The O&L Law Blog

Overlooked American Tragedies

Todd J. O'Malley — Wed, 11 Jan 2006 04:12:00 +0000

The barrage of paper violations received by the Sago mine since February of 2004 totaled 271. Despite the fact that two dozen workers were injured in the mine during that period, leading up to the disaster that claimed the lives of 12 miners on January 2^nd, no changes took place to improve the safety of the mine. The citations issued by the Mining Safety and Health Administration presented, at worst, nominal fines, the largest of which for $440 to the International Coal Group, Inc which boasted net profits of $110 million last year alone.

The MSHA almost never uses the more serious and substantial sanctions in its power, such as issuing large fines or closing down operations. When inspectors do seek to issue substantial fines they often see the numbers gutted by judges and agency negotiators. The initial fine to a Brookwood, Ala where 12 miners were killed in 2001 was $435,000. The final number was reduced to $3,000.

This is a tendency symptomatic of the Bush administration which pledged to bolster new ties between the Mining industry and regulatory agencies (a promise almost identical to the administrations rhetoric on environmental regulation). In the last five years the number of mines referred to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution has decreased alarmingly – from 36 in 2001 to merely 12 in 2005. As a result of this trend, continuing to operate mines with literally hundreds of violations on the books has become a commonplace practice.

The lax enforcement of the mining industry would lead one to believe that fatal accidents in that industry were extremely, perhaps exceptionally, rare. In fact miners are killed in the United States with disturbing frequency. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, a chilling 152 workers were killed in the Mining industry in 2004. In 2003 that number was 141. Mining also presents the second highest rate of workplace fatalities of any industry (behind Hunting and Agriculture) at 28 of every 100,000 employed.

Mine disasters like Sago have drawn sporadic public attention across the country for years: in Utah in 1984; Kentucky in 1989; Virginia in 1992; Arizona in 1993; and Alabama in 2001. Indeed, on January 10^th, scarcely one week after the Sago incident, Cornelius Yates was crushed by a falling bolder and killed in another West Virginia mine.

The problem is a classic case of “industry capture.” The outcries that follow the isolated and scattered – though frequent – mining deaths has failed to translate into an increase in public awareness of the problem. The presence of active pressure encouraging mining safety has been only sporadic. The industry, however, is always there - pressuring the government to look the other way. Indeed legislatures have cut or relaxed the responsibilities of employers to their workforce across the United States.

The only real solution lies in a greater public awareness of the dangerous lot of American workers today – dangers not limited to those working in the mines. A sense of urgency needs to be built around the overlooked fact that over five thousand workers are killed on the job in America every single year (a number that shows no signs of consistent decline). Calling the Sago incident a “disaster” is misleading. Fatal events in mines are not the exception. They are the rule. Only when this reality is acknowledged in the rhetoric of our politicians and the content of our media will it be possible to work towards a solution.

Senate Hearings Begin Tomorrow on Alito Nomination

John Powell — Mon, 09 Jan 2006 03:40:00 +0000

The controversy currently raging around the Bush administration’s use of domestic spying is just one of many symptoms of the growing risk to Americans’ civil liberties posed by the war on terror. A recent debate over the use of torture which a few years ago would have been considered politically and morally untenable, has prevented the passage of legislation to ban “cruel” and “inhuman” treatment of detainees. The administration is also working this month to secure reauthorization of the Patriot Act, a piece of legislation that greatly weakens the importance of warrants in police proceedings and gives the government unprecedented access to the private records of individuals. In short, it is a dangerous time in America for personal freedom.

Next week the Senate will begin confirmation hearings on Samuel Alito’s nomination to the Supreme Court. At this crucial juncture for the future of civil liberties in America, the President has selected a nominee who’s approach to constitutional interpretation is informed not by evenhanded legal scholarship, but rather by a conservative political ideology. A careful examination of Mr. Alito’s 15 year judicial record yields one undeniable common thread: on every significant issue, when a conclusion was not obviously mandated by Supreme Court precedent, the result has been conservative. When given the chance, Mr. Alito has consistently voted to push the law to the right. In several cases these opinions, had they not been overruled by his judicial peers, would have resulted in extreme and unacceptable results.

