of 2008 a mere half-year after he began using the testosterone gel Testim.

The plaintiff in that case, Garland T. Joseph, survived, but had to be treated with anticoagulant therapy to treat his injuries.

Joseph, who is 70 years old, has been an insulin-dependent diabetic for about two decades, but he had no prior history of myocardial infarction or stroke prior to suffering the embolism, the lawsuit states.

He does, however, have a history of hypertension.

Joseph “relied upon the claims and representations of the Defendant that Testim had been clinically demonstrated to be safe and effective when used to raise testosterone levels in the treatment of ‘Low T,’ and was approved for use for that purpose,” his complaint reads.

Joseph’s wife, Shirley A. Joseph, also has a loss of consortium count in the lawsuit.

Some attorneys specializing in products liability law contend that testosterone replacement therapy litigation might be the next big multi-district case or mass tort.

“We’re getting cases and have been talking to lawyers from other parts of the country,” Philadelphia lawyer Stephen Sheller, whose firm, Sheller P.C. specializes in products liability litigation, told the Legal Intelligencer in a recent article. “I predict it will be a mass tort. From what we see happening and the calls we’re getting, it looks like it’s a serious problem.”

In that same story, Stanley Thompson, director of the Complex Litigation Center at the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, said if enough similar filings emerge, the creation of a testosterone replacement therapy mass tort could be considered.

The Hardwich case ID number is 140303953 and the Joseph case ID number is 140304352.

A Philadelphia judge has overruled defense preliminary objections in a

Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge Frederica A. Massiah-Jackson

medical malpractice case initiated by a patient who claims he sustained nerve damage following an elective surgery to repair a herniated disc.

Common Pleas Court Judge Frederica Massiah-Jackson in an order last month overruled the objections and ordered the defendants to file a response to the plaintiffs’ amended complaint within 20 days.

Jason Morgan and his wife, Michele, are suing Neurosurgical Associates, Aria Health Physician Services and Dr. Joseph E. Scogna over injuries Jason Morgan says he sustained following an Aug. 15, 2011, procedure to correct a herniated disc in his neck.

The plaintiff claims that the bone fusion operation led to him sustain significant and permanent nerve and neurological damage.

The couple is suing the defendants for negligence and medical malpractice.

After the litigation was commenced, the defendants filed preliminary objections, arguing that they had entered into an agreement to arbitrate all medical negligence claims, the court record shows.

In her ruling, Massiah-Jackson determined that the arbitration agreement at question is not valid because it is “unconscionable.”

An agreement is considered unconscionable, the judge wrote, when one party has no choice but to accept a provision that unreasonably favors the drafting party.

“Not only has the statutory and case law clearly provided protections and parameters for all parties in medical negligence litigation, Plaintiff-Morgan did not have any choice when these documents were presented for his signature,” the judge wrote. “Defendant-Scogna has been unable to identify a single provision which he drafted which favors Plaintiff-Morgan and which does not unreasonably favor the alleged tortfeasor.”

Massiah-Jackson, who noted that the burden of proof for preliminary objections rests on the moving party, ruled that the objections by Scogna and Neurosurgical Associates challenging specificity and conformity of the pleadings, and the assertion of a valid agreement to arbitrate are overruled.

She ordered the sides to prepare for a trial in Philadelphia County.

A federal judge in Philadelphia has granted summary judgment to sports club chain LA Fitness in a case brought by a member who says he was injured during a confrontation at the gym in Andorra, Pa.

U.S. District Judge Thomas O’Neill, Jr., of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sided with LA Fitness in the litigation commenced by Cornelius Lister, who claimed he was injured in early September 2012 when a physical altercation broke out at the northwest Philadelphia branch during a basketball game.

Records show that the plaintiff was attacked by at least four other men, one of whom was also a club member, during a basketball game at the gym.

There was evidence that the basketball court was limited to members at the time and not open to guests and that a club employee who was working at the front desk had allowed non-members who participated in the assault to enter the club, according to the judge’s April 3 memorandum.

At the summary judgment stage of the litigation, attorneys for LA Fitness argued that the exculpatory clause in the plaintiff’s membership agreement with the athletic club protects it against liability in instances such as the one involving Lister.

The plaintiff had counter-argued that the exculpatory clause is unenforceable because it is ambiguous and because it doesn’t apply to reckless conduct.

Lister had also argued that there was sufficient evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant to go to a jury.

