Workers' Compensation Blog Page 5 of 14

Injury Severity and Terms: Learn What This Means for Your Workers’ Compensation Benefits in Pennsylvania

Posted on behalf of Schmidt Kramer on April 28, 2015 in Workers' Compensation

When you are injured on the job, you are entitled to workers’ compensation benefits to help you recover. These benefits are typically divided into two categories, medical and disability benefits, which become death benefits to your immediate survivors should you die as a result of an on-the-job accident. Individuals will receive medical benefits under […]

Workers’ Compensation Fraudsters: A Profile in Dirty Dealings

Posted on behalf of Schmidt Kramer on April 25, 2015 in Workers' Compensation

You probably feel as though workers’ compensation fraud is a distant problem that is not likely to affect you any time soon. In fact, most individuals and businesses feel that way—they assume that since they are honest in their dealings, that fraud is not their problem. Workers’ compensation fraud is more common that you may […]

Even If Your Boss Is Good To You, Their Insurance Company May Not Be

Posted on behalf of Schmidt Kramer on April 24, 2015 in Workers' Compensation

When you’re hurt on the job, all you want is to get better and get back to work. You’ve been working for the same company, for the same boss for 10 years; You probably spend more time with your co-workers than you do your spouse. For this reason, the last thing you want to […]

Should you be taking WC legal advice from the company’s doctor?

Posted on behalf of Schmidt Kramer on March 05, 2015 in Workers' Compensation

I got a call from a prospective client the other day. He recounts how he was injured at work over a year ago. He explains that he treated for a while with “the company’s doctor” and for a period of time the injured worker was missing work, treating for his injury, and being paid wage […]

The Importance of a Strong Legal Team in Your Pennsylvania Workers’ Comp Case

Posted on behalf of Schmidt Kramer on March 04, 2015 in Workers' Compensation

You would think that when you are injured at work, the responsibility of taking care of your injuries would lie with your employer. After all, you were hurt while doing your job, and logic would point to your employer pushing for your recovery as much as (or more than) you are. The sooner you recover, […]

The Stepford Files: What the Perfect Workers’ Compensation Claim Process Should Look Like

Posted on behalf of Schmidt Kramer on February 14, 2015 in Workers' Compensation

We all have ideas of what perfection entails. Perhaps it is something small, like a five minute commute to work with no traffic, or something big, like a promotion to thank you for your tireless effort and hard work. We see the perfect life for ourselves involving a nice car, a nice house, and children […]

Big Win for Pennsylvania PTSD Workers’ Compensation Case

Posted on behalf of Schmidt Kramer on January 28, 2015 in Workers' Compensation

In April 2008, a masked man robbed a liquor store at gunpoint, threatening the working employees and tying them to a chair. Understandably shaken, one of the employees—Gregory Kochanowicz, a 30-year veteran of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board—filed a workers’ compensation claim, saying that the incident left him with diagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder. After the […]

Ouch! What Causes Were Behind the Most Common Workplace Injuries?

Posted on behalf of Schmidt Kramer on January 26, 2015 in Workers' Compensation

From slip-and-fall injuries to carpal tunnel syndrome, there are probably millions of ways to get injured at work. People that engage in any type of work, whether it is behind a desk or balancing on scaffolding at great heights, are at risk of someday being injured on the job. What Leads to These Injuries? Liberty […]

Have You Been Injured in a Workplace Chemical Exposure Accident? Let Us Help

Posted on behalf of Schmidt Kramer on January 13, 2015 in Workers' Compensation

Chemicals are present at nearly every workplace, from everyday cleaning supplies to heavy-duty industrial strength chemicals. As science has made massive advancements, new and capable chemicals have been introduced, exposing workers to an increased risk of toxic chemical exposure. Chemical exposure may not have the flashy, easy-to-prove accident scenes that many workers’ compensation lawyers rush […]

Do You See What I See? Workplace Eye Injuries Can Be Prevented

Posted on behalf of Schmidt Kramer on January 11, 2015 in Workers' Compensation

Let’s face it: no matter what your line of work, your eyes probably play a major role in helping you do your job safely and effectively. Eyes are incredibly powerful tools, but they are also very vulnerable—even a tiny particle or a flash of light can cause painful—often irreversible—damage. You do not have to be […]