Mr. Alito’s record on workers’ rights is deplorable; time and time again his decisions to protect corporations and employers have been outvoted or overruled. Alito has consistently ruled to limit the rights of American workers who feel they have been victims of discrimination. In Bray v. Marriott Hotels, Judge Alito unsuccessfully tried to keep a worker’s claim of race discrimination from being heard by the jury. The overruling majority’s opinion asserted that, under Alito’s interpretation, anti-discrimination statues “would be eviscerated.” In a similar decision on sexual harassment, Sheraton v. E.I. Dupont, Alito was outvoted 10 to 1.

In 1997 Alito also attempted to limit the rights of individuals to sue corporations for producing toxic emissions, established by congress in the Clean Water Act. In that decision he argued that Congress lacked the authority to protect the environment through such lawsuits. His reasoning was later overturned by the Supreme Court.

The case of Doe v. Groody is a particularly troubling example of Mr. Alito’s disregard for individual liberties. In that case, Alito opined that police officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment when they strip searched a mother and her ten year old daughter – who were not criminal suspects – while executing a warrant that only authorized the search of targeted suspects. Even the Bush Administration’s Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff has asserted that Alito’s theory regarding warrants would turn the process into “little more than the cliché ‘rubber stamp.’”

Judge Alito’s conservative agenda does not represent the will of a majority of the American people. His nomination was a divisive and irresponsible act by a President with a history of division and irresponsibility, and it comes at a critical time in this nation’s history. Alito’s nomination hearings this week will test our Senators’ resolve to protect our civil liberties. It will be a great day for the United States if he is unequivocally rejected, and if the Bush administration puts in his place a moderate, responsible judge who can be trusted to protect the rights of Americans during a time in which our protections seem exceptionally fragile.

Lehigh Professor Testifies for Intelligent Design in Kitzmiller Case

Todd J. O'Malley — Thu, 27 Oct 2005 17:28:00 +0000

Michael Behe, A biochemistry professor and leading advocates of intelligent design testified in a Pennsylvania federal court that the theory does not advance any religious belief, qualifies as science, and has a place in biology classes. In his testimony earlier this week, Behe said that intelligent design is a scientific theory that argues that some aspects of nature are so complex that the evidence points to an intelligent agent that designed them. He said the theory is based on physical, empirical, observable evidence from nature, as well as logical inferences, and not necessarily on religious belief.

The Kitzmiller case has continued to make national and international news.

New Workers' Compensation Office of Adjudication Site

Todd J. O'Malley — Tue, 25 Oct 2005 04:32:00 +0000

The Workers' Compensation Office of Adjudication has created its own web page containing links to materials for adjudication. There is material including directions to hearing locations, and the relatively new policy wherein the Bureau will provide an interpreter without cost.

Thanks to the online Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Journal for a heads up on the new site. Check out the PWCJ site for up to date Workers' Compensation information as well, an excellent source in itself.

Meeting Tonight on Contaminated Wells

Todd J. O'Malley — Mon, 17 Oct 2005 17:10:00 +0000

Tonight residents of Scott, Abington and North and South Abington Townships will have the opportunity to voice their concerns over the contaminated well water that has been discovered in residential areas over one mile from the Ivy Industrial Park.

The meeting will be held tonight at Lakeland High School from 5-8 and will be broken into hourly blocks. State environmental officials are expected to present a map detailing the exact areas in which water was found to be contaminated. Residents will also have the opportunity to meet privately with health experts about any medical concerns related to the contaminated drinking water.