In opposing summary judgment, the plaintiff contended that the exculpatory clause in the membership agreement is ambiguous because it does not specifically apply to intentional acts by guests or to the club’s negligence in failing to prevent those intentional acts.

“The types of injuries referred to in the release are those resulting from exercise, club activities, and accidents,” Lister’s lawyers had written in court filings. “Nothing in the release states that a member waives claims arising out of the intentional assaults by other users of the club or the club’s failure to protect against such assaults.”

The judge, however, wrote that the plaintiff’s argument is without merit.

“In the membership agreement plaintiff agreed that his use of defendant’s facilities involved risk of injury to person and that he assumed full responsibility for such risk; further, he agreed that he released and held defendant harmless from all liability to himself for any damages on account of injury to himself whether caused by the active or passive negligence of defendant while on defendant’s premises,” O’Neill wrote.

That “risk of injury,” the judge continued, included injuries arising from participation by himself or others in supervised or unsupervised activities at the gym.

“There is nothing ambiguous about this language,” O’Neill wrote. “The injury alleged by plaintiff arose from his participation with others in a unsupervised activity at defendant’s club.”

On the plaintiff’s reckless conduct argument, O’Neill wrote that the conduct attributed by Lister to the defendant cannot be characterized as reckless and “plaintiff cites no authority supporting the proposition that it is.

“Plaintiff’s conclusory statement that ‘defendant recklessly disregarded its own policies’ is insufficient to make it so,” the judge wrote.

“Plaintiff has not presented any evidence of conscious action or heedless indifference on the part of defendant nor demonstrated that its conduct was more than inadvertence,” O’Neill wrote. “Therefore, the membership agreement that plaintiff signed releases defendant from liability for plaintiff’s injury.”

A Georgia woman is suing the Philadelphia Museum of Art over claims that

Brad S. Tabakin

she was injured after falling on broken slate at the city art institution.

Winter Chatman, of Duluth, Ga., filed suit last week at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against the art museum and the City of Philadelphia’s Risk Management Division over bodily injuries she says she sustained on April 12, 2012.

At about 10 in the morning on that day, the complaint says, Chatman was walking on the northwest terrace to the rear of the museum when, suddenly and without warning, she tripped and fell due to broken and uneven slate walkway.

The incident allegedly caused the museum patron to sustain multiple bruises, contusions, nerve damage and other injuries to her neck, left shoulder, knees, left hip, left foot and head.

The plaintiff says she has experienced great pain and suffering, suffered a serious impairment of her bodily functions, and had to spend various sums of money on medical attention.

Chatman’s financial expenses have exceeded $19,150, the complaint states.

The defendants are accused of negligence and carelessness for allowing and causing a dangerous condition to exist at the premises, failing to correct the defect, failing to warn museum patrons of the dangerous condition of the slate walkway, and failing to provide and maintain a safe and proper route of travel for those visiting the cultural institution.

Chatman seeks damages in excess of $75,000, plus interest, litigation costs and attorneys’ fees.

The plaintiff is being represented by lawyers Brad S. Tabakin and Richard A. Wolfe of the Jenkintown, Pa. firm Galerman Tabakin & Wolfe.

The federal case number is 2:14-cv-02005-NIQA.

A Pennsylvania man who claims he sustained serious injuries as a result of

Michael Heygood

an allegedly defective table saw has filed a products liability complaint against the makers of the device.

James H. Simmers, Jr., of Morrisville, Bucks County, filed suit at the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Monday against South Carolina-based Ryobi Technologies Inc., Techtronic Industries North America Inc. and One Word Technologies Inc. over injuries he says he sustained in late August of last year while using the Ryobi BT210 table saw manufactured and distributed by the defendants.

The complaint accuses the defendants of designing, manufacturing, marketing and selling their table saw without the available safety technologies that would have made the device safer for consumer use.

Like all table saws sold in the United States, the Ryobi saw must be sold with a blade guard, and while the guard comes with the product, it is extremely difficult to use and must be removed for a user to make certain cuts with the saw, the lawsuit states.

Because it is very hard to put it back in place, users often either assemble the saw without the blade guard or remove it and leave it off of the machine permanently while using the device, the complaint states.

“This widespread practice was well know [sic] by Defendants, yet Defendants made no effort to improve the design of the guard to make it more user friendly until required to do so by recent changes to industry-wide standards,” the suit states.

The other problem with the saw, the complaint alleges, is that the splitter, or spreader, which is a device designed to prevent kickbacks while cutting, is attached directly to the blade guard, meaning no kickback protection is offered to the user once the blade guard is removed.

