Law Firm News

---

Law Firm News

Firm Name

News Title

News

News Date

25383 matches |  14918-14924 displayed

1  2131 2132 2133 2134 2135  3627

---

Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC

Attorney Wendelynne Newton a Co-Author of Aspatore Antitrust Litigation Report
Wendelynne J. Newton is a co-author of "Defending and Litigating Antitrust Cases — the Over-Arching Issues You Need To Know," a research report published by Aspatore Books for attorneys and executives defending and litigating antitrust cases. Newton is a shareholder with the Pittsburgh office of Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC and is chair of the firm's Antitrust and Trade Regulation Practice Group.

The 16-page report examines the intricacies of antitrust law and outlines the important strategies and best mindset for approaching antitrust litigation effectively. In the report, the authors explore key strategies, offer a CEO's checklist and review common mistakes.

The report was published in February 2006 as part of Aspatore's "Executive Reports" series.

11-15-2006

---

Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC

Firm's Retention of Two Harrisburg Offices Noted by Legal Intelligencer
In a November 13, 2006, post on its blog, the Legal Intelligencer noted that Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney will keep two offices in Harrisburg instead of combining space, as the firm has done in other cities following the July 2006 merger of Buchanan Ingersoll and Klett Rooney Lieber & Schorling.

The firm will house its government relations practice in its North Second Street location, while the Market Street location will house its legal services.

Jack M. Stover, co-managing shareholder of the Harrisburg offices, told the Legal Intelligencer that he anticipated significant growth in those offices in 2007, on both the government relations and legal sides. The Harrisburg offices serve clients that are significant business, governmental or nonprofit entities and are located between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, he said.

11-15-2006

---

Meister, Seelig & Fein, LLP

THREE MSF PARTNERS ARE NAMED "SUPER LAWYERS
Super Lawyers are the top 5 percent of attorneys in each state, as chosen by their peers and through the independent research of Law & Politics. Law & Politics performs the polling, research and selection of Super Lawyers in a process designed to identify lawyers who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. Super Lawyers is a comprehensive and diverse guide to outstanding attorneys, representing a wide range of practice areas, firm sizes and geographic locations. Only 5 percent of the lawyers in each state or region are named Super Lawyers" (www.superlawyers.com).

Meister Seelig & Fein LLP is honored that all three of its name-partners have been recognized in this esteemed way.

11-15-2006

---

McLaughlin & Stern, LLP

McLaughlin & Stern Wins Title IX Case Second Circuit
One of McLaughlin & Stern’s litigation partners, Paul Robbins, has just won a precedent setting Title IX case of national interest.
The firm represents female soccer players who claimed that their schools’ practice of scheduling soccer in the non-traditional spring season violated their Title IX rights because they are deprived of the opportunity to compete in the state championships. The Southern District of New York found for the girls and issued an injunction requiring girls soccer to be moved to the traditional fall season, but stayed its effect pending appeal. The Second Circuit has just issued a 46-page opinion accepting the arguments made by the firm and directing the schools to move girls soccer to the traditional fall season. The Sixth Circuit has a similar case pending before it, and we understand that it has been waiting for the Second Circuit’s decision before issuing its decision.

11-15-2006

---

Weber, Gallagher, Simpson, Stapleton, Fires & Newby, LLP

Richard K. Tavani Prevails in Two Workers' Compensation Actions
Richard K. Tavani, a partner in the Firm's Cherry Hill office, recently obtained the dismissal of a claim petition on behalf of his client. Mr. Tavani successfully argued before Judge LaBoy in Camden that the petitioner had failed to file a claim for a September 2001 left shoulder injury within the two-year statute of limitations. The petitioner had claimed that the statute was tolled because the private health plan maintained by the employer had arranged for medical treatment for the employee's shoulder.

Mr. Tavani also earned a trial victory that resulted in the dismissal of two cardiac claims against his client. In that action, the employee filed three claims against his employer, two of which concerned allegations of a compensable heart attack. The petitioner, who suffered a heart attack in September 1999, alleged that the cause of the heart attack was his strenous work effort pulling, pushing and loading a large number of trays of bakery products for the client. Mr. Tavani presented evidence that the work done by the petitioner was not per se strenous.