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Receives International Media Attention

John Powell — Fri, 07 Oct 2005 01:46:00 +0000

Journalists across the US, and even the globe, have given an enormous amount of attention to the Dover, PA lawsuit Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. The lawsuit, which pits 11 parents against the Dover school board which introduced the theory of "Intelligent Design" into its curriculum last year, is being portrayed as the sequel to the famous Scopes "Monkey" Trial of 1925. Indeed a Chicago Tribune headline proclaimed "Intelligent Design Duels Darwin In 'Scopes II.'"

In fact, the Dover case probably bears more resemblance to the 1981 trial of McLean v. Arkansas in which the Federal Government first struck down the practice of teaching Creationism not solely, but alongside scientific evolution (as noted by The New Republic here). Like in McLean the debate in Kitzmiller rests on weather or not it is fair to call Intelligent Design a scientific theory. If it is decided that ID does not meet the rigor and objectivity required by that criteria, and that the school board has acted under "clearly religious motivations" then ID will be found to be "theology in disguise" and ruled unconstitutional as a violation of the separation between church and state.

The plaintiffs attorneys, including representation hailing from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the law firm Pepper Hamilton, have assembled an impressive collection of experts from academia to make the case that ID does not make the cut as a scientific theory. They have also pointed to other actions of the Dover School Board to try to show religious intent (such as previously attempting to introduce the teaching of traditional Creation Science, struck down by McLean).

The Defendants, represented by Richard Thompson from the Thomas More Law Center of Ann Arbor, Michigan, have based their strategy on the argument that the school board was acting with a legitimate secular purpose: introducing pupils to alternative points of view, of which evolution is only one.

The Kitzmiller case has been called the most important evolution case is more than two decades, and will be decided by Judge John E. Jones III. You can read more about the Kitzmiller case online at any of these sites:

"Trial and Error" at The New Republic

"Evolution Trial Delves into Topics of Faith" at NEPA News

"Life is Like a Cup of Tea" at the London based Economist

"Debate Over Statement Perplexes Students" at the York Daily Record

Bob Casey bypasses Santorum in Fundraising

Todd J. O'Malley — Sat, 08 Oct 2005 03:18:00 +0000

Democratic PA Senate Candidate Bob Casey bypassed Republican incumbent Rick Santorum in fundraising during a three month quarter that ended today. Casey raised over $2 million dollars to Santorum's $1.7 million. While Santorum still has an overall funding advantage in the race, Casey's victory in late quarter fundraising is symbolic of his campaign's momentum. According to a Connecticut-based Quinnipiac University poll completed yesterday, Santorum is lagging a substantial 18 points behind Casey. The race, which threatens to unseat the Senate's #3 Republican is already becoming one of the most carefully watched in the country.

To learn more about Scranton native Bob Casey visit his homepage here.

Update on Contaminated Wells

Todd J. O'Malley — Mon, 26 Sep 2005 15:43:00 +0000

The Scranton times has printed another article on the contaminated wells in North Abington Township which can be found here. The information, however, is largely redundant to that contained in the article below.

Lawsuit Filed Over Contaminated Wells

Todd J. O'Malley — Fri, 23 Sep 2005 14:31:00 +0000

A Lawsuit was filed last week by Wright & Reihner P.C. on behalf of six homeowners over the contamination of wells found in an area stretching over four townships more than one and half miles from the Ivy Industrial Part in North Abington. So far levels of both trichloroethylene (TCE) and tetrachloroethylene (PCE) have been found to be well over the acceptable federal standard in more than 50 commercial and residential wells in the area. In some case the levels of PCE were more than 30 times higher than the acceptable level.

The suit names Metso Paper USA, Sandvik, Sandvik Extruded Tube, Inc., and SandvikÂs environmental plant manager, Larry Snell, as defendants. It comes on the heels of two class-action lawsuits that have been filed over the contamination. Metso is named as a defendant in both lawsuits, while Sandvik is named in just one of the cases.

Metso Paper officials were aware of TCE and PCE contamination in shallow groundwater monitoring wells as early as August 2002, according to information released by DEP. The common solvents are typically used to degrease metal. Meanwhile, Sandvik, the other potentially responsible party, also had a prior run-in with the two solvents. The steel tube and pipe manufacturer discovered TCE and PCE more than five years ago during excavation work, according to a report sent to DEP in March 2000, more than five before public notice was given by the DEP last August.