The complaint says that the defendants have known for years that kickbacks can be substantially reduced or eliminated by using something called a “riving knife,” rather than a splitter or spreader.

A riving knife is a small piece of metal that sits behind the blade and rises and falls with the blade.

And even if the blade guard is removed, the riving knife remains in place, “substantially reducing or eliminating kickbacks,” the complaint states.

Riving knives are already required to be installed on all table saws sold in Europe.

The Ryobi saw used by the plaintiff, however, did not have a riving knife.

If it did, the suit says, the plaintiff’s injuries would have either been lessened or non-existent.

Technology has been available for many years that stops a saw blade from spinning upon almost immediate contact with human skin, the suit says, but the defendants failed to make that technology, known as SawStop, available on their product.

“Because it lacked such technology, the Ryobi Saw was unreasonably dangerous as designed and manufactured,” the lawsuit states.

Simmers, the plaintiff, was seriously injured when his fingers came into contact with the rotating saw blade.

The exact extent of his injuries is not detailed in the complaint.

Simmers suffered from mental anguish, physical disfigurement and impairment, and had to spend money on medical care.

He also experienced lost wages and lost his ability to engage in usual and normal activities, the suit states.

The suit contains counts of strict liability, breach of implied warranty and negligence.

Simmers seeks damages for pain and suffering, mental anguish, impairment, disfigurement, lost wages and medical expenses.

He also seeks attorney’s fees, interest and costs.

Simmers is being represented by attorney Michael Heygood of the Dallas, TX law firm Heygood Orr & Pearson.

The federal case number is 2:14-cv-02022-JP.

A Philadelphia woman is suing over claims she sustained injuries after falling on a set of steps.

Debra Herbin filed a lawsuit on Feb. 25 in the Philadelphia County District Court against Keith Pugh, citing negligence.

Herbin claims that on Aug. 3, she was attending a party at a property maintained by Pugh, 2237 N. Eighth St. in Philadelphia, when she tripped on a step, sustaining injuries. The suit alleges the doorway step was too high and the area was poorly lit, resulting in Herbin’s fall.

Herbin is seeking damages in excess of $50,000. She is being represented in the case by Philadelphia attorney Leonard R. Parks, of Law Offices of Parks and Associates PC.

Philadelphia County District Court Case No. 140202513.

Duckworth

A Philadelphia employee is suing over claims he sustained injuries on the job.

Walter Carpenter filed a lawsuit on Feb. 26 in the Philadelphia County District Court against the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, citing negligence.

Carpenter claims on April 30, 2012, he was working for the defendant as a truck driver and was filling the fuel truck when he was caused to sustain injury. The suit alleges the defendant didn’t provide a safe work environment with properly functioning equipment, resulting in an accident that injured Carpenter’s lower back and right leg.

Carpenter is seeking damages in excess of $50,000. He is being represented in the case by Philadelphia attorney James M. Duckworth of Keller and Goggin P.C.

Philadelphia County District Court Case No. 140202689.

A man is suing the city of Philadelphia after he fell on a sidewalk.

Allen Brevard filed a lawsuit Feb. 24 in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas against the city of Philadelphia, citing negligence.

The lawsuit states Brevard was walking on a sidewalk near the corner of 33rd Street and Girard Avenue on Oct. 23, when he fell and fractured his leg, requiring surgery, and other injuries.

Chaiken

Brevard is suing for damages in excess of $50,000. He is being represented by Joseph Chaiken of Joseph Chaiken & Associates.

Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas Case No. 140202344.

A Center City Turf Club is suing the business after falling down steps.

Michael Henderson filed the lawsuit Feb. 25 in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas.

The lawsuit states Henderson was a visitor at the club at 1635 Market St., Philadelphia, on Feb. 18, 2013, when he fell on steps at the entrance. The steps had water on them from a malfunctioning bathroom, according to the complaint.

Henderson is seeking a maximum of $50,000. He is being represented by Leonard R. Parks of the Law Office of Parks & Associates P.C.

Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas Case No. 140202485.

A woman and her husband are suing a health care group and a cleaning service after falling in the facility.

Jeannine Fedele and Michael Fedele filed a lawsuit Feb. 24 in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas against Trinity Health Care Alliance L.L.C, Kelly Reinhold, doing business as First Choice Cleaning, First Choice Cleaning Company, First Choice Services Inc., doing business as First Choice Cleaning Services, First Choice Cleaning Services Inc., careof Incorp Services Inc., First Choice Cleaning Solutions Inc., First Choice Cleaning, Josphine Benson, doing business as First Choice Cleaning, MRA Group Inc., doing business as MRA Realty Advisors, and MRA Realty Inc., citing negligence.

