Archive for March, 2010

Two weekends ago, Philadelphia’s South Street residents, merchants and community suffered from yet another “flash mob” incident, where bands of teenagers summoned each other via cell phone text messages and social media Web sites including Twitter, Facebook and MySpace to hang out and get together.

But as it’s happened in the past,  it was way more than just “hanging out.”  Many of the teens became agitated, some became violent and all became essentially out of control, according to witnesses who told their stories to news reporters from The Philadelphia Inquirer and The Philadelphia Daily News. Witnesses said they have been menaced and that the mood of the growing crowd was worrisome.

This is the fifth episode of such behavior here in Philadelphia since December and it’s got to stop.

Image credit: © iStockphoto.com/Sean_Warren

Last weekend, Mayor Michael Nutter, accompanied by his wife and family and a large contingent of city police officers, went down to South Street and helped take back the street from the teens who have caused all the commotion, according to The Inquirer. It was great to see Nutter there, taking decisive and symbolic actions to help residents and business owners. It was confidence-inspiring to see him there on a Saturday night, walking along the street and taking in its sights and sounds with the rest of South Street’s visitors. His presence, and that of the police, seemed to keep away the teens who had caused the previous problems.

The only problem with this method for bringing calm to a volatile situation is that Nutter probably isn’t planning to spend every Saturday night walking with his family on South Street.

So we have a better idea.

Let’s go back to the days of the Scarlet Letter, when people who committed crimes had to pay penance in a very public way.

For every teen and young person who is arrested by the police in the event of unacceptable and violent behavior at any future flash mob gatherings, upon conviction on their charges — from reckless endangerment to assault to curfew violations or whatever — they’ll have to return to South Street in the daylight as part of a clean-up crew to clean up the mess left by the flash mob crowds.

And if that’s not enough, they’ll also have to wear the proper clean-up uniform — a bright T-shirt emblazoned with the word, “MORON,” across its front and back.

Because if they are stupid enough to think that they can do whatever they want, wherever they want, to whomever they want, then it’s time to make them feel as stupid as they really are.

But even that’s not enough, perhaps.

Many critics of the flash mobs have been arguing that the parents of these teens need to be held responsible as well. The critics argue that the wayward and irresponsible teens are apparently not getting enough guidance and structure at home and that they’re being allowed to act out as part of flash mobs because no one at home is doing enough parenting.

To those parents whose kids are running amok as part of flash mobs, they too can come and wear their own special T-shirts while their kids are cleaning South Street as part of the work crews. The message on those T-shirts? How about “PARENT OF THE MORON” in bright letters?

Yes, it’s ridiculous, but so are bands of teens who think they can disturb and threaten others without consequences.

City officials are fed up with the behavior of these kids and it’s understandable.

The flash mobs have disrupted business in downtown restaurants, bars, stores and coffee shops. They have caused law-abiding citizens to change their plans and stay out of the downtown where they want to relax, enjoy and gather with friends on a weekend night.

This has got to stop, and the city needs to continue to address it. We commend the city for its actions so far and if the city needs sponsorship for the T-shirts, give us a ring here at MyPhillyLawyer.com.

This is definitely a case where losing a city’s soul to a bunch of out-of-control, violent and irresponsible teenagers is certainly not an option.

A U.S. Court of Appeals got it right recently when it ruled that a teenaged girl whose semi-nude photo was transmitted via a cell phone text message cannot be charged with felony child abuse charges.

That was the correct decision in this so-called “sexting” case that got big headlines and showed just how ridiculous the legal system can get when it is fueled by ideologies rather than by reality.

We last wrote about this case in January, when the second in a line of overzealous Wyoming County, Pa., prosecutors was continuing to pursue felony child abuse charges in connection with the cell phone photo.

Image credit: © iStockphoto.com/Figure8Photos

The photo was discovered on a cell phone when several phones were confiscated in 2008 by officials in the Tunkhannock School District, there the girl was a student. Interestingly, no evidence was ever presented to show that the girl herself distributed the photo. It was apparently sent by a friend, according to news accounts of the incident.

The pictures were found on the phones and then-district attorney, George Skumanick Jr., was called in.  Skumanick, who labeled the photos “provocative,” began a criminal investigation and later told the parents of about 19 school district students that he would prosecute the students on felony charges due to their conduct if they didn’t agree to probation and undergoing a counseling program.  The counseling program was to include lessons to help the girls learn how their actions were wrong, what it means to be a girl in today’s society and about non-traditional societal and job roles.  The parents of 16 of the teens allowed their children to go through the counseling program to avoid criminal charges, while the parents of three of the girls decided to fight the case on the grounds that the prosecutor was simply wrong in his handling of the matter. In the midst of the case, Skumanick lost a re-election bid and his replacement then took over the reins of the case.