The pressing questions remain, first, why the two companies were not compelled by the DEP to take immediate action to reduce or eliminate levels of chemicals that were seeping into area wells? And secondly - and perhaps even more alarming - why were area residents nore notified by the DEP earlier that it was possible they were drinking contaminated water? The Scranton Time has quoted State Representative Gaynor Cawley's response to the issue:

I would much rather they panicked in January, and by now they would have at least had an assurance that action has been taken if their water is safe or is not safe, said Mr. Cawley. I would have notified those homeowners immediately, at least to say, Don't drink your water until you're tested. I'm not happy at all.

Many residents and officials, meanwhile, simply want to know: What harm would a heads-up have rendered, even one littered with uncertainties?

Metso Paper never formally entered the voluntary Act 2 program, which releases property owners from liability if they clean up contamination. But both Metso and the DEP proceeded as if the company had, and conducted more sampling and a site review, though it is unclear that action was taken to reduce levels of the emitted into the local enviornment.

Under the Act 2 program, public notification comes once a property owner formally agrees to enter, filing a notice for intent to remediate. But beyond specific programs like Act 2, the environmental department doesn't have specific statutes governing public notification in situations like the Ivy Industrial Park.

Additionally both companies may be found to have been in violation of the Clean Streams Law, a statute which requires the person spilling the substance or the person owning the premises from which the substance is spilled to alert the environmental department immediately.

You can read more from the Scranton Times coverage of the situation here. Additionally, check back to this website as O'Malley and Langan will be keeping a close eye on the legal side of this issue as it develops.

O'Malley and Langan Join In Lawsuit

Todd J. O'Malley — Fri, 16 Sep 2005 21:15:00 +0000

1,492 workers have joined in a class action lawsuit filed against home improvement giant Lowe's.

Over 1,400 current and former Lowe's employees in Ohio are taking steps to secure payment of increased overtime wages. Jason Smith, a former Department Manager at Lowe's Bellefontaine, Ohio store and nine other former Lowe's employees, originally filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, alleging the home improvement giant failed to properly pay him and other salaried employees overtime wages in violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Ohio Minimum Wage Act ("OMWA").

Smith's lawsuit is a class action on behalf of other department managers, assistant department managers and specialists and is presently being litigated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio in Columbus, under the caption Jason Smith, et al. v. Lowe's Home Centers, Inc., No. 2:04-CV-774(S.D. OHIO). The case is assigned to United States District Judge Gregory Frost.

On May 11, 2005, Judge Frost issued a Decision and Order granting ten former Lowe's employees the right to contact current and former Ohio Lowe's employees to see if they want to join the lawsuit. As of September 2, 2005, 1,492 individuals have joined the lawsuit. The current and former Lowe's employees are represented by a team of law firms headed by the Columbus, Ohio law firm of Barkan and Neff.

"We're pleased that so many Ohio workers have filed federal court forms joining this lawsuit. This response in a great kick-off to the Labor Day weekend, and we feel honored to fight for the rights of so many Ohio workers and their families," said Robert E. DeRose, Esq. of Barkan and Neff.

Lowe's has been operating its home improvement stores for more than 58 years and currently has more than 975 stores in forty-five states. Similar overtime lawsuits have been filed against Lowe's in several other states, including Pennsylvania, Florida, Kansas, and a nation-wide class action lawsuit in New York.

For more information regarding the litigation, or copies of pleadings filed with the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, contact Robert DeRose, Barkan and Neff, (614) 221-4221.

PriceWaterhouseCoopers Study Shows PA Medical Malpractice Costs are Down

John Powell — Thu, 01 Sep 2005 14:52:00 +0000

Pennsylvania medical malpractice costs are down 5-8% according to a recent study by PriceWaterhouseCooper, reports the Pittsburg Business Times.