Free Case Review

No Upfront Fees

Recent Results

$10,043,952.13 Personal Injury
Schmidt Kramer, P.C.partner Gerard C. Kramer won a personal injury action for $10,043,952.13 in Northumberland County on behalf of a volunteer firefighter who was the victim of Intentional Tort. The 50-year-old volunteer firefighter was seriously injured when a barn collapsed, causing a spinal injury which left him a paraplegic. The claim was brought against the arsonist who intentionally started the fire. It is believed that the verdict is the highest ever in Northumberland County.
View Results
$4,034,000.00 Personal Injury
Yesterday a Judge in Union County (Lewisburg, PA) awarded a couple from New Berlin, Pennsylvania, over $4,000,000 because the husband was shot while turkey hunting.You might ask yourself, how does a turkey hunting accident end up with that type of verdict? In order to understand the verdict you would have to know our clients. They are good people who had their life wrecked. Plus, you would have to know the defendant, who should not have been hunting with a gun because he was prohibited after a previous criminal conviction.It is a good verdict, because the Judge was able to do two things with his decision. First, he communicated to two very good people that their losses were something that those of us on the outside could appreciate and value. Mike Hobbins (our client) is a 51 year old guy who lost his sight because a convicted felon --who should not have even possessed a gun-- went hunting illegally, and broke with impunity the most fundamental rule in hunting: identify your target before you pull the trigger. The Judge accepted the financial loss Mr. Hobbins' suffered, but listened closely to the evidence of less tangible losses. When Mike broke down on the stand, because his daughter would end up walking him down the aisle at her wedding, as opposed to how it was supposed to go, the Judge was listening. When Mike could not keep it together, because of how emasculating it was for him not to be able to provide financially for his family, the Judge was listening. It was facts like these that the Judge cited to support the $2,000,000 award for non-economic damages. Second, the Judge wanted to send a message. Union County is a hunting county. Many of the residents hunt there, and people from outside the area come to Union County to hunt. It was my impression, from the Judge's statements as he rendered his decision, that he wanted to send a message to the people in Union County to protect them in their sport. The rules in place to restrict people convicted of crimes not to have a gun are not to be broken. Hunting is serious and you have to identify your target before you shoot. When you turn your back on the rules that are set to provide safety in a sport, you risk being an example. Here, the $1,000,000 punitive damage award sends that message loud and clear.When it really comes down to brass tacks, the right action was taken against a Defendant who may never truly appreciate what kind of impact his reckless choices caused.At Schmidt Kramer, we are injury lawyers. That means we work with people who were hurt in car accidents, who were hurt by the neglect of nursing homes, or those that were seriously injured because of the reckless, thoughtless acts of others. If you or a loved one have been injured in Pennsylvania, we may be able to help. While the verdict yesterday is not one that is representative of every case we do, it does show that serious and dedicated representation can bring good results.Joe ChapmanJanuary 18, 2013
View Results
$2,200,000.00 Auto Accidents
On Monday, January 6, 2014, Schmidt Kramer accident lawyer Scott Cooper obtained a verdict on behalf of his client who is the widow of a man who died in a fiery crash on Interstate 78 in Lebanon County. The awarded verdict of $2.2 million was in a nonjury proceeding before a federal judge in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. That verdict includes $100,000 in punitive damages assessed against the owner of the trucking company.Kamilah Claxton won summary judgment in November after the defendants, Sukhwinder Singh and the trucking company for which he worked, failed to file a brief in opposition to Claxton's motion, which was made in September. The verdict in Claxton v. Singh was issued after the court held a non-jury assessment of damages earlier this month."Mr. Sukhchan Singh, the employer, is liable on the basis of respondent superior, but was also grossly negligent in failing to maintain his vehicle in compliance with state and federal law, particularly with regard to having required safety inspections and correcting defects in its braking equipment," said U.S. District Judge William W. Caldwell of the Middle District of Pennsylvania in his opinion accompanying the verdict."He was also grossly negligent in entrusting his vehicle to Sukhwinder Singh, an inexperienced truck driver who had failed the written test and driving test multiple times before finally earning his commercial driving license," Caldwell said.
View Results
$1,200,000.00 Personal Injury
A Dauphin County jury has awarded a $1.2 million verdict to the parents of a 5-year-old who had an anoxic brain injury and stopped breathing after he had a tonsillectomy.2012-06-26 10:00:00 AMDate of Verdict: June 19. 2012Court and Case No.: C.P. Dauphin County No. 2009-CV-14003-MMJudge: Scott EvansType of Action: Medical malpracticeInjuries: Anoxic brain injuryPlaintiffs Counsel: Terry S. Hyman, Schmidt Kramer, HarrisburgPlaintiffs Experts: Dr. Anna H. Messner, liability; Lucille Packer, Pediatric Otolaryngology, Palo Alto, Calif.; Terry P. Leslie, vocations and earning capacity, Lancaster; Dr. Hilary B. Berlin, pediatric psychiatry, Great Neck, N.Y.Defense Counsel: Andrew H. Foulkrod, Darlene K. King, Foulkrod Ellis, Camp Hill, PADefense Experts: James C. Reilly, Pediatric Otolaryngology, Wilmington, DEComment: A Dauphin County jury has awarded a $1.2 million verdict to the parents of a 5-year-old who had an anoxic brain injury and stopped breathing after he had a tonsillectomy.The entire verdict came against Dr. Andrew M. Shapiro, the doctor who plaintiffs Reginald Graham and Tykeisha Metz alleged chose to have the boy monitored at a pediatric ward. The plaintiffs argued Shapiro failed to tell nurses caring for the baby about, and how to care for, the boy's enhanced risk for respiratory failure.The jury came back on June 19 and awarded Reginald Graham and Tykeisha Mets $500,000 in non-economic damages and $686,170 in loss of future earning capacity, according to the plaintiffs counsel.According to the statement, the baby's mother brought him to Shapiro because she was "'afraid that he might stop breathing during his sleep,'" the plaintiffs' pretrial statement said. Shapiro performed a sleep study and observed the baby's Apnea Hypopnea Index to be 43 — four times higher than what's considered severe. A tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy were performed.According to the plaintiffs, the baby's sleep study results put him at an increased risk for post-operative respiratory complications. Despite this, they argued in the statement, Shapiro ordered the pediatric nurses at the Harrisburg Hospital general pediatric ward to observe the boy as they would any other patients — about once every four hours.The pretrial statement said that one in four children who have an AHI in the 40s and oxygen desaturation below 80 have some type of respiratory problem. The younger the child, the greater the risk of a respiratory problem, the statement said.According to the statement, Shapiro took off the child's pulse oximeter, the finger-mounted device used to measure blood oxygen, and ordered a heart and respiratory rate monitor. The child was 11 months old at the time.The plaintiffs pled that the baby was last seen at 4 a.m. There was no record of his oxygen saturation for the next hour and 45 minutes. He stopped breathing a 6:40 a.m., and his brain was without oxygen long enough to cause demonstrable injury on an MRI."Immediately prior to his surgery, [the child] was a normal child, who could say mama, eat finger foods, and was just on the verge of walking," the statement said. "After his code, [he] was like a newborn. He could not lift his head or sit up. He could not talk. He could not move."In his pretrial statement, Shapiro argued that he recognized the child's pre-operative sleep study showed he was driven to breath by decreased blood oxygen saturation, which he said was typical in patients with obstructive sleep apnea.He argued the American Academy of Otolaryngology dictates that admission to the intensive care unit is not the standard of care. In the statement, he said nurses did not observe signs of respiratory distress. No alarms sounded until the child arrested, the statement said.He said the baby likely arrested as a result of hypoglycemia and/or an acute aspiration, which he argued would not have been identified by blood oxygen saturation.— Ben Present, of the Law Weekly
View Results
$1,024,040.80 Auto Accidents
Scott Cooper settled a wrongful death case on behalf of the widow of a police office who was killed in a car accident in the line of duty for $1,024,040.80. The claim against the other driver was amicably resolved before suit was filed for the entire available policy limits for the other driver. The case took place in Adams County, PA.
View Results

