Radcliffe & DeHaas, L.L.P.

One of the prime targets for public ridicule is lawyers along with umpires, politicians etc. A good quote about us is you complain about lawyers until you need one.

So what does that have to do with what is going on at Penn State? There couldn’t be many who have not heard or read about the horrific acts alleged against former Penn State coach Jerry Sandusky with minors. Some are also shocked about how this matter was handled by Penn State.

One incident reportedly occurred on the main campus in a locker room in 2002, and was witnessed by a Penn State grad assistant who reported it to Joe Paterno the next day. Within one week it was reported to the Penn State Athletic Director and a Vice President. There may be some issue as to exactly what was reported, but no one appears to contest that at the very least it was reported that a 55 year old man was in the shower with a 10 year old boy.


Most of us react as parents, but as lawyers, we have another unique perspective on this tragedy. Our firm represents institutions which provide services to children. At times our clients have received information (not eyewitness testimony though- usually just unverified hearsay) about alleged improper conduct with minors- many times the reports turn out to be unfounded. Regardless of the believability of the complaint, we recommend certain initial actions be taken, but more about that later.

Based on our experience, it is hard to believe Penn State didn’t immediately contact its attorney after the Athletic Director and Vice President received notice of the shower incident. The role of Penn State’s counsel in this case, who most likely is experienced and obviously connected to Penn State, is to provide common sense, objective legal advice. To do so the client (Penn State) must 1) ask for the lawyer’s advice; 2) tell the lawyer all the facts; and 3) listen to the advice.

Assuming this was done, the lawyer’s advice to Penn State upon hearing of the 2002 incident (a 55 year old man in the locker room shower with a kid is all anyone needed to hear) should have been clear: 1) immediately separate the adult from minors @ Penn State and all Penn State facilities until further notice; 2) report it to the proper authorities and parents, and cooperate in any law enforcement investigation; 3) once the investigation is complete, determine if the University needs to conduct its own investigation; 4) based on the investigation then and only then determine if 1) above should be reconsidered. It doesn’t appear from the Grand Jury report that Penn State did any of the above.

One doesn’t need any direction from the Supreme Court or a law degree from an Ivy League school to know what to advise in this situation. It is primarily a matter of common sense. However, sometimes a client doesn’t listen to its lawyer, which might be the case here. Unfortunately we may never know why Penn State didn’t react accordingly and protect innocent children from any possible future acts.

Class actions have received some negative publicity in the last few years some of it not justified. Class actions, when properly used, are a good method to allow a single person to right a wrong suffered by many. As an example the proper use of a class action can prevent big insurance companies from charging customers 2 different prices for the same insurance , even though the company markets it as different coverages! In such a case, the consumer who is paying the steeper price, usually doesn't know he could get the same coverage for less. The insurance company never tells him. Even if the insured did know, the difference is so minimal (sometimes $8 per year) a lawsuit filed for just one person doesn't make economic sense.

However,if the claim is filed as a class action on behalf of ALL persons who paid more but didn't get more coverage, the lawsuit makes economic sense, requires the insurance company to pay attention- since if affects a number of their customers, and also warrants the court's interest. That is not to say the battle with the big companies doesn't take years, lots of time, and effort; but with the prospect of "righting a wrong" that would never have been done otherwise, it accomplishes the goal,and that originally was the justification for class actions-because society benefits.

So contact Radcliffe and DeHaas if you have a wrong in Pennsylvania that you think needs corrected.

Recently,there has been much media attention about mortgage foreclosures and the creditors (banks in most cases) not acting legally in filing them. Many times a house owner becomes frustrated with the debt collectors misleading them, charging them improperly for late fees and being totally inconsistent in communications. Further when the mortgage foreclosure suit is filed by the creditor, the complaint contains erroneous information or the home owner doesn't even know who the creditor is that is filing the suit.