"The findings are from a study completed by PriceWaterhouseCoopers, state Sen. Michael Stack, D-Philadelphia, and Sen. Jay Costa Jr., D-Allegheny, said.

According to the study, most of the reductions resulted from the state banning venue shopping, requiring a certificate of merit, and reducing the mandatory coverage limit from $1.2 million to $1 million. The full impact of 2002's Act 13 Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Act will not be seen for several years, the study emphasized."

Just more good reason for rejecting budget caps and tort "reform" in Pennsylvania. Stay tuned for a larger post evaluating the "Medical Malpractice Tort Crisis."

Hurricane Relief: How You Can Help

John Powell — Wed, 31 Aug 2005 19:29:00 +0000

In Mississippi hundreds are feared dead. New Orleans is filling with water. The mayor estimates 80% of the city is underwater. The economic cost of the hurricane's rampage could be the highest in U.S. history, according to damage estimates. Troops in Iraq are worried about what's happened to their homes and families.

Today Howard Dean sent an email to millions of Democrats urging Americans to do whatever they can.

"America is at its best when we realize that we are one community -- that we're all in this together. That means that each one of us has the responsibility to do what we can to help the relief effort."

The Red Cross is a great place to start.

The Association for Trial Lawyers of America is mobilizing to help members of our professional community who have been devastated by the hurricane.

"Some of our brother and sister trial lawyers have lost files and records to torrential rains and flooding, others have lost roofs and buildings to 175 mile per hour winds. Many are without power. All have family, colleagues, and clients struggling to piece together lives, homes, and businesses in the wake of one of the worst storms ever to hit the United States"

Visit this site to learn about joining a special list serve that will help facilitate aid to them from the community of US trial lawyers.

Punishing Merck for Vioxx

John Powell — Fri, 26 Aug 2005 20:13:00 +0000

O’Malley and Langan would like to congratulate the team of Mike Lanier, Randy Moore and Ben Morelli, and their client, Carol Ernst, who recently had a huge victory in the first of what is proving to be an enormous number of Vioxx related lawsuits against the pharmaceutical giant Merck. On August 19th a jury in Angleton Texas awarded $253.5 million to the widow of Robert C. Ernst, a 59 year old tri-athlete who had been taking the companies once popular painkiller.

Two points come to mind considering the Vioxx verdict. First: this is big. Second: This is the right thing and lets not let the public forget it.

First, this is big. Even after Texas state limits on punitive damages drastically cut the verdict... from just over two and a half million to $26.1 the case signals serious danger for Merck. The Texas case is the first of over four thousand laws suits pending in the United States alone, with potentially thousands more surfacing in Europe, where using Vioxx to relieve arthritis pain was extremely popular. If even a significant percentage of these cases succeed Vioxx litigation stands to become the biggest medical product liability action in history according to the New York Times. While the suits won’t necessarily threaten the existence of the company, who brings in over $6 billion in cash each year, it has already caused Merck stock to plummet and could force a cut in dividends, leaving the former giant as a target for takeovers.

The second point relates to what this means for trial lawyers: this is an opportunity to assert the role of the jury system in this country. A $253.5 million judgment is bound to attract media attention and Mrs. Ernst case has proved no exception. It is important that trial lawyers in the United States do whatever they can to ensure that media attention on this issue is not manipulated by “tort reformers” to become an attack on the civil justice system.

The specifics of the Ernst may tend to lend themselves to this sort of manipulation. Mr. Ernst died of arrhythmia, which had not traditionally been linked as a side effect to Vioxx, and the coroner had not originally suggested that a blood clot was responsible, as the plaintiffs argued. Basically, while a convincing case can be made that Vioxx was the cause of death, its not as rock solid as many of the other Vioxx cases are likely to be. Ultimately, it is far more important to focus on the fact that punishing Merck is the right thing to do.

