Cases
Published Cases
Veronica Gallashaw et al. v. Bruce Streaty et al.
No. 2294
Common Pleas Court of Philadelphia County
24 Phila. 73; 1992 Phila. Cty. Rptr. LEXIS 14
May 1, 1992, Decided
In this personal injury action, an insurance company, The Travelers, attempted to loot my clients' pain and suffering awards by improper means.
My clients had been injured in a motor vehicle incident. Because of a lack of motor vehicle insurance, my clients were able to look to a Fund for payment of medical bills. The Travelers, the designated insurance company under the Fund, paid those medical benefits. However, instead of following established law, The Travelers attorney improperly sought reimbursement from my clients funds. Those funds were for their pain and suffering not for medical benefits. I would not voluntarily let my let clients be unfairly treated.
This case has importance in regard to setting forth the 3 ways The Travelers or a company in its position, could have sought reimbursement:
"1) Give notice of the claim, then stay out of the case, thereby leaving intact the duty on plaintiffs' counsel to seek the funds on behalf of The Travelers;
2) Follow proper procedure to intervene as an additional plaintiff and seek direct award of the first party benefits; or
3) Appear at the arbitration, and argue for the award of the first party benefits to plaintiffs, whereupon The Travelers would be entitled to reimbursement from such an award, without payment of attorney's fees to plaintiffs' counsel."
The Court held in regard to the Travelers' attorney: "We will not permit him to remedy his error by looting plaintiffs' pain and suffering awards."
PUBLISHED CASES:
JULIUS ROBINSON v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; WALTER SMITH; JULIUS ROBINSON v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA and WALTER SMITH
Civ. No. 92‑4869, Civ. No. 92‑6175
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3161
March 11, 1993, Decided
March 16, 1993, Filed, Entered
In this matter, the Court agreed with me that since plaintiff commenced his action in state court within six months of the denial of his federal administrative claim, that claim could not be dismissed based on the statute of limitations.
In this matter, my injured client was involved in an automobile accident with a city police officer while the officer was acting as an agent of the federal government's Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). DEA mailed my client, but not me, the attorney, a denial letter which required a lawsuit be filed within 6 months of the date of this letter. However, since my client never received nor knew of this letter, it was impossible to file a federal action within 6 months of the date of it. However, because as a precaution, I had also filed an action in state court against the police officer, and It had been filed within 6 months of the date of the unknown DEA denial letter I was able to protect my client's claims and continue the litigation..
The Court agreed with me that state law, not federal law, controlled the issue of the statute of limitations for the commencement of the state action, and because I timely filed the state action which had been transferred to federal court, we were able to proceed.
