Philadelphia Car Accident Lawyer Blog

In the aftermath of an accident, a victim who is traumatized can be easily manipulated, by kind words and money, into signing a general release that forestalls future benefits. Insurance companies know this, which is one of the reasons they cultivate the image of neighborliness and caring in their advertising. Indeed, friendly alacrity may be just what an accident victim needs after the trauma of an accident—but not when it involves compensation for personal injury.

A friendly insurance adjuster who shows up right away to estimate the damages to your car can be worth his or her weight in gold—saving you from the “wreck chasers” who might otherwise high jack you into substandard repair. There is great solace in knowing that you will have a car to drive, without delay, and that the insurance company is covering the cost. But when it comes to evaluating and receiving compensatory damage for personal injuries, a too-hasty settlement is risky.

During my thirty-three years as a practicing car accident attorney in Philadelphia, I have had many injured victims contact my office after signing a third party release, only to discover that they’d forfeited their rights to future compensation. One story that comes to mind is that of an elderly woman who was visited by an insurance company representative shortly after being involved in a car accident. A warm and effusive grandmother, she was touched by the fact someone had come to check on her. She invited the man into her home for lunch and, after a pleasant round of small talk, was presented with a check, and asked to sign a release. She did so without hesitation. However, when she began to experience severe back pain in the coming weeks—and learned that she had multiple herniated discs impinging on her nerves—she was not quite so charmed. She was injured, and didn’t know how she would pay her medical bills.

We were successful in arguing that no one—not a doctor, not my client, and certainly not an insurance company representative— could possibly have known the extent of my client’s injuries so soon after the accident. The release was invalidated on the basis of fraud, and my client was properly compensated for her medical expenses.

Pennsylvania permits the recision or reformation of a release, based upon fraud or a mutual mistake. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court holds that a release covers only those matters that were within the reasonable realm of the contemplation of the parties when it was executed. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, in the case of Ristefo v. McDonald, 230 A.2d at 1990 (Pa. 1967), recited the case of Cady v. Mitchell, 220 A.2d 373 Pa.Super 1966, in which the plaintiffs had given the defendant a general release for all claims arising out of a motor vehicle accident, including all unknown, unforeseen, unanticipated, and unsuspected injuries. The release was signed nine days after the accident, before the extent of Ms. Cady’s injuries was known. The Court considered the circumstances, and, based upon the inadequacy of consideration, voided the release.

So, if a friendly agent comes to your door with a smile and a settlement check, think twice before you accept it. And, please, don’t sign a release before consulting a lawyer.

Jeffrey Reiff is a car accident lawyer in Pennsylvania who has been recognized as one of the Top 100 Lawyers in Philadelphia and one of the Top Northeast Lawyers. He has regularly been named a Pennsylvania Super Lawyer, and has consistently been rated Superb by Avvo.com.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court recently addressed the question of whether a named driver residing in the same household as the named insured on an auto insurance policy is bound by the insured’s tort selection. The Superior Court recently determined that, in the case of Sally McWeeney v. Estate of Janet R. Strickler—under the plain and unambiguous wording of Section 1705 of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (MVFRL)--the fiancée of the policy owner was neither a named insured nor an insured, and was therefore not bound by the policy owner’s selection of limited tort. The Court wrote that “only one who is identified by name as an insured on the face of the policy is a ‘named insured’ for purposes of tort election”—and, moreover, that classifying a permissive driver as an “insured,” bound by limited tort, contravenes the intent of Section 1705(f).

In this particular case, Progressive Insurance Company insured the vehicle that was owned by the named insured, Richard D. Brandt. Both Mr. Brandt and his fiancée were listed as principal drivers on the policy declaration page. Mr. Brandt’s fiancée—who was operating the vehicle at the time of the accident--claimed that, as a result of the collision, she sustained bodily injuries that resulted in serious impairment of a bodily function. The insurance company denied that she suffered any serious injuries or financial loss as a result of the collision, and concluded that—because she was bound by the limited tort option elected by Mr. Brandt in the Progressive policy—she could not recover damages for pain and suffering.

