Unfortunately, the driver of the vehicle that caused this accident only had $30,000.00 in insurance coverage, which was clearly insufficient to compensate our client for his injuries and damages. A&G’s strategy was to pursue a claim against the client’s own insurance company’s Underinsured Motorist coverage, and as a result, Steve was successful in obtaining a total settlement of $250,000.00 on behalf of our client. This was an excellent outcome, with a satisfied client, and Steve should be congratulated for a job well done.

Upon her retirment from the Virginia Workers’ Compensation Commission, the Virginia General Assembly passed a resolution commending Commissioner Diamond for her years of valuable service, noting her “great distinction,” “strong commitment to excellence to ensure the fair administration of claims,” “strong leadership” and “exceptional public service.” The General Assembly’s Resolution can be viewed by clicking here.

Ms. Diamond’s career has been devoted to seeking justice for working people. She expresses a belief in the need for a strong labor movement as a means to sustaining the middle, working classes in the United States of America. Ms. Diamond served in the past as an organizer for the International Ladies Garment Workers Union in Virginia and North Carolina. She later served as assistant organizing director of the national AFL-CIO, where she produced the RUB Sheet (Report on Union Busters). She has taught organizing and labor law at the National Labor College, and is the author of publications that include “Organizing Guide for Local Unions,” “Numbers that Count: Guide to Internal Organizing,” “Labor Law Handbook,” “Central Labor Council Handbook,” and “Guide to Organizing White Collar Workers.”

Virginia has also served as counsel to the Virginia AFL-CIO, and has also advised the Service Employees International Union, Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union , United Steelworkers, the Free Trade Union Institute, and the Amalgamated Bank.

Ms. Diamond received her undergraduate education at Yale University and the University of Paris. Her graduate work was completed at Columbia University and Cambridge University in England. Her legal education took place at the University of Virginia School of Law. During law school she served on the Editorial Board of the University of Virginia Law Review.

Ms. Diamond will practice out of Ashcraft & Gerel’s Virginia offices.

Michelle heads Ashcraft & Gerel’s pharmaceutical litigation group, which has successfully pursued lawsuits against the world’s largest drug manufacturers, thereby playing an integral role in forcing the issue of safety into corporate boardrooms, where profits are often the sole motivation.

Under her leadership, Ashcraft & Gerel’s pharmaceutical litigation practice has grown to be one of the premier pharmaceutical groups among law firms nationwide. This group has been successful not only because of its size, but also because it is comprised of highly qualified, knowledgeable and experienced individuals. Michelle has kept the group functioning as a cohesive and accomplished legal team, while maintaining her focus on the ultimate goal: achieving fair compensation for the victims of defective and dangerous drugs and medical products in the pharmaceutical and medical products industry.

Congratulations again to Michelle for this well deserved honor.

[Editor: Inquiries about potential claims can be submitted by filling out the “Contact Us” form on the left side of this page, sending us an email at inquiries@ashcraftandgerel.com or telephoning us at 1-800-829-7037.]

“If common sense doesn’t dictate when and to whom an adult should report child abuse, this law will.”

While this author cannot say he opposes the law, it is sad that we have reached a point as a society where it appears to be required.

Joe Paterno’s testimony before the Grand Jury in the Sandusky matter was described in the Grand Jury report as follows:

“Joseph V. Paterno testified to receiving the graduate assistant’s report at his home on a Saturday morning. Paterno testified that the graduate assistant was very upset. Paterno called Tim Curley (“Curley”), Penn State Athletic Director and Paterno’s immediate superior, to his home the very next day, a Sunday, and reported to him that the graduate assistant had seen Jerry Sandusky in the Lasch Building showers fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy.”

He never told the police. He told his Athletic Director. His Athletic Director never told the police and Paterno was never questioned by authorities. If Joe Paterno was not explicitly told that this child abuse incident was going to be kept within the Penn State family, which remains to be seen, he certainly must have known that the police were never alerted to Mike McQueary’s report.

Pennsylvania’s reporting requirement is as follows:

“§ 42.42. Suspected child abuse—mandated reporting requirements.

(a) General rule. Under 23 Pa.C.S. § 6311 (relating to persons required to report suspected child abuse), licensees who, in the course of the employment, occupation or practice of their profession, come into contact with children shall report or cause a report to be made to the Department of Public Welfare when they have reasonable cause to suspect on the basis of their professional or other training or experience, that a child coming before them in their professional or official capacity is a victim of child abuse.

