Obvious workplace injuries, such as falling from a building or getting electrocuted, clearly require immediate medical care. On the other hand, less obvious but equally debilitating injuries sometimes take several days or weeks to surface. For example, injuries from heavy or improper lifting and repetitive stress are musculoskeletal, and many times these injuries do not become apparent right away. In addition to muscle strains from heavy lifting and improper moving, a few common musculoskeletal injuries include carpal tunnel syndrome and knee injuries caused by repetitive motion. Musculoskeletal injuries sometimes even require longer rehabilitation and physical or occupational therapy treatment for full recovery, because they often involve chronic and increasing pain.

No matter what type of condition you have, it is important to seek medical care as soon as you detect any sign of a work-related injury. You should also immediately notify your employer or supervisor of your injury, including the fact that the injury was caused by the performance of your job. Pennsylvania law requires employers to help injured or ill employees receive the workers’ compensation benefits they need in order to fully recover, but there are certain deadlines which can affect your ability to receive wage loss benefits and medical care while you’re unable to work. Therefore, it is important to take action right away.

Furthermore, in situations where an employee experiences a condition caused by injury of the muscles, nerves, tendons, joints or spine, the workers’ compensation insurers may try deny your workers’ compensation claim by arguing that your injury did not occur on the job. These setbacks can complicate things and make the recovery process feel longer than it needs to be. If you’ve been injured at work, it is always smart to contact an attorney to ensure that your rights are protected.

At Metzger Wickersham law firm, we can answer your workers’ compensation questions. We believe that no employee should have to endure pain from an on-the-job injury, only to have their valid workers’ compensation claim denied. Whether you have experienced a major construction accident injury or a more gradual, chronic injury that has developed due to the nature of your job duties, the workers’ compensation lawyers at Metzger Wickersham understand that you deserve compensation for your work injuries. Our lawyers know how to talk to the insurance companies, and we can provide the legal advocacy needed to tip the scales in your favor. Contact our attorneys

Facebook proved to be a successful venture into the relatively new world of social media. It continued to grow, opening its doors to community colleges, then to corporations, and eventually to anyone with an e-mail address. It became so popular that “Facebook” became a verb. For example: “Why don’t you Facebook her to find out what she’s doing tonight?” or “Is he single? Facebook him and find out.” When Facebook became an application on smart phones, users became even more “connected.” The Facebook application allows users to “check-in” to any place, allowing the phone’s GPS to locate these users and broadcast where they are to the world. The application can also utilize a smart phone’s camera to snap a picture and instantly upload it. Facebook has continuously upgraded its layout to accommodate so much information. The latest upgrade is called the “Timeline,” where a friend may search a user’s status updates, check-ins, and uploaded photographs throughout the years. Facebook is basically an open diary for anyone with the right privacy authorization to see.

Speaking of privacy, Facebook has had its share of privacy problems. Because more and more people are willing to upload intimate and potentially embarrassing material onto the internet, Facebook responded by creating increasingly complicated and customized privacy settings. A user can become Facebook friends with his parents and carefully finagle the privacy settings so that Mom only sees pictures of him frantically chugging a cappuccino before an exam or posting statuses that say “got an A on my history paper!” rather than those pictures of him chugging beer through a funnel and statuses that say “woke up in jail today…”

Facebook’s popularity has turned it into a powerful discovery tool. Take, for example, the case of Mary. Mary was roughly rear-ended by Rob and now claims that she is so injured that she can no longer partake in life’s pleasures. Traditionally, Rob would send a private investigator to take pictures of Mary out and about to see if her claims could be disproved. Now, all Rob would have to do is access Mary’s Facebook page to find pictures of her playing beach volleyball, looking tanned and healthy, and there goes both her claim and her credibility.

The conflict arises when Rob tries to access Mary’s Facebook page and is blocked by her privacy settings. Only Mary’s Facebook friends are permitted to view her posted material. All Rob can see is her name and profile picture which really doesn’t tell him anything. Rob files a motion in a Pennsylvania court to compel discovery of Mary’s Facebook page. What would be the outcome?