The lawsuit states Jeannine Fedele was walking inside Suite 106 of Trinity Health at 700 Horizon Circule, Clalfont, while working for Alliance Cancer Specialists P.C. on April 5, 2012, when she fell and sustained various injuries. The floor was made slippery by substances placed on the floor, the complaint said. She hurt her shoulder, elbow and left knee, among other injuries, the complaint said.

The Fedeles are seeking damages in excess of $50,000, plus interest and court costs. They are being represented by attorney Fredric S. Karpe.

Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas Case No. 140202275.

A Philadelphia Common Pleas Court jury last week awarded $7.8 million to

Michael Trunk

the relatives of a middle-aged jockey who was killed after being thrown, dragged and stomped by a horse startled by loose chickens traversing a suburban racetrack.

The award to the family of the late Mario Calderon consists of more than $2 million in compensatory damages and a hefty $5 million in punitive damages.

The civil complaint, which was filed in the spring of 2012, accused Philadelphia Park Casino and Racetrack, which is now known as Parx Casino, of negligence for allowing chickens to roam free on the racetrack despite the fact that the act had previously caused another horse to spook and injure its rider.

Calderon, a 55-year-old married father of two who raced horses for more than three decades, was catastrophically injured when his horse, Cassidy Blue, was spooked by the chickens and threw him to the ground.

Calderon, the lawsuit said, ended up getting one of his feet stuck in a stirrup, and the horse proceeded to drag him down the racetrack, kicking him in the process, which caused injuries, including chest and head trauma, that ultimately led to his death.

The incident occurred while Calderon was taking his horse out on a practice run at the track.

The award to plaintiff Nura D. Calderon, the deceased jockey’s widow, came after a week-and-a-half trial before Common Pleas Court Judge Albert J. Snite, Jr.

The verdict was against defendants Greenwood Racing Inc., the owner of the racetrack, as well as subsidiaries Bensalem Racing Association Inc. and Keystone Turf Club Inc.

The plaintiff was represented by attorney Michael A. Trunk of the Philadelphia firm Kline & Specter.

The complaint said that the defendants were aware of the problems with chickens running onto the track because of a prior incident, but didn’t do enough to keep the area free from this hazard.

Records show that some horse owners and trainers who have use of the adjacent barns were bringing the chickens to the property.

Trunk told the Pennsylvania Record in an emailed message that he was pleased with the verdict.

“I’m pleased for the family, and I’m pleased that the jury forced Parx to do what Parx refused to do on its own: take responsibility for the tragic and very preventable death of a long-time jockey and loving husband and father,” Trunk wrote. “I’m hopeful that Parx will now get the message that the safety of jockeys and others on its premises is paramount to everything else, including profits from gambling.”

A federal judicial body earlier this month denied a bid by the makers of the

Pamela J. Lormand

OxyElite Pro and Jack3d sports supplements to consolidate and transfer a handful of products liability actions to the U.S. District Court in Philadelphia.

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on April 2 denied the move by USPlabs LLC to centralize the litigation, which at the time consisted of nine actions pending in six different federal courthouses across the country.

The lawsuits consist of both individual personal injury claims and false advertising class actions that were originally filed in Pennsylvania, Florida, California, Texas and Hawaii.

The lead defendant, a sports supplement manufacturer, sought to consolidate the nine lawsuits into a multidistrict litigation and transfer the cases to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, or, alternatively, to the Western District of Texas.

GNC Holdings Inc., which is the retail partner of Dallas-based USPLabs, is located in Pittsburgh.

Court records show that 10 of the codefendants and one of the plaintiffs supported the petition to consolidate and transfer, while the plaintiffs in six other actions and four potential tag-along actions opposed centralizing nine actions, but supported some combination of separate MDLs.

Still, the plaintiffs in two other cases and defendant Natural Alternatives International Inc. opposed centralization in any form.

Records show that the defendants had argued centralization of the all the actions was warranted, notwithstanding the differences in the primary active ingredient in the products and the claims presented by the tort and false advertising actions, because all of the cases allege that the products are unsafe and rely on the same series of FDA actions to support their claims.

The defendants also contended that discovery and pretrial motions would likely overlap.