(b) Staff members of public or private agencies, institutions and facilities. Licensees who are staff members of a medical or other public or private institution, school, facility or agency, and who, in the course of their employment, occupation or practice of their profession, come into contact with children shall immediately notify the person in charge of the institution, school facility or agency or the designated agent of the person in charge when they have reasonable cause to suspect on the basis of their professional or other training or experience, that a child coming before them in their professional or official capacity is a victim of child abuse. Upon notification by the licensee, the person in charge or the designated agent shall assume the responsibility and have the legal obligation to report or cause a report to be made in accordance with subsections (a), (c) and (d).”

The reader can form his or her own opinion on whether Joe Paterno was sufficiently “in charge” under the Pennsylvania statute, so as to impose on him the obligation to report the Sandusky incident to the police or child protection authorities, as opposed to simply bringing it to the Athletic Director, who is now charged with failing to report it to the authorities.  Ultimately this proposed Federal law would constitute sweeping legislation that should be unnecessary in a society with even a modicum of integrity. But it is far from new. Public failures in morality often lead to groundbreaking, broad legislation. The O.J. Simpson murder trial led to the Violence Against Women Act.  The disappearance of Adam Walsh didn’t just create the television hit “America’s Most Wanted.” It also led to The Missing Children’s Act of 1982.  Publicity matters. Children have been innocent victims of predators long before the Penn State Scandal. Nonetheless, the publicity generated by this case will likely lead directly to legislation that will mandate that every adult who has a reasonable suspicion of child abuse report it immediately. This author feels compelled to support that legislation as much as he’d like to believe we don’t need it.

In 2007, then University President Graham Spanier vehemently opposed proposed expansions to Pennsylvania’s Right to Know Act which would have included “state-related” Universities such as Penn State.The Right to Know Act expansions would have required Penn State to provide information to the public upon request, since the University was an agency of the State. In defending his position Spanier stated:

“Nobody would argue the point that the public has a right to know how public funds are spent, but these proposals will fundamentally change the way we operate, the way our trustees govern.”

Despite the fact that this institution is touted as The State University of Pennsylvania, and collects millions of public dollars, it took a distinctively “private” perspective in succesfully lobbying for exemption from a public open records law. The vast majority of State supported colleges in Pennsylvania do not fall within such an exemption. In fact, 14 state supported colleges and universities in Pennylvania are subject to the Right to Know Act. Furthermore, nationally, Penn State’s contemporaries all seemingly comply with similar open information statutes (see e.g. The University of California, Ohio State, The University of Texas and The University of Illinois).

While Spanier argued for exemption by citing the effect the law would have on donations and proprietary research of the University (something which would have been protected anyway), an unintended impact of Spanier’s advocacy is that it permits Penn State to withhold details of some important aspects of the Jerry Sandusky scandal.

Today, media outlets and even victims are unable to obtain the 1998 university police report referenced by the grand jury findings, which is allegedly 100 pages long and details the investigation of allegations of Sandusky’s molestation of children in the 1990′s.

National media outlets have provided Ashcraft & Gerel attorneys letters from Penn State counsel denying their requests for investigative materials and university police reports relative to the Jerry Sandusky matter on the grounds that The University as a “state related entity” is not required to disclose such material under the state’s Right to Know Act.

Arguably more bothersome, is the reality that Penn State is not legally bound to non-disclosure under the Act. In other words, while Penn State can hide behind the exemptions its President, Graham Spanier, lobbied for it doesn’t have to. Penn State who holds the right to the protection of the statute could certainly waive it if it chose to. Penn State could (and should) turn these investigative materials over to the public for inspection.

Last week, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) declared at least one such company, ATA Trail, Inc., an imminent hazard to public safety.  FMCSA ordered ATA Trail, Inc. to immediately cease all transportation services after they conducted a comprehensive review of ATA Trail’s compliance with federal safety standards.

This shutdown of ATA Trail came as part of a huge effort by FMCSA to investigate and go after unsafe bus operators.  As an indication of the magnitude of this FMCSA investigation by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), over the course of two weeks federal, state and local police conducted 8,300 surprise safety inspections of motorcoaches, tour buses, school buses and other commercial passenger vehicles. The unannounced inspections were part of FMCSA’s annual National Passenger Carrier Inspection Strike Force.  The inspections resulted in 902 unsafe buses or drivers being removed from our nation’s roadways.  FMCSA and state safety investigators also initiated 350 on-site comprehensive safety compliance reviews on commercial passenger bus companies.  You can read about the FMCSA and the latest campaign at http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/about/news/news-releases/2011/North-Carolina-Passenger-Van-Company-Safety-Violations.aspx

These commercial passenger bus companies travel in large numbers up and down the highways of DC, Maryland and Virginia as well as the nation.  Thousands of buses transport individuals to and from every major city along the east coast and beyond.  Before you plan your next bus trip, ensure that the company you use meets safety expectations by visiting and searching the database at http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/safety-security/PCS/Consumers.aspx.

