Rather than pay employees time and one-half their regular rate for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek, many employers will “bank” the over-time hours and apply them toward a week where the employee worked less than 40 hours. The employee will then be paid for these hours at the regular straight-time rate instead of the required over-time rate. This system of pay is also referred to as compensatory time, or “comp-time”. If you would like to contact our law team about a possible case, fill out a form now.
News & Investigations
The Latest
PA Medical Malpractice Claims Decline by 45 Percent Since 2002
According to the annual report of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on the level of medical malpractice litigation in the state, new case filings continue to decline for claims of negligence on the part of doctors, nurses and hospitals. In 2010, 1,491 medical malpractice cases were filed in Pennsylvania. This figure represents a modest decrease from the annual average of 1,674 new cases established over the period 2003-09. By contrast, in the period 2000-02, a total of 8,195 medical negligence actions were filed, or an annual average of 2,731 new cases each year. The 2010 total represents a 45 percent decrease from the annual average number of cases filed in 2000-02.
Legislative Changes Affect the Filing of Medical Negligence Cases
Court administrators, medical negligence lawyers and malpractice liability insurers agree that the decline in Pennsylvania medical malpractice filings reflects the impact of legislative changes that went into effect in 2002 and 2003. That legislation required plaintiffs’ attorneys to obtain a certificate of merit from medical experts before the case could go forward in court, required that the credentials of the experts providing the certification closely match those of the defendant medical professionals, and provided that claims could only be filed in the county where the alleged negligence occurred. Because some Pennsylvania counties are regarded by plaintiffs’ attorneys as difficult venues for complex or high-stakes claims, the legislature’s restrictions as to where a case can be filed probably accounts for a significant portion of the declining trend in medical malpractice filings. This factor is borne out by the results of the cases that go to a jury. Although only about 10 percent of medical malpractice cases are tried to conclusion, those that are decided by a jury tend to favor the defense. Of the 163 cases that went to a jury in 2010, only 30, or 19 percent, were decided in the plaintiff’s favor.
Call (215) 545-8800 in Philadelphia for a Free Consultation
Today, medical malpractice litigation in Pennsylvania is more difficult than ever from the plaintiff’s perspective, and anyone interested in discussing a potential medical negligence claim should work with attorneys experienced with the challenges of developing the case, presenting it in court and protecting its value. Philadelphia medical negligence attorney James McEldrew has nearly 30 years of experience with the proof of liability and damages against physicians, nurses and hospitals over tough opposition. Contact his office for a free consultation.
Congress Seeks to Address Employee Misclassification
The Teamsters Union has expressed its support of new legislation introduced in the Senate that may help prevent workers from being misclassified as independent contractors. This new legislation could affect the trucking industry’s use of owner-operators and lease operators. Senator Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) stated that “For too long workers have been denied vital worker safeguards – like fair labor standards…With still fragile economic recovery with significant job loss – workers are too often taken advantage of and lose out on the benefits they rightfully earn.” As an amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Employee Misclassification Prevention Act would attempt to make sure misclassified workers have access to these safeguards. It’s aim is to reduce misclassification violations by ensuring employers keep proper records that reflect accurate employee status; increasing penalties on employers who misclassify employees and are found to have violated the employees minimum wage and overtime rights; requiring employers to notify employees of their classification as an employee or non-employee; providing protection to workers who are discriminated against who seek the protection of the new legislation; and creating a “employee rights web site” that would provide information regarding federal and state wage and hour rights. Timothy P. Dronson, Esquire is a former Wage & Hour Compliance Specialist and is currently representing employees in wage & hour litigation. Mr. Dronson can be contacted at (215) 545-8800.
Internships As Free Labor? Not Necessarily According To DOL
The days of filing paper and serving coffee for free may be over. Today’s harsh economy has students accepting unpaid internships for summer employment and, in the alternative, has employers possibly taking advantage of these students. The United States Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division, in an attempt to reduce the number of interns illegally working for free, has created a test that must be met before interns may work without compensation. The six (6) criteria are: 1) the intern must gain similar training to what he or she would be given in an educational environment; 2) the intern must not displace regular employees; 3) the intern must receive close supervision; 4) the intern must be the primary beneficiary of the activity; 5)the intern must not provide immediate benefits to the employer; and 6) the intern must understand that he or she is neither entitled to a paid position after completion of the program nor entitled to any compensation. In other words, if you, as an intern, are performing “real” work and contributing to a commercial enterprise, then the minimum wage and possibly overtime standards will most likely apply to you. Timothy P. Dronson is an attorney with the law firm of Kent & McBride, P.C. and Of Counsel with the Overtime Law Center. He may be reached at Kent & McBride at 267-702-1712 and the Overtime Law Center at (215) 545-8800, or tdronson@kentmcbride.com.
Aetna Faces Major Penalties for Medicare Compliance Violations
Aetna appears to have gotten itself in some pretty big trouble. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), effectively Aetna’s authority figure, has punished the insurer for violations related to Aetna’s administration of the Medicare Advantage plan. The violations stem from Aetna’s move to change coverage for drugs in certain plans. According to a letter sent by CMS to Aetna, the insurer failed to properly transition some patients from the old drug formulary to the new one, and some patients were delayed in receiving their prescriptions because their medications were improperly denied (a drug formulary is a list of drugs preferred by a health plan).
CMS has imposed sanctions on Aetna, so the insurer won’t be pushing its plans or enrolling any seniors for a while. The sanctions don’t affect current Medicare enrollees. The company and some analysts are downplaying the effect of the sanctions on Aetna’s bottom line. However, according to research by Goldman Sachs, $5.7 billion out of Aetna’s 2009 revenue of $34.7 billion came from Medicare Advantage and prescription drug plans. Aetna may not be all that concerned after all, considering that the new health care reform bill will cut government payments to Medicare Advantage by $132 billion over the next 10 years. Perhaps Aetna is actually rubbing its hands together in gleeful anticipation of the millions of Americans who will be required to buy some type of insurance in the future.
Whether or not Aetna took this course of action in anticipation of changes to Medicare Advantage under the health care bill, it will be interesting to see how Aetna’s role in the insurance saga will unfold over the coming years.