Counsel successfully argued that the plaintiff appellant was not, in fact, bound by the limited tort selection on the Progressive policy because she was not a “named insured” or “insured” within the definition provided by MVFRL. Nowhere in Mr. Brandt’s policy was his fiancée identified as a “named insured.” In fact, his fiancée’s name appeared only once in the policy—as a regular driver of the insured vehicle.

Despite the arguments by Progressive Insurance Company, the Court stated, “we discern no persuasive reason to depart from the authority to adopt a different interpretation of the term ‘named insured,’ as it is used in Section 1705.” Accordingly, the fiancée’s status, under the terms of the policy, does not preclude her from claiming full tort damages against a third party tortfeasor. In other words, whether or not she has a serious injury, she can recover payment for pain and suffering.

As an experienced Philadelphia car accident attorney since 1979, I believe that this is an excellent opinion—one which will benefit named drivers who are injured in an accident and are not named insureds. Unfortunately, however, a named insured that elects the limited tort alternative will still be precluded from recovering non-economic damages, in the absence of serious injury. This Court decision addresses public policy concerns that unnamed insureds on a policy should not be held to a tort status election that they did not help to select,.

As insurance companies continue to aggressively fight claims—doing everything possible to deny, delay, and defend justice--this decision is a step in the right direction for consumers and injured victims.

The latest trend in the invasion of our privacy—following on the heels of social networks and computer “cookies”—is a palm-sized device that is installed in cars by insurance companies. These little intruders have been aptly named “tattletales.” A tattletale, placed inside of a car’s onboard diagnostic port, tracks such things as speed and braking intensity—with the supposed purpose of giving drivers control over their rates and an incentive to drive safely. The problem is that they also give control to the insurance companies. Many are rightly concerned about what the insurance companies will do with the data they collect.

Spokesmen for major insurance companies claim that the information on driving habits made available through the tattletale will provide an accurate measure of the risk involved in insuring their customers—and that those at low risk will pay lower rates. They claim, moreover, that safe drivers will be able to control their rates if they do not drive at excessive speeds, brake intensely, or indulge in erratic driving maneuvers. And they emphasize that it’s optional—something drivers choose to use. Sounds good, doesn’t it?

There are many causes for skepticism, however. As an experienced car accident attorney, I fear that the next step may be a surcharge by insurance carriers for those policy holders who refuse to use the device. And, beyond that, insurance claims could potentially be affected by the data obtained through these devices.

As we all know, with any electronic device there are technical glitches, so tattletales may not always produce accurate readings. But the bigger question—in terms of accuracy—is whether the data collected accurately reflects risk. Obviously, the area in which one is driving may make a difference in speeding and braking patterns. Someone who drives in a major metropolis will, naturally, brake more frequently, because of stop-and-go traffic. Similarly, a driver in a rural or suburban area, traveling on less congested roads, will probably drive much faster than a city driver. And, by the same token, a person who drives daily on an expressway or turnpike will average much higher speeds because of higher speed limits.

Insurance carriers are initially offering the device for free a trial and then— believe it or not— charging $5.00 to $10.00 a month, depending on the level of service chosen. And, there are services, indeed—but not necessarily the kinds of services one would expect from an insurance company. Add-ons include road side assistance, location monitoring, and alerts for parents who wish to be notified of the car’s location. Obviously, a further privacy issues comes into play if the tattletale “tells” on a cheating spouse who is venturing into areas where he or she is not expected to be driving.

Insurance carriers claim that millions of drivers are signing up for the tattletale device, and that those who are shown to have good driving habits will be rewarded with savings of $100 to $150 on annual insurance premium rates. But, what happens to ‘bad’ drivers who—say—stop too much, or drive exclusively on super-highways? Will they be penalized by having increased premium costs?

If you suspect that electronic tattling has affected your insurance rates, you need to talk to a qualified automobile accident and auto insurance lawyer.

For years, many insurance companies have regularly engaged in what has been dubbed the “3D Program”—popularly known as delay, deny, and defend. This has never been more evident than now, with insurance companies using software to adjust claims—software designed to minimize payments to injured victims. Unfortunately for claimants, it appears that the bottom line in the insurance industry is maximization of profitability, not fair payment of justified claims.