The plaintiffs in all the actions, in arguing against consolidation and centralization, asserted that the DMAA and aegeline formulations in the products are so dissimilar that they are akin to different drugs.

Media reports said that the defendants’ products have been linked to an outbreak of hepatitis.

The litigation contends that OxyElite Pro and Jack3d contained ingredients that were unsafe and “adulterated” under the FDA’s definition.

The two main substances at issue, aegeline and 1,3-dimethylamylamine, or DMAA, have reportedly been linked to illnesses and deaths.

News reports stated that last summer, USPlabs agreed to destroy more than $8 million in OxyElite Pro and Jack3d supplements that contained DMAA.

In a January memorandum, lawyers representing USPlabs urged the judicial panel to have any potential consolidated litigation overseen by Judge Eduardo C. Robreno, what the defense attorneys called an “experienced MDL jurist.”

In its ruling earlier this month, the judicial panel said it was not persuaded that centralization and consolidation was necessary either to assure the convenience of the parties and witnesses or for the “just and efficient conduct of this litigation.”

“On the present record, it appears that the different formulations of the products will not give rise to substantially overlapping discovery, particularly in light of the differences in the health risks alleged and the distinct regulatory responses to the DMAA and aegeline products,” the panel wrote. “Additionally, the three consumer class actions raise a unique threshold issue with respect to the alleged impact of a state court class settlement agreement reached in 2012.”

The panel also declined the plaintiffs’ invitation to establish three separate MDLs to compensate for the differences in the lawsuits.

“There are a limited number of actions and involved counsel, with two groups of plaintiffs’ counsel in three of the actions concerning DMAA indicated that the number of such actions would remain small since USPlabs’ inventory of DMAA products was destroyed in 2012,” the panel wrote. “Additionally, the record indicates that the actions alleging injury from aegeline already are being coordinated in the District of Hawaii.

“In the present circumstances, voluntary coordination among the parties and the involved judges is preferable to centralization,” the panel concluded. “We encourage the parties to employ various alternatives to transfer which may minimize the potential for duplicative discovery and/or inconsistent pretrial rulings.”

The defendants’ January memorandum had been filed by attorney Pamela J. Lormand, of the New Orleans firm Brewer & Lormand, and Angel A. Garganta, of the San Francisco office of Arnold & Porter.

A Pennsylvania man is suing the U.S. Government over an accident with a

John E. Quinn

postal vehicle that he says caused him to sustain serious injuries and has prevented him from earning income.

William A. Farris, who resides in the City of New Castle, filed a civil action on April 7 against the United States of America over injuries he claims to have sustained following a Dec. 18, 2012, vehicle accident in the parking lot of Pagley’s Pasta & More in New Castle.

The complaint says that a United States Postal Service employee negligently operated his postal truck while in the process of exiting the parking lot.

The postal worker slammed into the right corner of the plaintiff’s bumper while Farris’s vehicle was stopped, according to the lawsuit.

The postal worker initially left the scene of the accident but Farris ended up following the government worker to a local post office where the two ultimately exchanged words.

As a result of the impact of the collision, the suit states, the plaintiff’s face struck the glass of the driver’s side window, causing him “significant injury.”

The day after the incident, Farris sought emergency treatment at a New Castle hospital relating to severe pain in his back, face, left elbow and right hip, records show.

Subsequent medical tests revealed a swollen disc in his lower back that was placing pressure on the nerves in his spine, as well as a dislodged titanium plate in the left orbital region of the plaintiff’s face that was causing swelling, nerve damage and significant pain, according to the complaint.

Farris at first underwent pain management treatments, including steroid injections, physical therapy and chiropractic numbing injections at the site of his damaged lumbar disc, the suit states, but he ultimately had to undergo back surgery on his disc after unsuccessful attempts at nonsurgical repair.

As a result of the ordeal, Farris has been disabled from his work and suffered earnings losses, the complaint says.

The plaintiff has exhausted all available administrative remedies pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, and he received a denial of his claim because, as the government contended, there was insufficient evidence to support the claim, according to the civil action.

The suit accuses the government of negligence for operating a motor vehicle in a dangerous manner, failing to reasonably inspect the area in which the defendant’s vehicle was being driven, and failing to exercise reasonable care in the light of the circumstances.

Farris seeks unspecified monetary damages.

He is being represented by Pittsburgh attorney John E. Quinn of the firm Portnoy & Quinn.

The suit was filed in the Western District of Pennsylvania.

The federal case number is 2:14-cv-00444-LPL.