[Editor: If you have been injured in an accident involving a commercial passenger bus you need experienced and aggressive representation by a personal injury lawyer. The attorneys of Ashcraft & Gerel, LLP are committed to protecting your rights.  Our lawyers are equipped with the knowledge and experience to handle any commerical passenger bus accident lawsuit from anywhere in the United States.   If you have any questions or comments please give us a call at 1-800-829-7037 or complete the “Contact Us” form on the left margin of this page, and we will arrange for you to speak to an attorney about a potential lawsuit.]

There are a multitude of federal rules and regulations that are designed to keep the driving public on our nation’s roads and highways safe.  These rules and regulations are designed to make safety a priority for every trucking company and driver. Therefore, safety policies and procedures must be followed.  What happens when these rules, regulations, policies and procedures are not followed by a driver and trucking company?  Disaster.

Distraction, tiredness and lethargy are some of the leading causes of truck accidents on our roads and highways across the county.  Regulations exist controlling the driving time of truckers. Increased profits cause trucking companies to use drivers who are over-worked, exhausted and inattentive. In many instances inadequate training results in failure to follow industry standard safety precautions.

A shortage of experienced drivers exists in the trucking industry, and it is estimated that this shortage will increase exponentially in the coming years. This, in turn, is expected to cause serious safety concerns.

Victims of trucking accidents must act fast and seek a consultation with attorneys experienced in handling motor vehicle accidents of every type, including truck accidents.  When a truck has been involved in a collision, there are federal regulations that require crucial evidence to be preserved, but the time period in which it must be preserved is limited.  If a lawyer does not take immediate action, certain documents, such as the driver’s log, may be lost.  Trucking companies will have their lawyers and insurance adjusters at the scene of an accident, because they know how important it is to stake out their legal position early, in preparation for a possible lawsuit. The same holds true of the victim of a truck accident. The injured party needs his or her own lawyer to protect his or her interests as quickly as possible. That is why it is essential to seek an attorney immediately to help you preserve and obtain the evidence that will maximize your recovery.

Ashcraft & Gerel’s lawyers are  committed to protecting the rights of victims of truck accidents.  We are equipped and have the size and resources to handle trucking accidents across the United States.   If you have any questions or comments please give us a call at 1-800-829-7037 or complete the “Contact Us” form on the left margin of this page. We will arrange for you to speak to a lawyer about a potential lawsuit.

In the case of Sweeny v. Merrymead Farm Inc., 799 A.2d 972 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) it was held that when determining immunity for a Commonwealth or local agency, the court will look to the entity’s enabling legislation. In Doughty v City of Philadelphia, 141 Pa. Cmwlth 659 (1991) the Court held that Temple University did not have a defense of sovereign immunity under 42 Pa. C.S. 8521 in a personal injury lawsuit, because the Temple Act (Temple’s enabling statute) did not designate Temple as an “agency” and did not give Temple University “public powers.” The Doughty Court considered the fact that Temple was held not to be a state agency under the “Right to Know Act” in an earlier decision, Mooney v. Board of Trustees of Temple University, 292 A.2d 395 (1972).

Like Temple, Penn State University would not be considered a state agency and would not be provided governmental immunity as a result. Penn State has also previously been ruled to be a non-state agency in the context of the “Right to Know Act.” Roy v. Pennsylvania State University, 130 Pa. Cmwlth. 468, 568 A. 2d 751 (1990). Furthermore, like Temple, Penn State is considered a “state related” university that is independently operated. The only argument Penn State might have in this regard is the fact that it receives state funding. Unfortunately for the university, this factor, without more, has already been ruled upon by the Mooney Court wherein the court found “[t]he mere funding of an institution does not . . . make it an agency or instrumentality of the state.” Mooney v. Temple Univ. Bd. of Trustees, 448 Pa. 424, 429-30 (1972).

Finally, in Pennsylvania State University v. Derry Twp. Sch. Dist., 557 Pa. 91, 93-96 (1999) the court determined that Penn State University is not a state agent with respect to its real estate tax liability. Ultimately, the court held that Penn State’s immunity has to be determined on a case by case basis, stating “an entity’s status as an agency or instrumentality varies, depending on the issue for which the determination is being made.” Id. at 96. Given the similarities between Penn State and Temple, a court would likely rule that under 42 Pa. C.S. 8521 Penn State is not immune from a lawsuit arising out of allegations of sexual abuse.