Workers' Compensation Blog

Filing a Claim for Hand and Wrist Injuries in the Workplace

Posted on behalf of Schmidt Kramer Injury Lawyers on November 08, 2022 in Workers' Compensation

Hand and wrist injuries happen on the job all the time, regardless of the industry. Workers sustain fractures, punctures and sprains or even repetitive use injuries, like carpal tunnel syndrome. After suffering a job-related hand or wrist injury, employees may need to seek workers’ compensation benefits to get treatment and give their injury time to […]

Does Workers’ Compensation Cover an Injury That Happens on a Break?

Posted on behalf of Schmidt Kramer Injury Lawyers on July 29, 2022 in Workers' Compensation

Worker’s compensation is meant to provide benefits to a worker who was injured while performing a job-related duty. But what about injuries that happen while you are on break? Will worker’s compensation cover such injuries? These are valid questions to which workers need to know the answers. Our Harrisburg-based worker’s compensation lawyers discuss certain scenarios […]

How Long Could It Take to Resolve a Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Claim?

Posted on behalf of Schmidt Kramer Injury Lawyers on April 21, 2021 in Workers' Compensation

Unfortunately, there is no definitive answer to this question, as each claim is different. No two injuries are the same and people respond to treatment differently. It is also important to note employers have different insurance policies and employees can choose their own doctors so different doctors are involved. These are just some of the […]

Frequently Asked Questions about Workers’ Compensation Claims in Pennsylvania

Posted on behalf of Schmidt Kramer Injury Lawyers on April 21, 2021 in Workers' Compensation

Many injured workers often have questions about how and when to file a workers’ compensation claim. They may be left unsure if their injuries qualify for any compensation benefits and the types of benefits they may be entitled. They might even have questions about when an employer is required to start paying benefits. If you […]

Can You Get a New Job and Continue Receiving Workers’ Comp?

Posted on behalf of Schmidt Kramer Injury Lawyers on January 07, 2021 in Workers' Compensation

It is only natural to consider getting a new job after suffering a workplace injury. Returning to the same job is likely to bring up bad memories and you may even struggle to do your job because of stress and anxiety about what happened. However, if you can return to work in some capacity, but […]

Can You Contact a Lawyer if You Already Filed a Workers’ Comp Claim?

Posted on behalf of Schmidt Kramer Injury Lawyers on December 18, 2020 in Workers' Compensation

Unfortunately, many injury victims make decisions based on inaccurate information or misconceptions about the process. For example, did you know that even if you have already filed a claim you may be able to hire an attorney to assist you? If you are unsure about your potential options, you should strongly consider contacting Schmidt Kramer […]

Concern Grows Over Workers’ Comp Insurers Using Exclusions to Deny Coverage for COVID-19

Posted on behalf of Schmidt Kramer Injury Lawyers on November 25, 2020 in Workers' Compensation

We are nine months into the COVID-19 pandemic, and it is clear workers’ compensation systems around the nation are unlikely to go back to operating the way they did before March 2020. There is concern that workers’ compensation insurers will try to use exclusions to get out of providing benefits to workers who contracted COVID-19 […]

The Current and Possible Future Impact of COVID-19 on Workers’ Compensation

Posted on behalf of Schmidt Kramer Injury Lawyers on November 17, 2020 in Workers' Compensation

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a huge impact on workers’ compensation claims. It has affected everything from how claims are handled, types of claims being filed, staffing models and how treatment is being provided. According to an article by Insurance Thought Leadership.com, the pandemic has changed so much it is unlikely things will go back […]

Workers’ Compensation for Fights or Workplace Violence

Posted on behalf of Schmidt Kramer Injury Lawyers on July 24, 2020 in Workers' Compensation

There are a variety of injury risks in the workplace, from heavy machinery to slippery floors and defective products. Workplace violence, such as fights between coworkers, also causes a significant number of injuries each year. Filing a workers’ compensation claim is probably not the first thing victims of workplace violence think about. They may think […]

Workers’ Comp Liability for Those Working from Home

Posted on behalf of Schmidt Kramer Injury Lawyers on May 19, 2020 in Workers' Compensation

The COVID-19 pandemic and resulting restrictions have forced many businesses to allow employees to work from home. The longer these restrictions are in place, the more employers may adopt remote work and continue to allow working from home after COVID-19 restrictions are lifted, according to Global Workplace Analytics. Working from home may be an important […]

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.
Read more
$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
Read more
$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.
Read more
$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
Read more
$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.
Read more

Testimonials

Thank you for your excellent service and assistance during a very overwhelming time for me. Your assistance was much appreciated!
Josh D., Client of Gerry Kramer
Thank you for all your assistance, even coming to our home. Keep in touch.
David R., Client of Scott Cooper from Mechanicsburg, PA
From start to finish, everything was outstanding.
Robert B., Dog Bite Client of Gerard C. Kramer
Very nice people to work with.
Connie D., Auto Accident Client of Scott Cooper
You guys did an awesome job! Thank you.
Terrae B., Auto Accident Client of Scott Cooper