All-state recently addressed a number of insurance commissioners throughout the United States, concerning claims that the Colossus program, used by the company and its adjusters to evaluate claims, was actually punishing accident victims. The Colossus case evaluation program under discussion requires the insurance adjuster to feed data into a computer, which then gives a low-ball settlement range. This settlement range is often disgracefully low. As a result, many states have investigated All-state’s abuse of accident victims.

The National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC), along with the Insurance Departments of Illinois, New York, Florida, Iowa, and Michigan, examined the use of claims software by Allstate, and also investigated the way it was affecting the claims handling process in other states. The study noted “inconsistencies” in Allstate’s management and oversight of the Colossus software. It was discovered that Allstate had failed to modify or “tune” the software in a consistent manner across its claims-handling regions. Allstate agreed to pay $10 million dollars to settle, and to submit to a market conduct examination on the way it used the computer software to handle bodily injury claims. It agreed, additionally, to change its insurance claims handling process, by notifying claimants that the Colossus might be used in adjusting their claims. All-state also agreed to improve oversight of Colossus, to ensure that it adheres to established criteria, and to adopt a uniform methodology of selecting claims for tuning the software to reflect recently settled claims. Allstate claims that it will no longer require claims adjusters to settle bodily injury claims solely on the value recommended by Colossus.

For over three decades, our Philadelphia car accident lawyers have fought large insurance companies on behalf of injured victims. Until we see significant changes in the evaluation of claims by Allstate and other large insurance companies, we will continue to fiercely litigate on behalf of injured victims— against insurance companies that abuse the system to take advantage of claimants.

As I watch TV and view the number of ads by the large automobile insurance companies, I think about the fact that they are, indeed, not my clients’ good friends or neighbors. I am fond of stating that “chance favors the prepared man,” and I make it a priority to keep my clients informed and prepared. I am hopeful –and cautiously optimistic—that the change promised by Allstate and other companies is a step in the right direction.

Jeffrey Reiff is recognized as one of the nation’s top attorneys handling serious car and motor vehicle accidents, as well as no-fault litigation. He regularly writes articles about Pennsylvania car accidents and insurance company abuse, and always offers a free no obligation consultation. Call toll free at 1-800-421-9595.

Typically, after a car accident, your own insurance company will pay for your medical benefits up to the limits of insurance purchased. In Pennsylvania, it is required that one purchase liability coverage in the amount of $15,000/$30,000, and property damage in the amount of $5,000. Any insurer issuing or delivering liability policies in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania must include coverage providing medical benefits in the minimum amount of $5,000.

Unfortunately, Pennsylvania’s no fault law is quite antiquated, dating back to 1984—when a minimal medical limit of $5,000 meant a great deal more than it does today. Of course, a $5,000 minimal limit can be quickly exhausted after one hospital visit. Under the no fault law, even if you are in an automobile accident caused by another person, your medical bills will be initially paid by your own auto insurance company. If you have private health insurance, this company will be responsible for medical bills in excess of your primary auto insurance limit. If you do not own a motor vehicle, but live in a household with someone who is a blood or married relative, your medical bills and lost wages must be submitted to the insurance carrier of that person. If you do not own a motor vehicle, and the car in which you were riding does not belong to a relative in your household, your medical bills and lost wages must be submitted to the insurance carrier covering the car. If you are a pedestrian struck by an automobile, and do not have your own automobile insurance policy, the striking vehicle will be responsible for the payment of your medical bills and lost wages.

Most skilled car accident attorneys in Pennsylvania will handle your case on a contingent fee basis, which means that there will be no fee if there is no recovery. Today, many of the major insurance companies try to delay and deny legitimate claims, in an aggressive fashion. It is always best to hire an experienced car accident attorney, who can fully explain your rights and recovery options, to make sure that your rights are protected to the maximum. Major injuries sustained as a result of a car accident can mean major life changes. An experienced car accident lawyer will make sure that your rights are properly represented, and that you achieve the maximum recovery, without the insurance companies or their claims adjusters denying you what is due under your policy. Legal time limits on the prosecution of a claim and rights to recovery require that the victim or claimant be mindful of notice and statute of limitation issues. Failure to comply with any of these legal requirements may forever bar a suit from being brought. Insurance and claims issues can sometimes be very complex and time- consuming, and there are many pre-litigation hurdles that one must overcome before being permitted to bring a lawsuit. In order to avoid legal problems related to the meeting of deadlines—which can jeopardize a potential claim—it is highly recommended that you contact an experienced car accident attorney, as soon as possible after an accident.

