Law Offices of Daniel J. Siegel, LLC - Call 610-446-3457  
   
  Client Testimonials - Why Clients Appreciate Our Client-Focused Service  
 
 
 

Court Opinions

Below are some of the reported appellate and trial court opinions in which Dan Siegel authored the brief or otherwise participated as counsel:

Commonwealth v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Harvey), 993 A.2d 270 (Pa. 2010)

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed that the use of actuarial data to calculate pension offsets for injured employees who also receive pension benefits from a defined benefit plan. By not foreclosing a claimant’s ability to challenge the calculations and the assumptions underlying them, injured workers may still employ actuaries to establish when improper and inaccurate calculations form the basis for a claimed offset.

Philadelphia Gas Works v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Amodei), 964 A.2d 963 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2009)

This en banc decision holds that when an employer seeks an offset from workers’ compensation benefits for pension benefits paid to an injured employee, the offset must be calculated based upon the net amount of the benefits received by the worker.

McElheney v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Kvaerner Phila. Shipyard), 940 A.2d 351 (Pa. 2008) (Author of the Brief for the Appellant)

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that a worker injured while on a ship in a graven dry dock was not injured upon the “navigable waters of the United States,” and was therefore entitled to benefits under both the federal Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act and the Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Act. The Court ruled that the graven dry dock, which by definition was cut and dug out of the land, was not within the limits of the navigable waters of the United States.

Thorne v. Miller, 317 N.J. Super. 554, 722 A.2d 626 (1998)

This is the first reported case in New Jersey addressing the obligation of a driver who waves another vehicle into traffic. The trial court held that a driver who waves to another driver to proceed is under a duty of reasonable care that, at the least, requires the driver who waved to observe whether traffic conditions were such as to allow the other driver to proceed without accident; whether, in this case, the waving driver breached that duty and whether the breach was a proximate cause of the accident is for the jury.

Smith v. Pulcinella, 440 Pa. Super. 525, 656 A.2d 494 (1995)

Superior Court decision extending to general negligence cases the malpractice doctrine that, where the conduct of two or more tortfeasors causes an injury, and the damages cannot be reasonably apportioned among the negligent parties, any one of the tortfeasors may be held responsible for the entire verdict if that party's negligence was a substantial contributing factor in causing the plaintiff's injuries.

Curran v. Greate Bay Hotel & Casino, 434 Pa. Super. 368, 643 A.2d 687 (1994)

Superior Court en banc decision analyzing when a verdict may be reduced under the Comparative Negligence Act, and also holding that the failure to request the correction of an inconsistent jury verdict constitutes a waiver of any objection to the verdict.

Colosimo's v. City of Philadelphia

Counsel for Amicus Curiae Pennsylvanians Against Handgun Violence before the Court of Common Pleas and the Commonwealth Court in case challenging the City of Philadelphia's ban on semi-automatic assault weapons (case decided in an unreported decision).

Denny's v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Stanton), 142 Pa. Cmwlth. 531, 597 A.2d 1241 (1991)

Commonwealth Court decision specifying those actions by employees which are in furtherance of an employer's business, and requiring the employer to provide worker's compensation benefits to employees injured under the circumstances.

Walsh v. City of Philadelphia, 526 Pa. 222, 585 A.2d 445 (1991)

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania decision defining the nature of permissible claims against municipalities under the Recreational Use of Land and Water Act, and setting forth the standard for the types of injuries for which local governmental bodies are responsible for damages under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act.

Contact Dan Siegel today at (610) 446-3457 or e-mail Dan Siegel, and he will get back you as quickly as possible.

 

 

© 2017           Disclaimer          Web Design by Integrated Technology Services, LLC