The American Civil Liberties Union entered the case on behalf of the girl and her parents and saw it through the Appeals Court ruling, which was announced last week.

In it’s ruling, the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the Third District in Philadelphia wrote that felony charges in the case would violate the girl’s Constitutional rights forbidding compelled speech. The court also ruled that the charges would usurp her parent’s rights to raise their daughter, according to a story in The Legal Intelligencer.

This case should have never gone this far in the first place.

It was a case of teens being silly, teens being teens.

They participated in a stupid teen-aged prank, then were threatened with serious felony child pornography charges which carry a possible 10-year prison sentence. A conviction like that for a childhood prank would likely have haunted them for life, in addition to requiring mandatory registration on government-kept lists of child sex offenders.

It was an overreaction from the start by the district attorney and the school district.

Thankfully, the U.S. Court of Appeals wisely put the kibosh on this ridiculous attempted prosecution.

The issue is certainly not over, however, elsewhere around the country where similar cases involving teens and sexting are still being reviewed, according to a story in The New York Times.

States around the country are looking at how to deal with these kinds of cases. “Some of the 14 states considering legislation would make sexting a misdemeanor, while others would treat it like juvenile offenses like truancy or running away,” The New York Times reported. Others believe that decriminalization and education are better approaches, the story said.

For now, it is a legal arena to watch to see what happens.

Like it or not, this will have an impact on our children and our communities.

Let’s hope that the legal system continues to get it right.

And in the meantime, let’s talk to our children and tell them that this is not responsible behavior on their part. That can make more of a difference than all the laws and prosecutions in our nation.

Medical malpractice lawsuits are the talk of Washington, again, as President Obama seeks to reassure Republican lawmakers that he is willing to listen to them and consider their recommendations for fixing healthcare. For most of these Republican Senators and House Representatives, there is but one solution to our nation’s woes and that is tort reform.

Even though analysts and experts have shown time and time again that medical malpractice lawsuits make up but a small amount of our country’s healthcare bill – these lawmakers are intent on limiting patient recourse following a preventable, medical mistakes.

What kind of injuries are we talking about?

How about Martin Harnett? Martin passed away this year – 14 years after the doctor present at his delivery ignored signs of distress, leaving him with cerebral palsy and in need of care, 24/7.

What about Marcus Murray, who went to the hospital with an aortic tear, following a heart attack? Marcus suffered severe and permanent damage after he was refused treatment at a Pennsylvania hospital because he did not have insurance. He too will now require care around the clock, for the rest of his life.

Still, some lawmakers persist in making medical malpractice the great crusade of healthcare reform. They point to it when they need something to blame for the rising costs of healthcare and the increasing number of Americans who cannot afford it. By this logic, one would assume that, as healthcare costs have increased, so have medical malpractice lawsuits – right?

This just isn’t true.

In a recent article, David Wenner, of The Patriot-News, points out that Pennsylvania medical malpractice lawsuits have actually decreased – nearly 40 percent between 2000 and 2008. As for those cases that were brought to trial, a mere 20 percent resulted in patient victories. Even with this decrease, health care costs have continued to rise.

These results aren’t limited to Pennsylvania. Even in states like California, where tort reform has already been enacted, many citizens have been left without healthcare as costs continue to rise. Still, lawmakers supporting tort reform like to point a finger at lawyers and say that “frivolous lawsuits,” are keeping healthcare from more Americans.

The truth?

These lawsuits are making sure that someone’s son, daughter, mother or father is getting the care they need because of a mistake that left them exposed and helpless. These lawsuits make sure that there are consequences for major medical mistakes, so that some other family will not have to suffer the same pain.

Tort reform may be worth considering, but it is not an end-all solution to America’s healthcare problems and, to claim that it is, is to ignore the truth.

Below is a great video featuring Senator Richard Durbin, during a bipartisan healthcare debate.

Related Resources

• Pennsylvania data shed light on national malpractice debate (Penn Live)

Are you willing to give up your rights to be compensated fully for ALL of the damages caused by another?

If you are injured in an accident, you can be sure that you want to recover every dollar you are entitled to for your treatment and for your pain and suffering.

But insurance companies for years have been trying to fight you tooth and nail to minimize what they pay out to you for pain and suffering due to your injuries so they can maximize their profits at your expense.

This is why we are constantly being bombarded in the legal world with proposals for caps on pain and suffering awards for injured people – a maximum dollar amount that can be paid to injury victims based on numbers pulled out of a hat, rather than on reality. Those proposals come from insurance companies and their very active, highly-paid lobbyists, who want to keep the money from you so they can keep it for themselves.