Jeffrey Reiff has been recognized as one of the Top Trial Lawyers by National Trial Lawyers, has been consistently recognized as a Super Lawyer, and is a frequent author of educational articles. He has successfully litigated thousands of motor vehicle accidents since 1979, and handles serious injury cases.

A significant multi-million dollar verdict was recently awarded against an ambulance company, after the ambulance careened, at full speed, into a truck. It was alleged that the ambulance service had failed to enforce company policy regarding driver oversight, retraining, and education. It was further alleged that the driver had poor vision and a history of accidents, and had failed to meet the company’s driving standards for a period of over 30 months.

As an experienced motor vehicle, car, and ambulance accident lawyer for the last three and a half decades, I can attest to the fact that ambulance drivers do not get a free pass. Indeed, there are no exceptions to the rules of safe conduct—if passengers are killed or seriously injured. Ambulance drivers and ambulance companies alike must be held accountable for their negligence, or their failure to provide a duty of care.

Many ambulance accidents occur at intersections controlled by stoplights or red lights. Even though the protocol is to pull over and yield to an ambulance, ambulance drivers themselves must exercise a reasonable degree of caution in their quest to safely transport their patients to the nearest health facility. An emergency vehicle such as an ambulance must never attempt to assert the right-of-way through an intersection, against a traffic-signaling device, since the light on the ambulance is frequently obscured at intersections, and its siren may not be heard, as it bounces off impediments such as buildings and trees, thereby confusing nearby motorists.

Surprisingly, the majority of ambulance accidents occur on days when the visibility is good, and they are simply the result of the poor judgment or inattention of the driver. Another surprising fact is that most rural ambulance crashes do not involve other vehicles, and are likely to be caused by factors such as wet or icy highways, or the improper maintenance or overloading of the vehicle.

An ambulance typically weighs more than 12,000 pounds, and is often traveling more than 40 miles per hour. As its vehicle weight increases, so does its safe vehicle braking distance. Additionally, ambulances are often overloaded by crews, negatively impacting the handling and braking characteristics of the vehicle—and jeopardizing patient and crew.

Too often, ambulance drivers are simply poorly trained and educated. This is a reality that needs addressing. The National Fire Protection Association has attempted to identify strategies that would have a positive impact on emergency responders and ambulance safety.

Ambulance companies and their drivers owe patients a duty to exercise a reasonable caution of care. If it is found that an ambulance driver or operator’s negligence is the cause of injuries or death, the ramifications can be very significant. As health costs continue to rise, many fly-by-night ambulance companies have entered the arena. Because they are more concerned about profits than about driver and paramedic training and experience, they are more apt to be remiss about their duty of care.

If you or a loved one has been the victim of an ambulance accident, it is important to retain an ambulance accident lawyer immediately, to carefully investigate a claim, and avoid spoliation of evidence. There are often many different theories to be explored—such a faulty parts, road or weather conditions, breach of safety regulations and the motor vehicle code, negligence on the part of the driver, or negligent hiring on the part of the owner of the ambulance company.

If you were injured, or someone you love was injured or killed, while being transported in an ambulance, know that you are not alone, and that you may be entitled to financial compensation. Jeffrey Reiff, an experienced ambulance accident lawyer, has been recognized as one of Pennsylvania’s top attorneys from 2004 to the present, and has received the highest rating in both legal ability and ethical standards. Mr. Reiff has been recognized as one of the Top 100 Trial Lawyers by National Trial Lawyers Association.