In every one of these cases there will be multiple interpretations the cause of death. That is rarely as simple as black and white, though in some cases it will be. What is undisputable here is that a pharmaceutical corporation acted irresponsibly when thousands of lives were at risk. Internal documents that came to light during the trial show that as early as 1997 Merck’s top scientists were warning them that the drug had serious cardiovascular risks, and the company deliberately obscured this evidence. (New York Times 8/21/05) In 2000 a clinical trial showed that Vioxx caused five times as many heart attacks as older painkillers. (New York Times 8/6/05) Merck rushed the drug out the door with an “accelerated and compressed” development strategy in an attempt to beat Celebrex, a competing drug by Pfizer.

Merck lied to thousands of doctors about Vioxx. In 2001 they sent out a letter to physicians stating that only 0.5 percent of patients in clinical tests experienced heart problems. According to their own records of clinical tests that number was actually 14.6 percent. (New York Times 7/20/05) A videotape was introduced in the trial showing sales representatives being trained “to play ‘Dodgeball’” with doctors’ concerns about cardiovascular problems. Merck worked to discredit doctors that didn’t prescribe Vioxx.

The company created a list, circulated internally, of 36 doctors identified as “physicians to neutralize.” (Associated Press 7/19/05) Representatives of the company also threatened Stanford Medical School Professor James Fries about a fellow medical professor who was saying negative things about Vioxx in lectures. Fries was warned the representative would “flame out” and “there would be negative consequences” for himself and Stanford. (Houston Chronicle, 7/19/05).

These are the facts that need to remain at the forefront of the Vioxx issue. The American public needs to understand that the civil justice system is in place as the only check against this kind gross recklessness. People who win file lawsuits against Merck are not the bad guys. Companies who talk about “neutralizing doctors”, in any context, are very evidently the bad guys. Lets not let anyone forget that.

"What If I Am Hurt On the Job?" Booklet Now Available Online

John Powell — Thu, 25 Aug 2005 14:26:00 +0000

Due to some technical problems during the last two weeks we have been unable to update this blog as frequently as hoped, but fear not: the glitch has been fixed. During this week I will be doing some stylistic updating to the blog as well as posting some of the backed up content that was supposed to go up last week.

The first new feature is something I have been working on for a while now. In 1997 O'Malley and Langan first published a booklet entitled "What If I Am Hurt On the Job?" intended as a resource to help injured workers navigate through the often confusing world of workers compensation. That publication is now available online at this website.While the booklet should not be used in place of professional legal advice, it provides important tips and procedural information and can be a helpful first resource for those in the stressful situation of dealing with a serious work-related injury. I will soon be adding to the end of the book a guide to the Pennsylvania Specific Loss statutes that will be of particular interest to PA Workers' Comp lawyers.

Also, please notice other books that will be appearing on a rotating basis in the new "featured books" section. We will periodically update that section with books of particular interest to workers and workers comp attorneys.

PA Commonwealth Court Makes a Good Call on Joint and Several Liability

John Powell — Fri, 29 Jul 2005 14:34:00 +0000

Last Wednesday Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court struck down an amendment title the "Fair Share Act" that would abolish joint and several liability. The joint and several liability rule states that each defendant in a law suit can be held responsible for producing the full amount of damages won by a plaintiff. Some "tort reform" advocates argue that joint liability is unfair because it renders defendants who may have only been responsible for a percentage of those damages liable for more than they caused.

When reviewing this story in the news last week I found a number of publications celebrating the courts decision as a blow against tort reform. Very few, if any of these, however, reinforced just why joint liability is important. Being a lowly intern, I wasn't really sure why joint liability made sense either, and the only defenses of the rule I found seemed inadequate (like the one you can find here). So I did some research as to why this law is on the books in the first place. Here's the answer:

The California supreme court put it rather well in American Motorcycle Assn. v. The Superior Court. "Liability attaches to a concurrent tortfeasor in this situation not because he is responsible for the acts of other independent tortfeasors who may also have caused the injury, but because he is responsible for all damage which his own negligence has caused." That decision argues that the doctrine of joint and several liability is based upon the rationale that culpable defendants, rather than the injured plaintiff, should bear the risk of inadequate contribution by others responsible for the harm.