Image credit: © iStockphoto.com/stuartbur

Caps are not fair for injury victims. They say that your pain and suffering, no matter how severe or long-term, has a finite value and that your case is not worth any more than the arbitrary figures designated by the caps. Such caps are only good for the insurance companies.

Caps have been introduced under the argument that they’re helping to control escalating health-care costs. But that’s not true. The costs of actual health care aren’t changing via such caps. The “savings” are only being seen in the payouts by insurance companies that are trying to pay out as little as possible to injury victims. That’s an insult to the victims.

Insurance companies argue that caps help them control costs for everyone by stopping inflated damage awards. If that were the case and if those lower payouts were saving them money, why don’t we all see lower insurance premiums as a result? Because they’re pocketing the savings to fatten their own wallets, all at the expense of victims who are seriously injured in accidents and are being limited by unfair caps on their damage awards.

If a cap on pain and suffering awards is set at $250,000, for instance, then an injury victim would be limited to only that amount for their case in their lifetime, even if their injuries were so severe from burns, a vehicle crash or other catastrophic event that they could no longer work. That is outrageous.

How about if we turn the whole world of injury payments upside down and put the onus on the real perpetrators? What if you are a victim of medical malpractice and are severely injured due to an error by your doctor or hospital? Then why not create a $250,000 maximum payment cap for your injuries from the insurance company, and force the errant doctor and hospital to pay for any and all medical treatment above that for the rest of your life? Then the ones who actually caused your grievous injuries are being forced to remember it each day because they’ll have to pay for your care. That might make it more real for them the next time they treat a patient.

In states across the nation, this issue of damage caps and their legality is being reviewed. A $500,000 cap on medical malpractice damage awards imposed several years ago in Illinois was struck down last month by the Illinois Supreme Court, according to a story in BusinessWeek.  The court found that “the limits set by the Legislature violate the state constitution’s separation of powers principle,” the story said.

This is a key theme in the fight in Congress today as the health care reform proposals continue to be batted around between Congress and the White House. Many Republicans in Congress continue to argue that such damage caps are a good way to rein in health costs. Well, that may sound like a great sound bite, but that will change the minute you are involved in a serious accident or are the victim of medical malpractice. That’s when you’ll realize that your rights are being limited all in the name of “solving the nation’s health care crisis.”

Instead, caps of pain and suffering damage awards are arbitrary and protect only the insurance companies, doctors and hospitals. They are not looking out for the victims of such tragedies. Instead, it’s an attempt to deprive innocent victims of their day in court.

Yes, as a personal injury attorney, I do have a vested interest in this emotional topic. But that doesn’t make my premise wrong. When you take away the rights of the individual in favor of a corporation, which is what damage caps are doing, then I can never side with the corporation. An individual’s rights are paramount to those of the insurance companies. I am not ashamed to say that.

After hearing all the evidence and rendering a decision, if a jury verdict is too high after a trial, there are natural controls to fix that problem and make the award fairer. The trial judge can lower the award, as can state Superior Court and Supreme Court judges, if necessary.

We don’t need caps. That’s a red herring.

At some point in your life,  you will probably need to hire a lawyer.

It may be for help when you are injured in a vehicle accident or fall, or if you are going through a divorce, tax dispute, criminal charges or custody or other legal issues.  It’s uncommon today if at some point you don’t have to at least consult an attorney about something in your life.

So if that happens, where in the world do you start?

At MyPhillyLawyer, we have some tips for you that can help you make the right decision to find the best legal counsel for your case.

Image credit: © iStockphoto.com/DNY59

First, look for attorneys who specialize in handling the kinds of cases you are pursuing, whether its a personal injury consultation, a tax issue, divorce or other matter. By finding someone who specializes, they’ll have the proper expertise to handle your case in a way that will get you the best outcome.  You can literally start with the telephone book and look through the advertisements for attorneys who handle specific cases. You can also check with your local Bar Association to ask about specific  attorneys, their qualifications and for information about their backgrounds.

Another good place to learn about attorneys is to ask friends, co-workers and others about their own experiences and see if they can recommend a lawyer who they have hired in the past. A real-life recommendation based on a personal experience can be very worthwhile and helpful to guide you to an attorney with a record of success and good client relationships.

Next, be sure to do your own due diligence. Scour the Internet using a search engine such as Google and carefully dive into the Web sites of any attorneys and law firms that you are considering. Check into their online case histories and details of settlements and verdicts in cases like your own. Read up on their approaches to their cases and find out if the have the depth and expertise that you require in your case. Make lists of questions to ask on the phone or during an initial meeting with attorneys who might make your first cut.

Those Web sites that you visit will also give you insights into the lawyers you are reviewing. Is the site information-filled and laid out in an organized and appealing way? Take a good look because what you see online will give you clear indications of the professionalism of the law firms that you are investigating. You should expect to find professional results of their casework, with statistics on their recovery and success rates, as well as helpful information on their philosophy of handling cases and working with their clients.