Not many people are as great at multi-tasking as they would like to think. As many of the recent distracted driver campaigns have revealed, texting and driving definitely don’t mix. However, just as dangerous—and much less discussed— is a phenomenon known as “iPod oblivion.” Often, when I drive to and from work in the early morning or early evening, I see multitudes of joggers in a trance-like state, running with headphones in their ears, oblivious to the world around them—and to passing cars or horns. Psychologists refer to this phenomenon as “in-attentional blindness.”

I have observed the same to be true of many drivers and cyclists, who are immersed in music while driving. Last week, I was contacted by a prominent executive in Philadelphia whose vehicle was violently rear-ended by a seemingly “stoned” individual listening to blaring music on an iPhone, while driving at night on roads covered with black ice—a dangerous situation indeed.

Despite the numerous local campaigns that address distracted driving, a recent study indicates that 80% of all crashes are caused by distracted driving—which is now the top danger behind the wheel, taking precedence over driving while intoxicated. Today, 8 out of 10 crashes involve some type of driver inattention caused by music, texting, talking on the phone, or attending to children or pets.

To this experienced Philadelphia car accident lawyer, it seems insane that people must die, or sustain life-shattering injuries, because a driver is immersed in a seemingly all-important text message and is not paying attention to the road. When we add the phenomenon of joggers, walkers, or drivers distracted by the music of their iPods, statistical numbers for death and injury increase to an even greater extent. How many of you have glanced sideways, or avoided an accident, only to see the other driver bopping his or her head to the beat of the music?

Many of the new smart cars contain advanced technology that adds to the distraction factor—with drivers fumbling to operate their high-tech navigation systems, or to utilize their advanced music selection or telephone functions. While many states do not allow speaking on a handheld phone while driving, some drivers circumvent the issue by wearing headphones, but unfortunately the volume is often so high that it overrides the senses, and undercuts the sensory control necessary for completely safe driving.

I have long believed that chance favors the prepared mind, and advise all parents and drivers to take steps to safely protect themselves by not driving in a distracted manner. If you have sustained injuries in a car accident, and believe that a driver has been distracted, it is important to contact an experienced car accident attorney with the investigative resources and experience necessary to take action against it.

Imagine the following scenarios. You are sitting home late one evening, and suddenly the phone rings. You answer the call, only to learn that a loved one was involved in a catastrophic accident. Or, you are traveling down the highway with your spouse, on the way home from a restaurant, when all of a sudden an unexpected event—such as a collision with another vehicle, or a tree falling onto your vehicle—occurs, causing life-altering injuries.

Every year in America, almost 8 million traffic accidents will occur, and many of the victims of these accidents will experience Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and severe emotional distress, immediately following the accident. Symptoms may include, but are not limited to: shock, nervousness, worry, anxiety, panic, guilt, uneasiness, anger, depression, irritability, insomnia, and concentration problems. Or they may include more generalized feelings like trouble believing what happened, being unable to stop replaying memories of the accident, feelings of disconnection from others, and a loss of desire to move forward. Oftentimes people become severely depressed, and hibernate in their homes, without seeking proper medical attention or legal advice.

Of course, it is normal to be shocked after a car accident, and most people will bounce back quickly, after the shock recedes. However, when the emotional and mental feelings become overwhelming, start to change the way you think and act, and get in the way of everyday life, you may, in fact, have PTSD. Many times, victims will suffer from a more serious type of injury, such as a traumatic brain injury or a concussion, which produces more extreme symptoms.

As an experienced Philadelphia car accident and traumatic injury attorney, I constantly meet with clients and family members who sustain traumatic brain injuries and PTSD that require psychological and psychiatric attention. PTSD can be extraordinarily debilitating—and it is compensable for recovery of damages.

Those who experience PTSD may feel intense fear, helplessness, or horror— which may also be accompanied by a diminution of sex drive or physical strength. These symptoms typically appear immediately after, or within months of, the event. Sometimes, they do not occur until years later. A sudden onset of emotional distress and PTSD, resulting from a catastrophic accident, can leave an individual or a family totally incapacitated—and uncertain about what to do, and to whom to turn for advice.