Suddenly this seems so obvious its hard to believe I didn't see it before. The maximization of recovery to an injured party is a higher priority than equitable apportionment of liability among negligent parties. Basically, it's more important that the innocent victim get the full recovery offered to him by the law than it is for several parties who have already been proved negligent to be allowed to avoid damages because they were not the only negligent party. Without joint liability, if one negligent party is unable to fully recompense the injured party then the other negligent parties are not held responsible to make up the difference and in those cases the victim would get the short end of the stick.

Understanding joint and several liability is important because the decision of the Commonwealth Court was based on a technicality - the "Fair Share" provision was attached to a completely un-germane piece of legislation that dealt with DNA testing of sex offenders. This means it is very likely that the Court may be faced with the issue of whether to uphold joint liability on its own merits soon. For a more comprehensive analysis of joint liability see Professor Richard Wright's Amici Curiae Brief to the Supreme Court in the case of Norfolk & Western Railway Co. v. Freeman Ayers.

ATLA Convention Developments

John Powell — Thu, 28 Jul 2005 17:51:00 +0000

The 2005 ATLA Convention in Toronto went beautifully for O'Malley and Langan. Our "Irish Hooley" was a riotous success. Thanks to everyone who attended and helped us bring a little Irish Spirit to the convention. We were particularly honored to have been joined by Senate Candidate, PA State Treasurer, and Scranton local Bob Casey and his wife Terese. Mr. Casey will be challenging PA Senate incumbent Rick Santorum, and we here at O'Malley and Langan wish him all the best.

The party, however, was not the only O'Malley and Langan success at this years convention. It was an exceptionally good year for one of our Founding Partners (and fearless leader), Todd J. O'Malley. Todd became president elect of the Workers Injury Law and Advocacy Group. WILG is the national non-profit membership organization dedicated to representing the interests of millions of workers and their families who, each year, suffer the consequences of workplace injuries and illnesses.

Todd was also appointed to the Board of Directors of the Melvin Belli Society. The society is a national organization of lawyers that conducts an annual seminar dealing with issues on the cutting edge of law in honor of one of the United State's greatest trial lawyers. You can learn more about Melvin Belli here.

Congratulations to Todd, and once again, thank you everyone who attended the Irish Hooley, we hope it was as memorable an experience for you as it was for us.

Irish Hooley at 2005 ATLA Convention

John Powell — Tue, 19 Jul 2005 20:13:00 +0000

O'Malley and Langan will be hosting an "Irish Hooley" (that's right, the root word of hooligan) at this year's Association of Trial Lawyers of America Convention in Toronto, Canada. The Hooley is being held at Fionn MacCool's Irish Pub, located at 70 The Esplanade in downtown Toronto. It will run from 5:30 - 7:30 on Sunday, July 24th, and is being held in honor of the officers of the Workers Injury Law & Advocacy Group. There will be live Traditional Irish Music performed by Quagmyre, a local Toronto Celtic band. Food and refreshments will be served.

Below are directions to the Pub from the Toronto Sheraton which we recieved from Fionn MacCool's:

The Sheraton is located at 123 Queen St. West.
- From your hotel go east on Queen St. towards Bay St. until you hit Church St.
- Turn right and head south on Church St.
- Follow Church St. to The Esplanade
- Fionn MacCool's is located on the corner of Church and The Esplanade.

This is about a ten minute walk or 2 minute cab ride with a fare of about $6.00

"A Hundred Thousand Welcomes." We would be delighted to see you there.

COMING SOON

Todd J. O'Malley — Thu, 07 Jul 2005 18:08:00 +0000

Welcome to the O&L Law Blog, brought to you by the O'Malley & Langan Law Firm in Scranton, Pennsylvania. In the near future this page will contain a web log giving review and analysis of the ongoing scandals involving the US Insurance industry and important decisions by our courts. Please check back soon for new content.