Since the dawn of the internet era, consumers have been repeatedly reminded to never give out their passwords. Understandably, people bristle when an opposing attorney demands their user name and password in order to have unfettered access to something they thought was private. Yet, it seems as though Pennsylvania discovery rules side with disclosure. Pa.R.C.P. 4003.1 allows a party to obtain discovery regarding any unprivileged matter as long as it is somehow relevant to litigation. In McMillen v. Hummingbird Speedway, Inc., 2010 WL 4403285, an argument was made in the Jefferson County court that private Facebook material should be subject to a “social network site privilege” based upon the belief that the plaintiff’s postings were private communications between him and his friends.

The court shot this argument down by pointing out that the law disapproves of privileged information so there could be no such thing as a social network site privilege. In addition, Facebook’s own terms and privacy policies say that it cannot prevent friends from reposting information or Facebook operators from accessing that information, so it is unrealistic to expect Facebook postings to be privileged. The McMillen court ultimately ordered the plaintiff to give the defendant his Facebook username and password.

One way to approach Facebook disclosure is to ask the court to conduct an in camera review of the private Facebook page in question. In Offenback v. L.M. Bowman, Inc., 2011 WL 2491371 (M.D. Pa. June 22, 2011), the court ordered the plaintiff to disclose his Facebook username and password then proceeded to review the plaintiff’s Facebook page in chambers. This review revealed that all of the relevant information the defendant needed had already been displayed on the public portion of plaintiff’s page. The court concluded that the plaintiff knew his Facebook page best and could have produced the posts the defendant wanted without the court’s help. On the other hand, the court in Zimmerman v. Weis, No. CV-09-1535 (Northumberland Cnty) determined that it would be an unfair burden on the court if it had to go through the plaintiff’s Facebook page to determine what is relevant and what is not. It ordered the plaintiff to provide his Facebook username and password to the defendant.

In Luzerne County, a court refused to compel a plaintiff to give defense counsel his username and password. The facts in Kalinowski v. Kirschenheiter and National Indemn. Co, No. 6779 of 2010, (Luzerne Cnty.) involved a plaintiff who was a bar owner with a Facebook page. When the defendant demanded access to the page, the plaintiff claimed that the defendant was only trying to embarrass him with pictures of the plaintiff in his best party attire. The court denied the defendant’s Motion to Compel without prejudice because the plaintiff’s public page did not reveal anything that impeached the plaintiff. The court did also order that the plaintiff refrain from deleting anything from his Facebook page to open the door for future social media discovery.

It seems as though the trend in Pennsylvania is to allow a party access to the opposing party’s Facebook page as long as something in the public profile suggests that relevant information may be contained in the private profile. Facebook postings may not only affect your relationship with your friends and family, it may also affect the outcome of your case. The world as a whole is still trying to sort out the role social media plays in professional settings – classes are even beginning to be taught on the topic. Although the rules on Facebook discovery are not set in stone, what your parents and teachers tell you still remain true: be careful what you post on Facebook!

The “Who’s Who in Business“ campaign is an objective, statistically accurate survey of consumer preference conducted in the Greater Harrisburg Market. The survey is conducted by Polk-Lepson Research Group, an independent market research firm that specializes in the application of scientific research techniques to topics related to consumer behavior and public opinion.

One of Central Pennsylvania’s oldest law firms, Metzger Wickersham has been dedicated to serving clients since 1888. We feel honored that our solid foundation, unwavering commitment, and trusted relationships with all those we have served over the years have earned us distinction as a business leader in the community.

Many people use their bikes as a main form of transportation to get to work, to school, or as a form of exercise. Some pedal to save the environment. Some do it in response to rising gas prices. Others do it to stave off obesity. Whatever their reasons for pedaling, Pennsylvania law grants bicycles full use of the road as though they were another motor vehicle under 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3501 et. seq. Many bicyclists take full advantage of this allowance and have been spotted on various roads decked out in reflective gear and waving their arms around to signal impending turns. As often as we see these bicyclists, we also see cars zipping past them on one lane roads at high rates of speed and coming so close that both operators could probably reach out and touch each other. Motor vehicle operators are taught to look out for other motor vehicles and pedestrians at crosswalks, but many are not aware of what is proper etiquette for sharing the road with bicyclists.