Testimony was taken from the petitioner, a representative of the employer, and the cardiac experts for both sides before Judge Giovinnazzi in Atlantic City. The Judge concluded that the petitioner failed to sustain his burden of proof. The judge agreed with the expert for the employer that the petitioner's heart condition did not result from his employment. The ruling insulated the client from responsbility from the $90,000 in medical bills related to the heart surgery.

11-14-2006

---

Weber, Gallagher, Simpson, Stapleton, Fires & Newby, LLP

Shawn C. Gooden Gains Favorable Workers' Compensation Decisions
Shawn C. Gooden, an associate in the Firm's Philadelphia office, recently obtained two favorable decisions in contested Claim Petitions.

In the matter before Judge Benischeck in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, the claimant was a manager for a retail clothing store who filed a Claim Petition alleging physical and mental injury that allegedly resulted from work-related conditions,among other bases. The claimant called a psychologist, a family practitioner and an orthopedic surgeon, while the employer relied upon an orthopedic surgeon and a psychiatrist.

The Judge denied the Claim Petition, concluding that the claimant did not sustain a cumulative trauma to her back. The Judge also found that the claimant’s back complaints were not related to a 2001 work injury. Finally, while the Judge did find that the claimant suffers from work-related anxiety and depression due to the stress of her job and long working hours and that the condition led to her disability, he concluded that the claimant failed to prove that the burdens placed upon her constituted abnormal working conditions.

Potential exposure in the case was significant, as the claimant earned nearly $900 per week and the case took over 3½ years from the date of injury to the decision to litigate. More importantly, a case such as this presents the potential for a whole new type of claim: The “Injury as a result of being overworked” claim. Recent case law from the Court states that pain, even without a more specific diagnosis, could be enough to prevail on a claim petition. The Judge declined to expand the Workers' Compensation Act to include subjective reactions to stressful working environments as compensable injuries.

In the matter before Judge Stapleton in Pottsville, the claimant was a truck driver who alleged that he sustained an injury due to constant repetitive forceful and “vibrative” motions associated with his job. During testimony before the WCJ, the claimant testified that he first noticed the condition on September 23, 2005, his last day of work, but the problem worsened on September 24, 2005. He testified that he began to notice the condition while driving his tractor-trailer and suggested that the force of turning the wheel while driving was the cause of his condition. The claimant provided the same history to his doctor who opined that the injury was work-related.

The defense relied heavily on an incident report that the claimant completed several days after the alleged injury. Therein, he indicated that the injury occurred on the night of September 24, 2005 and into the morning of September 25, 2005 while he was sleeping. the claimant also described going to an amusement park on September 24, 2005. Rather than depose a medical expert, the defense relied on existing medical records from the emergency room and the panel physician since there was no reference to a September 23, 2005 work injury in those preliminary records.

The Judge rejected the claimant’s testimony since it conflicted with his own statement on the incident report and the medical records. He also rejected the opinion of his expert since the expert relied on the inaccurate history provided to him by the claimant. Therefore, the judge concluded that the claimant did not suffer a work-related injury in the course of his employment and the Petition was denied and dismissed.

11-14-2006

---

Morgenstein & Jubelirer LLP

SCHIFF HARDIN HOSTS INDIAN AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION'S ANNUAL MENTORING RECEPTION
While being regaled with humorous stories, Chicago-area law school students were taught the value of mentoring relationships at the Indian American Bar Association's (IABA) annual Mentoring Reception. The event was held on November 8 at Schiff Hardin's office in Chicago. IABA-Chicago paired students from several of the law schools with South Asian attorneys.

Schiff Hardin attorneys Patricia Brown Holmes, Naser Baseer, and Sailesh K. Patel regaled the attendees with amusing stories and past experiences while illustrating how mentoring relationships provide advantages not only for law students but also for practitioners. The nearly 60 attendees shared common experiences, developed relationships and continued IABA-Chicago's tradition of fostering communication within the South Asian community.

11-14-2006

---

25383 matches |  14918-14924 displayed

1  2131 2132 2133 2134 2135  3627