You want a law firm that works for you and places you and your case in the forefront of their work. You want great results from a law firm that will be there to support you during the proceedings of your case and let you know every step of the way how they are handling everything, from representing you in negotiations and in court to ultimately getting you the results that you are seeking.

One other place where you can learn about qualified attorneys — and those you might want to avoid — is by searching news media sites to find out about lawyers and their cases and settlements that are in the news. You want to find someone who can best represent you and be an effective advocate for your family.

Choosing a lawyer is not unlike buying a car or a house.  Don’t fall in love with the first one you see. Do your research. Ask a lot of questions. Visit many. Get recommendations from trusted friends.  And when you’re ready to decide on who to hire, listen to your gut and to your heart and go with the attorney who makes you feel represented, who makes you feel like they are on your side and involved in your case in every way.

It can be a legal jungle out there if you don’t have the right representation.  Take your time, organize your search and make the best decision you can based on the best information you can collect. You’re not alone when you have the right lawyer by your side.

You have our word on that.

You’re sitting in Starbucks having a coffee and relaxing when another customer walks in with a big, shiny handgun in a holster on his hip and heads over to the counter.

Do you:

A)    Hit the deck in the fear that there’s about to be a robbery?

B)     Feel uncomfortable because of the menacing presence of this stranger and his gun in such a non-traditional, non-threatening setting?

C)    Feel reassured due to the presence of an apparently law-abiding citizen who is there to protect you with his crime-deterring gun in case some bad guy shows up?

In many states, seeing a civilian man wearing an unconcealed gun and holster in public may not be such an unusual occurrence. Image credit: © iStockphoto.com/sleddogtwo

Think these are crazy scenarios?

Well, think again.

These kinds of questions are being asked and talked about across the U.S. as the pro-gun and anti-gun lobbies go head-to-head in communities with so-called “open carry” laws. That means that citizens are permitted to legally and openly carry a handgun with them, as long as it is holstered and visible. Some cities and other communities are exempt from such laws, making open carry weapons illegal. OpenCarry.org, a gun rights group that supports open carry rights, maintains a map on its Web site showing the laws in each state. In Pennsylvania, outside of Philadelphia and any communities that have their own restrictions, you are legally allowed to carry a handgun as long as it is visible, according to the Web site PaOpenCarry.org. You can’t, however, carry a gun with you in a vehicle unless you have a license to carry a firearm.

How does the open carry issue make you feel?

In a story yesterday in The Wall Street Journal, supporters and opponents on both sides of the highly emotional issue weighed in. The feelings on both sides are sobering.

The Starbucks scenario is not so abstract – in many states around the U.S., a person is allowed to legally carry a holstered weapon on their person in stores and other public places, unless the stores decide to ban guns on their properties, according to The Wall Street Journal story. That means that stores and chains like Starbucks are essentially being forced to take sides on the issue, which can cause havoc with supporters on both sides of the controversy. So far, Starbucks is choosing not to restrict open carry handguns in their stores. Other businesses have chosen to ban open carry guns on their premises.

There’s no easy legal answer here.

Yes, the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

But there are many interpretations of the amendment out there, and times have certainly changed since the ratification of the U.S. Constitution way back in 1788 and of its first 10 Amendments, also known as the Bill of Rights, in 1789.

So what to do?

More than anything, we think the safety of the public at large should be the central issue here, and that the best answer for that is getting and keeping both illegal and legal guns off our streets.

While guns are out there in our communities every day, whether concealed legally or illegally or carried in full view, their presence in a free society isn’t needed on a day to day basis.

Many gun advocates argue that having guns out in the general population makes society safer by having guns in the mix if criminals attempt to harm someone else.

But that isn’t necessarily the case. Having a gun available in many situations that escalate into violence or arguments would mean injecting a deadly option where it wouldn’t immediately have been available otherwise. Gun rights supporters, including the National Rifle Association (NRA),  insist that guns don’t kill people without the participation of a human being who fires the weapons. That’s true but that’s oversimplifying it.

If an argument happens in a Starbucks coffee store or anywhere else, the presence of a loaded gun now turns a possible fight into a potential powder keg that could have deadly consequences.

There are far too many illegal guns on America’s streets today, but that shouldn’t mean that we increase and encourage the spread of many more legal guns amid the population to balance out the threats.

There is a tipping point where more guns means more danger in society.

We have enough danger.

Instead of adding more open carry guns, we need to work harder to get illegal guns off of our streets, however difficult that is to do.

More guns on our streets, even if they are carried by law-abiding citizens, won’t make us safer.