In view of these possibilities, it is vitally important, in the critical moments following an accident, to avoid spoliation of evidence, and to conduct a careful investigation—in order to protect your legal and financial interests. This is especially crucial following a catastrophic accident or wrongful death.

Thus, following an accident, you should consult a physician, to obtain a complete medical history, a physical exam, and a mental evaluation--and an attorney who is skilled in the areas of traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder. Doing so will help get you back on proper emotional and physical footing as soon as possible.

Having litigating thousands of car accident cases over the last three and a half decades, I have found that passengers involved in the same accident frequently sustain very different types of injuries. For example, one passenger may sustain a catastrophic injury—or die—while the others in the car are injured minimally, or not at all. There are many possible reasons for this. One of the most common among these is a vehicle defect involving the failure of an automobile component— such as an airbag, a seat belt, or a poorly constructed seat—or of a system, such as the fuel system. Even when the driver has done everything correctly, and the passengers have taken appropriate safety precautions, a product failure can occur, resulting in an accident—and even a wrongful death.

While such defects are often overlooked by inexperienced lawyers, they can—with a skilled lawyer—lead to the prosecution of an auto defect or product liability claim. A skilled investigator or car accident attorney will take care to prevent spoliation of evidence, and will carefully evaluate where the injured parties were seated, to determine whether a product failure or design defect was involved.

Most vehicles today have a reasonable degree of crash-prevention, since they are commonly tested for their crashworthiness—i.e., their ability to provide protection from impact in a collision. Automobile manufacturers design vehicles, test them, and certify them to meet federal safety standards, with the understanding that they are likely to be involved in foreseeable real-world accidents. But, if a product has been defectively designed, or the manufacturer has failed to take precautions to reduce the likelihood of a collision, the vehicle may prove “un-crashworthy“. In this case, a seemingly simple automobile accident case can result in a crashworthiness claim. The “crashworthiness” doctrine allows individuals to sue manufacturers when passengers are killed or injured as a result of unsafe vehicles. Determining crashworthiness requires investigation of five basic issues: minimization of intrusion, effectiveness of restraint, prevention of ejection, friendliness of interior, and fuel system integrity.

A safely-designed automobile should minimize passenger compartment intrusion; and, in the case of rear impacts, ‘crush’ should occur behind the rear axle. The restraint system of the vehicle should “tie” the occupant to the passenger compartment, thereby preventing injurious contact with the interior, and allowing him/her to safely ride out the crash. Passengers and drivers must be prevented from being ejected from the vehicle—for ejection increases the likelihood of catastrophic injury or death. In the case of an accident, doors and lift gates should stay shut, seat belts should remain latched, and large portals or openings should not appear. The interior should be designed in a safe and friendly fashion, to absorb destructive forces, and the fuel system should be designed to minimize the risk of fuel-fed fires. In a rear-end collision, the fuel system should remain secure and intact, and free from impact by any of the car’s components—which could lead to a fire or explosion.

After any car accident, it is necessary to carefully investigate and reconstruct the circumstances of the accident, the performance of the vehicle’s components, and the injuries sustained by those in the vehicle. In many cases—especially when there is a disparity in the types of injuries sustained by individual passengers—such an investigation will lead to the prosecution of an auto defect or product liability claim.

The insurance companies and their adjusters just don’t seem to want to follow the law in many cases. Over and over I have found that low level insurance adjusters and their supervisors refuse to settle a case without listing the name of Medicare as payee on a settlement check. In fact, Medicare itself has on some occasions insisted on being put on the settlement check as well.

