Clients new and old have been calling their attorneys, including our office, to either prepare their Wills, Living Wills, Powers of Attorney and other documents as they recognize that life is often fragile. While the logistics of planning are not convenient now, it is unfortunately a good time to draft these documents and avoid a situation where your family is fighting over what the language in a Will means, especially when that fight ends up in court.
And we are here to help you address your concerns, and to avoid the situation that arose in a recent Philadelphia case. In that case, known as Estate of Flores, the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas had to resolve a family fight over what Quintina Flores’ Will actually meant. Ms. Flores’ Will said that her youngest daughter would be the sole owner of her home. However, the Will also said that Ms. Flores “wished” that the property would never be sold unless all her children agreed. Of course, there was a dispute: Ms. Flores’ daughter wanted to sell the house, but her brother opposed the sale.
The Court ruled that the language in the Will was not clear, and determined that because the Will said that the daughter was the only owner, that language would override Ms. Flores’ “wish” that all her children agree to the sale.
Our office regularly prepares Wills, Powers of Attorney, Living Wills, Healthcare Authorizations and other testamentary documents. We work with our clients to assure them that the language in their documents is clear and reflects exactly what they want. Just give us a call at (610) 446-3457.
The Commonwealth Court has, in another case in which Attorneys Dan Siegel and Christa High were appeals court counsel, eliminated yet another method used by insurers and employers to prevent medical providers who treat injured workers in Pennsylvania from being paid. In the case, Workers’ First Pharmacy v. Bureau of Workers’ Compensation Fee Review Hearing Office, the Court ruled that when a provider seeks payment for treatment or services under the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act, the insurer or employer may not claim that the care was not “causally related” to the injury. If it intends to dispute whether the treatment was related to the work injury, it must file a utilization review.
This is the latest in a series of appeals court victories for the Law Offices of Daniel J. Siegel, LLC that has yet again helped assure that doctors and other medical providers will be paid for the care they provide to injured workers. This also helps assure that doctors and other medical providers will be willing to provide the care these injured workers need.
Attorneys Dan Siegel and Christa High not only represent medical providers, but also represent injured workers, assuring that they receive every type of compensation they are entitled to. Dan Siegel wrote The Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Law Book and The Injured Worker’s Guide to Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Law, a FREE book for injured workers.
When you need a lawyer who not only knows the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Law system, contact the Law Offices of Daniel J. Siegel, LLC the Law Firm Whose Cases Make the Law.
We don’t have billboards and TV ads, WE HAVE RESULTS!
Recovering from an automobile accident can be difficult and painful. It is even harder if your auto insurance company requires you to go to a medical examination whenever it wants and with a doctor it selects—or risk losing your benefits. No more. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently ruled that insurance companies cannot mandate that insureds submit to independent medical examinations whenever the insurance company wants because these policies violate public policy (essential fairness) and are “repugnant” to the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (MVFRL).
In Sayles v. Allstate Insurance Company, the Supreme Court concluded that the auto insurance policy provisions mandating these exams were void, emphasizing that these impacted the insureds’ “significant privacy interests” because they set no limits.
We regularly represent individuals injured in motor vehicle accidents and can assist you. You can call our office at 610-446-3457 to set up a consultation with one of our attorneys. We will explain the process, guide you and fight to get you the benefits and recovery you need.
If you get hurt walking to your job from the parking lot, you are often eligible for workers’ compensation benefits in Pennsylvania. On November 20, 2019, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court unanimously agreed that injured workers should be compensated if they are injured in a parking area—even if that parking area is optional. Attorney Daniel J. Siegel of the Law Offices of Daniel J. Siegel, LLC submitted the friend of the court brief on behalf of the Pennsylvania Association for Justice.
In US Airways, Inc. and Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Bockelman), the Court agreed that a US Airways employee, who was injured on a shuttle bus taking her to an employee parking lot that was not owned by the employer, was entitled to wage losses and payment of her medical bills. Justice David Wecht authored the Opinion, writing that “the phrase ‘the employer’s premises’ in [the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation] Act should be construed liberally to include any area that is integral to the employer’s business operations, including any reasonable means of ingress to or egress from the workplace.” Because “the lot in which Bockelman parked her vehicle was integral to US Airways’ business operations,” she was entitled to benefits.
This is one of many Pennsylvania Supreme Court cases in which our office successfully represented the interests of injured workers and other accident victims, including many cases referred to our office by other lawyers. Just give us a call at (610) 446-3457 to learn how we can help you.