In those instances of careless passing or inattention, a bicyclist could become seriously injured and often with little consequence to the motor vehicle operator. For instance, take the very recent case of Frank Pavlick, a bicyclist who was pedaling on the Fahy Bridge in Bethlehem, PA. Mr. Pavlick was struck from behind by a motor vehicle which then attempted to flee the scene. If not for the quick thinking of two Good Samaritans, the motor vehicle operator would have gotten away completely with little property damage and zero bodily injury. Fortunately, Mr. Pavlick did not sustain serious injuries, but the same cannot be said of another bicyclist who was hit on that same bridge four months earlier. Patrick Ytsma, who was hit in December 2011, died from massive head trauma after being struck from behind by a woman driving a car. Serious injuries aren’t just the result of direct collisions. A bicyclist clipped by a car’s mirror can sustain a broken elbow or a fractured leg from impacting the ground. A motor vehicle operator might not even be aware that he brushed a bicyclist. Bicyclists all over the country have been lobbying ceaselessly for stricter laws that would make inattentive drivers keep their eyes on the road and looking out for them.

This is not to say that motorists don’t have their complaints against bicyclists. They ask why a bicyclist needs to ride in the middle of the road and slow down traffic. Sometimes, it’s just not feasible to pass a bicyclist because there are parked cars, traffic, or fire hydrants in the way, and the motorist is forced to idle behind the bicyclist until the road ends or it’s safe to pass. They also ask why the law should give bicyclists more rights when bicyclists barely follow the law themselves. They point to instances where bicyclists have run red lights and stop signs, have cut off cars, and have woven in and out of pedestrian crowds, seemingly without a care and without accountability. There are plenty of aggrieved motorists who perceive bicyclists as nothing more than lawless road-hogging fiends who simply keep demanding more road rights without yielding any consideration themselves.

Pennsylvania recently enacted a new law for the safety of bicyclists. The “Safe Passing Law” requires motorists to keep a four feet safety cushion around them and the bicycles. It also prohibits “right hooks” and “left hooks,” terms used to describe the passing of a bicyclist in order to make an immediate turn. Most importantly, motor vehicles are now permitted to cross the center yellow line in order to pass a bicyclist if it is safe to do so. Violation of this law is a summary offense that carries a $25 fine and court costs.

Motorists and bicyclists have a long way to go before they can comfortably share the road with each other. The Safe Passing Law is a step in the right direction to make Pennsylvania a more bicycle friendly state. Prior to this law, Pennsylvania was severely lacking in laws that protected bicyclists, resulting in its rank as the 8th worst state for bicycle friendliness in 2010. Perhaps we will be seeing more strides toward bicycle-friendliness in the future.

The National Safety Council, a leader in promoting Graduated Driver Licensing (GDL) to reduce the number of crashes among teens, feels that it is important to regulate risky driving behavior and encourage the development of safe driving skills.  In an aim to reduce the number of teen auto accidents, the NSC urges all states to adopt seven rules for teenage drivers:

- minimum age 16 for a learner’s permit

- six months before unsupervised driving

- minimum 30 hours supervised driving during learner’s stage

- intermediate licensing at 16½ minimum

- intermediate night driving restriction beginning no later than 10 p.m.

- no more than one non-family passenger for intermediate drivers

- minimum age 17 for a full license.

If all states adopted these suggested rules, an estimated 2,000 lives could be saved each year nationwide. According to the National Safety Council, states with stronger, comprehensive Graduated Driver Licensing systems see a higher reduction in teen crashes.

In an effort to enhance safety on Pennsylvania roads, Governor Corbett and the Legislature recently agreed on changes to the Vehicle Code involving Graduated Driver Licensing requirements, passenger restrictions for junior drivers and passenger restraint laws. The new rules took effect on Dec. 27, 2011. The changes to the law were initiated to help junior drivers receive more comprehensive training, ease young driver distractions through limiting the number of passengers they may carry and to improve general highway safety.

If you or a loved one has been injured in an car accident, contact Metzger Wickersham. One of our Harrisburg auto accident attorneys can answer your questions and take every step to ensure that your rights are protected

With the passing of Pennsylvania’s texting while driving ban, we see an instance of the law starting to catch up with technology.  Text messaging was first introduced to the world in the early 90s and has exploded in popularity over the past twenty years.  It provides a convenient and instantaneous method of getting in touch with family, friends, and coworkers.  Entire conversations can be had, saved, and referenced at whim.  For many people, it has become the predominant form of communication, preferred over a phone call or an e-mail.  It has become so popular that magazines are publishing articles on texting etiquette while corporations such as Apple and Microsoft churn out newer and greater machines of mass texting every year.