In November 2010, the Pennsylvania Superior Court (Appellate Court) made a significant ruling in Medicare law in the case of Zaleppa v. Seiwell, 210 Pa. Super 208, 9 A. 3rd 632, whereupon the Court determined that the inclusion of Medicare on a settlement check is contrary to Pennsylvania law. The basic reasoning behind the Court’s decision is that doing so stands in the way of satisfying a judgment. The relevant facts of this Appellate decision indicate that in October of 2004 the parties were involved in an automobile accident that occurred when Seiwell backed her 1998 Saturn out of her driveway and struck the passenger side of a 2000 Chevy Tracker in which Zaleppa was a front seat passenger. As a result of the accident, Zaleppa alleged bodily injuries to her cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine regions and at the time of the accident, Zaleppa was 69 years old. Seiwell admitted liability with regard to the accident, as well as the resulting injuries to Zaleppa and the matter proceeded to trial on the issues of damages only. In May of 2009 the jury entered a verdict in the amount of $15,000 which consisted of $5,000 for “future medical expenses”, and $10,000 for past, present, and future physical pain and suffering, mental anguish, distress, embarrassment, humiliation, and the loss of life’s pleasures and enjoyment. In post-trial motions, Seiwell argued that the terms of the Medicare Secondary Payer Act (MSPA) require all parties in litigation to protect Medicare’s interests when resolving claims involving conditional payments made by Medicare. Seiwell requested that the trial court allow her to either include and identify Zaleppa, her attorneys, and Medicare as payees on the settlement draft or pay the verdict into the Court pending notification from Medicare to the trial court that the Medicare lien was satisfied. The Court was confronted with the issue addressing whether the MSPA either requires or allows a private entity to assert the rights of the United States government regarding a potential claim for reimbursement of a Medicare lien. Seiwell argued that in order to protect Medicare’s interest the MSPA obligates her to confirm that all Medicare liens have been satisfied before paying the verdict award. Otherwise as Seiwell claimed, she risked being held liable to the United States government under MSPA. Nothing in MSPA expressly authorizes primary plan to assert Medicare’s right to reimbursement as a preemptive means of guarding against its own risk of liability. The MSPA sets forth only one method for the United States government to recover the funds which was disbursed through conditional Medicare payments. Under MSPA only the United States government is authorized to pursue its own rights to reimbursement. As such, MSPA is not designed to enable private parties to act on behalf of the United States government as “private attorneys general”.

Pennsylvania law provides independent grounds that prohibit a party and its insurer from asserting the interests of the United States government by adding Medicare as a payee to a check and it was determined that neither MSPA nor Pennsylvania law authorizes a private entity to assert the interests of the United States government in this context.

Jeffrey M. Reiff is an experienced Philadelphia car accident lawyer since 1979. He is consistently named as a Pennsylvania Super Lawyer and is a member of the National Trial Lawyers, “Top 100 Trial Lawyers”.

Last night, on my way to a holiday party at an Atlantic City casino, I was driving at a slow speed, traversing the levels of a multi-level parking lot, when—suddenly and without warning—a giant SUV came flying around the corner at a high rate of speed. The driver missed my car by what seemed like less than an inch. Thereafter, he revved up and barreled out of the parking lot—at a speed unsafe even outside a parking lot environment. It was clear that the driver had been drinking, quite likely at a holiday party. What’s worse, he had also been talking on his cell phone, and not paying attention.

Almost 25% of all car accidents occur in parking lots, and, while they typically occur at low speeds and don’t result in serious damage, they are sometimes quite serious, especially when alcohol is involved. In the last year, I was retained to represent the legal interests of some unfortunate individuals who sustained catastrophic injuries when hit by drivers backing out of parking spaces—drivers who had not even seen them.

Most parking lot accidents lead to fights regarding who was at fault. For this reason, it is vitally important to document a parking lot accident immediately after it occurs, by filing a police report. In addition, if it takes place on a private property with video cameras, it is wise to ask the facility to preserve the video tapes, in order to avoid spoliation of evidence.

People often choose to “quietly” settle such seemingly minor accidents directly with the other driver, without filing a claim, for fear that their insurance rates will go up. However, if a legal Release of Liability is not issued, a tender of payment can be interpreted as an admission of fault. Just when you think the issue has been resolved, you may end up receiving a letter from the other party claiming head, neck, or back injuries.

It can be more difficult to prove fault in a parking lot accident, due to the fact that lanes are not well marked, or the lot is not designed with sufficient attention to safety. Thus, even when damages seem minimal, you should fully document these damages with your cell phone camera, and file a police report, to protect your legal interests and rights.

Always remember that an accident in a parking lot is an accident nonetheless. Bear this in mind when you celebrate the New Year!