Testimonials

Dear Scott,
Hello there! I’m a little late to the game here, but I wanted to be certain I wrote to you. Oops—sorry for the typo! As you’ve probably gathered, I am writing you from a typewriter. Do you still use these in the office? Back on topic, I wanted to take a moment to express my deep gratitude for your guidance and support throughout the entire legal process for my accident. Can you believe it’s been five years?? Your attention to detail, professionalism, and delicate handling of my case made an incredibly difficult time more manageable for me and my family. We’re forever grateful.
From the moment you stepped foot in that hospital room with me, I felt relieved to have someone in my corner like you and your team. You took the time not only to explain each legal step in a way that made sense but also to acknowledge the emotional weight of what I was going through. That delicate balance—handling the intricacies of my case with precision while also being sensitive to my well-being—is something I will always be grateful for. In many ways, the outcome of the case reflected your dedication, but what has stayed with me even more is how you treated me throughout the process—with patience, respect, and compassion. You listened to my concerns and reassured me in moments of uncertainty. And even now, I feel your compassion each year on my birthday when I receive a text from you!
Thank you, not just for the outcome, but for the way you handled each moment. You are an incredible lawyer, but more importantly, an incredible person, and I was fortunate to have you in my corner.
With heartfelt gratitude,
Ricky D
Definitely were people of their word. Certainly helped me through my whole case
The legal team was very professional and met my needs I would highly recommend them
Monte cargile
Very great experience working with you guys continue the great service timely response communication well understand
jackie duffus
Schmidt Kramer is simply definition of hardworking, they are trustworthy and get best claim you could never think of.