Yet, like anything else, texting has its dangers, too.  Who can forget the video of the woman who flipped into a mall’s fountain while her eyes were glued to her cell phone screen?  How many times have we heard stories of both friends and strangers walking into trees, poles, and other very large, visible, and nonmoving inanimate objects just because texting made them unaware of their surroundings?  Take these people and their phones and put them behind the wheel of a car, bus, or tractor trailer.  It’s almost enough to send shivers down your spine.

Society has begun to respond.  The courts have been seeing instances of victims that were seriously injured by another texting motorist.  Cell phone providers such as AT&T have released ten minute ads that warn about the dangers of texting while driving.  In Pennsylvania, AAA sponsors billboards with a simple message that all texters would understand: “dnt txt n drv.”  Pictures of car wrecks caused by texting drivers have been circulating the internet.  Various studies claim that texting while driving is as dangerous as drunk driving.  Some state that it is even more dangerous than drunk driving.  Courts have allowed for punitive damages in drunk driving cases for years.  So does that mean that punitive damages against texting drivers will logically follow?

Not quite.  In January 2012, a Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas judge dismissed punitive damages against a driver who was speaking on his cell phone at the time he left his lane of travel and struck the Plaintiff’s vehicle.  Xander v. Kiss, 2012 WL 168326 (Pa.Com.Pl.)(Trial Order).  Punitive damages are meant for conduct that is egregious, reckless, and wanton.  To the courts, using a cell phone while driving by itself does not give rise to the level of egregiousness required for punitive damages.

Even more recently, United States District Magistrate Judge Lynne Sitarski threw out a punitive damages claim against a man who was using his cell phone before he rear-ended another vehicle.  In Piester v. Hickey, 2011-CV-04720, Judge Sitarski concluded that solely because the defendant looked at his phone before he allegedly caused the accident was insufficient to establish the outrageous behavior required to support an award of punitive damages.  Her finding was based upon the Xander order and supported the general guideline that additional facts, such as the defendant’s speeding or disregarding traffic signals, are needed before a properly pled punitive damages claim is presented.

Most people who text while driving don’t intend to cause an accident, but with so much literature and so many warnings about its dangers, what more is needed before the courts consider the act “egregious” and a “willful disregard” of another driver’s rights?  Pennsylvania courts have begun to explore this issue by setting a standard that merely using a cell phone before an accident is not enough to grant punitive damages against a defendant driver.  Perhaps now that the texting while driving ban is in effect, we will begin to see a change.  If the court is presented with a defendant driver who has multiple citations for texting while driving on his record before he caused an accident, would that be enough for punitive damages?  What if discovery revealed that the defendant driver had sent numerous texts in the minute before the accident occurred?  Would the court accept the testimony of an expert who stated that the number of texts sent made it impossible for the driver to pay attention to the road?

Texting while driving remains a danger for other motorists, and we anticipate increased case law on the matter in the years to come.  We urge all drivers to be smart, put down their phones, and pay attention to the road.  If you have been injured by a texting motorist, contact the attorneys at Metzger Wickersham for advice and a free consultation.

The question of whether an uninsured motorist may recover economic damages from a defendant driver has remained a source of confusion among Pennsylvania courts for years.  In a recent decision handed down by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the Court clarified the rights of those uninsured motorists who are injured through no fault of their own.

In the case of Corbin v. Khosla, 48 EAP 2010 (Pa. Feb. 21, 2012 McCaffery, J), Corbin, an uninsured motorist, sustained injuries when Khosla took a left turn in front of her vehicle.  Ms. Corbin brought suit against Mr. Khosla, seeking economic damages.

This case brought to light the tension within Pennsylvania’s Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (MVFRL).  On one hand, the MVFRL prohibits an uninsured motorist from recovering first party benefits under 75 Pa.C.S.A §1714.  On the other hand, the MVFRL states that an uninsured motorist is deemed to have chosen the limited tort option under 75 Pa.C.S.A. §1705, thereby allowing them to recover economic damages.  So would an uninsured motorist be able to recover for her medical expenses and wage loss or not?

The Court explained that “a fundamental difference exists between a claim for first party benefits and one for third-party liability damages.”  First party benefits are paid regardless of fault.  Even if a driver is at fault for an accident, the insurance company she contracts with must pay for a certain amount of her medical expenses.  As a penalty for failing to maintain financial responsibility, an uninsured motorist may not receive these benefits.  However, when another driver is at fault for the uninsured motorist’s injuries, the uninsured motorist may recover economic damages from the defendant driver’s insurance company as though the uninsured motorist had limited tort.