It appears there is no one place a debtor can go where he will get a straight answer from a creditor as to how much is really owed, what he can do to keep his house , and what comes next. The home owner many times then essentially gives up, losing their home.
The debtor may be unaware of rights he or she have under Pennsylvania law. Specifically the debtor can't be mislead or deceived by a creditor.
Further, we think he or she has a right to halt the foreclosure action in many cases.
This is also an area in Pennsylvania that a class action might be appropriate, as many people are being wronged in a similar way. The first step for a homeowner is to consult with an attorney who specializes in that area and inquire of federal programs such as HAFA. The next step is don't give up,just because money is owed doesn't mean there isn't a way to keep your home.

There have been a number of recent articles in the media about major companies allowing their customers' social security numbers to be obtained by outsiders who "hacked" into the company's computer system. The most recent has been Penn State University's revelation that some of its students' social security numbers could have been accessed. There is nothing that can affect a person's credit rating any faster than having unauthorized persons obtain their social security number. Apparently at Penn State it has happened more than once.

Under Pennsylvania law, a victim of such unauthorized disclosure gets some protection from theft by obtaining a free "fraud alert" from a credit reporting organization for 90 days to make sure their has been no misuse of their credit. However, after that 90 day period, the victim must continually check to see if his or her credit has been accessed. That costs money and takes time, and Penn State is not reimbursing such victims in the absence of a breach.

If you find out your credit has been affected by an improper disclosure, contact our firm. You shouldn't have to pay for the problem.

In Pennsylvania, if you are injured in a car accident and the person at fault doesn't have enough coverage to compensate you, normally your own insurance carrier would provide UNinsured and UNDERinsured coverage for you. Both UNinsured and UNDERinsured coverages are optional in Pennsylvania.

Understandably many policyholders reject such coverages due to costs. However, many times even though your policy shows you rejected UNinsured or UNDERinsured coverage YOUR REJECTION FORM IS INVALID. If it is, then you are entitled to the coverage.

We have been successful in making claims for UNinsured and UNDERinsured coverages against an insurance company. So if you were injured in a accident and weren't compensated for your injuries because you thought you didn't have UNinsured or UNDERrinsured coverage give us a call, maybe we can help!

Our firm believes that there may be many occasions in this expanding oil and gas market in southwestern Pa , when the gas company (producer) either unintentionally or otherwise takes unfair advantage of land owners tied to older gas leases. Many of the old leases were standard and may not stand up to legal scrutiny today.

One recent example of this was noted by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in a recent decision which examined the minimum royalty statute in Pennsylvania. That law requires a minimum 1/8 "royalty". But in some old leases the company was deducting from the minimum 1/8 royalty the costs for transportation of the gas after it left the ground. By calculating the royalty this way the company reduced the amount the landowner received to below 1/8. Unfortunately the Supreme Court in its interpretation of the term "royalty" allowed those leases to remain in effect and keep numerous landowners bound to some leases that are 20 to 30 years old.

However, we think those older uniform leases may be invalidated in a class action on other bases. So if you have an older lease, let us look at it. We can tell you if we think you are being treated unfairly by the the gas companies.

Subrogation is a big legal word and it affects people injured in accidents every day. Health insurance carriers,as an example, say it gives them the right to recover for medical bills the carrier paid when you have been injured in an accident. That doesn't sound bad until you find out health insurance companies can use it to see they get reimbursed BEFORE you recover.

As an example,assume you are injured in a auto accident and you lost earnings due to your injury of $8,000. The person who is responsible for your injuries only has insurance coverage of $15,000. But the health insurance carrier paid your medical bills of $12,000 (for which you paid a premium) and wants paid back for their bills FIRST! So if you listen to them you would never get reimbursed for your loss of earnings.

Fortunately that is illegal in Pennsylvania in most situations, but it doesn't mean health insurance carriers don't improperly try to subrogate. At Radcliffe & DeHaas we have filed class actions to stop that practice and recovered for hundreds of people who were wronged in that manner.

So just because an insurance company uses big words like subrogation, don't be fooled- talk to an attorney.