A Pennsylvania man whose leg was amputated after an automobile accident in 1987 has used the same prosthetics supplier for 27 years. Due to normal usage, the artificial limb needs replacement at times, and he says that the company's expertise has always impressed him. However, he claims to have received unacceptable service from the company in September last year and has recently filed a claim of medical negligence against it.
Pennsylvania residents who have suffered the consequences of medical negligence or malpractice may face continued medical expenses and, in some cases, even disabilities that will affect the remainder of their lives. However, it is not uncommon for the impact of the medical errors to become evident as time passes. Victims of medical malpractice may want to take note that there are time restrictions to filing claims to pursue recovery of damages.
Workers in Pennsylvania are likely aware of the potential dangers they face on a daily basis. They would naturally expect their employers to ensure safe surroundings and assess the work site for potential hazards that could cause personal injury. When a work injury occurs, a worker may be eligible to claim benefits from the workers’ compensation insurance fund to cover medical expenses. However, if the injury is the result of negligence by a third-party, the injured worker may pursue a personal injury claim in a civil court.
Certain workers in Pennsylvania who have to face the potential dangers posed by their various occupations sometimes live in constant fear of suffering injuries that may leave their families vulnerable. Employers who recognize the importance of abiding by the strict safety regulations as prescribed by OSHA may be able to avoid incidents of work injury and even fatalities. A worker who suffered severe workplace injuries in May is experiencing extreme anxiety about his inability to provide for his family.
A Pennsylvania man, originally from another country, recently pleaded guilty to DUI-related charges that could severely affect the remainder of his life. The charges followed a serious car accident in a construction zone last year. It was reported that the man traveled in a lane that was closed off due to ongoing construction activities, where he knocked over one construction worker and narrowly missed another. He then smashed into a construction vehicle.
It is not uncommon for Pennsylvania individuals who suffer conditions that require surgery to obtain a second opinion, and if surgery cannot be avoided, they may want to ensure that the surgeon is qualified and capable enough not to endanger a patient’s life. However, when surgery is an emergency procedure, the patient has no option but to trust the surgeon and his staff. A man from another state recently filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against two doctors and a few medical institutions following the death of his wife in 2008.
For families in Pennsylvania, losing a loved one because of the negligence of other parties is surely traumatic and heartbreaking. Apart from mourning the loved one’s death, they also have to cope with the knowledge that the death could have been prevented. A couple in another state recently had to face the death of their son. They claim he was the victim of medical negligence while he was in the care of a hospital.
During pregnancy, Pennsylvania mothers need to be able to count on the medical expertise of their doctors, and it is only natural to expect excellent care from conception through the birth of the baby. The lives of mothers and their infants are in the hands of the medical caregivers during the birth and immediately afterward. Medical negligence is completely unacceptable and can lead to birth injury.
When a Pennsylvania accident in 2009 resulted in the amputation of a man's leg, it led to civil litigation in 2011. This case proved to be a complex, as there were multiple cars involved in the chain of car accidents that occurred that day. The jury's decision to award $19.1 million to the plaintiff was challenged and on April 10, 2014 a civil trial judge upheld the jury's verdict after finding it not to be excessive.