The Court concluded that, “Section 1714 of the MVFRL does not preclude an uninsured motorist from recovering tort damages for economic loss from an alleged third-party tortfeasor under the tortfeasor’s liability coverage.”  For more information on an uninsured motorist’s rights, contact the attorneys at Metzger Wickersham.

A deadly auto accident last year in Missouri raised red flags at the NTSB, sparking the idea of banning cell phones for drivers. A 19-year-old driver triggered a four vehicle pile-up involving two school buses, killing two people and injuring 38. The teenage driver sent or received 11 text messages in 11 minutes prior to the fatal auto accident. “You can’t take it back, you can’t have a do over, and you can’t rewind,” Hersman said in defense of the NTSB’s proposal to ban all use of cell phones while driving. The National Transportation Safety Board’s primary safety concern is making sure people focus on the act of driving.

Auto accidents caused by distracted drivers can result in serious injuries. If you or someone you love has been injured in an auto accident caused by a distracted driver in Pennsylvania, you need a Harrisburg texting auto accident attorney in your corner. The experienced Harrisburg, PA distracted driving attorneys at Metzger Wickersham take a hands-on approach to helping people deal with serious auto accidents. We work with our clients to help them decide the best course of action for their case. If you have questions about your rights, turn to the Harrisburg auto accident lawyers you can trust. Contact Metzger Wickersham.

Texting while driving is undoubtedly dangerous, but just how dangerous? A recent scientific study revealed some startling information about the effects of texting on a driver’s reaction time. According to the study conducted by the Texas Transportation Institute, drivers react twice as slow while texting. Further, the Texas Transportation Institute says, “Federal statistics suggest that distracted driving contributes to as much as 20 percent of all fatal crashes, and that cell phones constitute the primary source of driver distraction.” Texting can be a deadly distraction while driving, because it involves visual, manual, and cognitive distraction simultaneously.

Texting auto accidents can happen in the blink of an eye, but the effects can last a lifetime. If you’ve been injured in a distracted driving accident you may no longer be able to work, and your entire life can change. There are bills, medical appointments, insurance companies and perhaps auto repairs or even child care issues to deal with. If you’ve been the victim of a distracted driving accident, it is wise to contact an experienced personal injury lawyer who can guide you in the right direction. Contact Metzger Wickersham for a free consultation with one of our Harrisburg auto accident attorneys.

Motorcycle fatalities in Pennsylvania increased by 6 percent during the first nine months of 2010, compared to the same period in 2009, according to a report by the Governors Highway Safety Administration (GHSA). Pennsylvania unfortunately was one of the states that bucked a national trend. Nationally, motorcycle deaths dropped 2 percent from 2009 to 2010, the second straight year of a decline in motorcycle accident fatalities after 11 years of steadily increasing fatalities.

At Metzger Wickersham, we have represented clients who have coped with the devastation of a motorcycle accident in Pennsylvania. Motorcycle accident fatalities unfortunately occur throughout Pennsylvania, especially during the warmer months. If your loved one died in a motorcycle accident, it’s important to contact a motorcycle accident lawyer in Pennsylvania to learn about your rights. Our law firm has experience helping families pursue the compensation they need and deserve when they have lost loved ones in motorcycle accidents.

The GHSA report reveals that motorcycle deaths in Pennsylvania actually dropped during the first six months of 2010 (compared to the first six months of 2009). There were 96 deaths during that period in 2009 and 86 deaths in 2010. However, the trend reversed during the warmer months of the year. There were 186 deaths during the full first nine months of 2009, and 197 deaths during the same period in 2010.

The GHSA noted that the nationwide trend showing a decrease in the number of motorcycle deaths was concentrated in the early months of the year. Fatalities throughout the nation actually increased during the final three months of the nine month period.

The association raised concerns that the fatality trend may continue as more people are riding motorcycles because of higher gasoline prices. Also, authors of the report said motorcycle helmet use dropped at an “alarming” rate, from 67 percent in 2009 to 54 percent in 2009.

At Metzger Wickersham, we understand what motorcycle injury victims go through. If you were injured, or you lost a loved one in a motorcycle accident, choose a motorcycle accident attorney in Pennsylvania who is committed to fighting for clients. Let our aggressive personal injury lawyers fight for you. Contact a Pennsylvania motorcycle accident lawyer today for a free consultation.