After several years of litigation, the Commonwealth Court has upheld the decisions of a Pennsylvania Workers Compensation Judge, which was affirmed by the Workers Compensation Appeal Board in favor of an injured volunteer firefighter.

After several years of litigation, the Commonwealth Court has affirmed in all regards an award in favor of a volunteer firefighter for scarring, lost wages and medical benefits. The matter has been handled in all regards by Attorney Timothy P. Brennan.

THE OPINION FOLLOWS:

Upper Mount Bethel Township (Township) petitions for review of the August 13, 2014, order of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (WCAB) affirming the decision of a workers’ compensation judge (WCJ) that granted the claim petition filed by John Gmelch (Claimant) and ordered Township to pay Claimant total disability benefits from the date of injury, October 11, 2010, through April 15, 2011, at which time benefits were suspended. The WCJ further awarded Claimant 50 weeks of compensation for serious facial disfigurement, medical expenses, and litigation expenses and ordered Township to pay Claimant a penalty of $2,500. We affirm.

Claimant is a member of Township’s volunteer fire company. Claimant’s duties include responding to fire calls, participating in fundraisers, cleaning the firehouse, maintenance, and administrative functions. (WCJ’s Findings of Fact, Nos. 1-2.)

Claimant was in charge of finding a new firetruck for Township to purchase. On the afternoon of October 11, 2010, Claimant went to the firehouse, met with the fire company’s president and fire chief, and showed them plans and pricing for a new firetruck. At that meeting, Claimant was instructed to attend the fire company’s board of directors (Board) meeting that evening at the firehouse and present the bid for a new firetruck. (Id., No. 3.)

Claimant went to the Board meeting as instructed and waited outside the meeting room to be called in to make his presentation. While outside, Claimant could hear Ray Romano, another member of the fire company, speaking loudly. Romano was discussing an accident involving his son, Zach Romano (Zach), in which a firetruck was destroyed. Around 9:00 p.m., the doors opened, and Claimant assumed the president was coming out to get him for his presentation. However, the first person out of the door was Romano, who attacked Claimant, punching him repeatedly in the face. Claimant yelled for help and grabbed Romano. Claimant was then tackled by Romano’s other son, Joshua Romano (Joshua). (Id., Nos. 4-5.)

Claimant was taken by ambulance to the Pocono Medical Center and remained hospitalized for two days. As a result of the assault, Claimant sustained head and facial trauma and loss of consciousness. His injuries included a bilateral nasal bone fracture and a right orbital blowout fracture. Claimant underwent surgery to repair the fractures and was advised to remain off work for 10-12 weeks. (Id., No. 6.)

As a result of the surgery and fractures, Claimant has an asymmetry in his face of the upper right side of the maxilla. Claimant has a prominence of the superficial portion of the inferior orbit, which interferes with the inferior orbital field of vision, and has pain on the right side of his face with a paresthesia in the upper right lip. Claimant also suffered multiple, irregular fractures to four teeth, which may require root canal and crowns in the future. Claimant also has temporomandibular joint dysfunction with popping in the right condylar area of the jaw. Claimant suffered a concussion and a torn retina, has reduced visual acuity when looking down, blurry vision from scar tissue, and right shoulder tendinitis. Claimant incurred medical bills in the amount of $30,646.69. (Id.)

Romano and Joshua pled guilty to criminal charges and were ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $29,000, of which Claimant has only received $3,500. Claimant was unemployed at the time of the injury and, since December 31, 2009, had been receiving unemployment compensation at a rate of $235 per week until he returned to work in a self-employed capacity on April 15, 2011. (Id., Nos. 7-8.)

On March 31, 2011, Claimant filed a claim petition alleging that on October 11, 2010, he suffered a work-related injury when he was assaulted by two fellow volunteer firefighters while performing his duties as a firefighter. Township denied the allegations.

At the WCJ’s hearing, Claimant testified about the events of October 11, 2010, at the firehouse. Claimant also submitted the May 17, 2012, medical report of Patrick Sewards, M.D., and the June 1, 2012, dental report of Ryan Buehner, D.M.D. Both reports describe Claimant’s injuries and subsequent treatment due to the assault. (See Exs. C-7, C-8.)

Township presented three witnesses. First, Joshua testified that Claimant said bad things about his brother Zach after Zach was involved in an accident while driving a firetruck intoxicated. Joshua further testified that he went to the firehouse to ensure that his father was okay and saw Claimant hitting his father in the side of the head. Joshua stated that his only role was to break up the fight. He admitted that he pled guilty to simple assault and agreed to pay restitution for Claimant’s medical bills. (WCJ’s Findings of Fact, No. 12.)

Next, Ian Kelton, a 17-year-old former junior firefighter, testified that Claimant called him and told him that he planned to confront Romano after the meeting at the firehouse. Kelton further testified that he and Joshua went to the firehouse where he saw Claimant holding Romano in a headlock. (Id., Nos. 10-11.)

Finally, Romano testified that he complained about Claimant in the meeting and, when he saw Claimant after the meeting, he pushed Claimant because Claimant was blocking his way out of the meeting. Romano stated that he pled guilty to harassment so that his son would only get charged with simple assault, instead of felony assault. Romano admitted that all of the charges against Claimant were dropped. (Id., No. 13.)

Township also presented the July 19, 2012, independent medical examination (IME) of Claimant by Scott K. Epstein, M.D. Dr. Epstein opined that Claimant had not fully recovered from the assault but was capable of returning to full-time, full-duty work without restrictions. (Id., No. 16; Ex. D-6.)

The WCJ credited Claimant’s testimony. Further, the WCJ found Claimant’s injuries and resulting disability obvious because Claimant was the victim of an assault, lost consciousness, spent two days in the hospital, and underwent multiple surgeries. Further, Claimant’s testimony was not contradicted by any officer or current member of the fire company. The WCJ found the testimony of Township’s witnesses self-interested and vindictive and, therefore, not credible. The WCJ further found that Township violated the Workers’ Compensation Act (Act) by failing to timely file an acceptance or denial of the claim with the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation (Bureau). The WCJ found all of the medical reports credible. (WCJ’s Findings of Fact, Nos. 9-10, 14-16.)

The WCJ granted Claimant’s claim petition, finding that Claimant was disabled as a result of the work-related injury and suffered serious facial disfigurement. The WCJ ordered Township to pay total disability benefits from the date of the injury through April 15, 2011, and, thereafter, suspended compensation. The WCJ further awarded compensation for serious facial disfigurement, and ordered Township to pay Claimant’s medical and litigation expenses. Further, the WCJ granted Claimant’s penalty petition, ordering Township to pay Claimant $2,500. Township appealed to the WCAB, which affirmed. Township now petitions for review of that decision.

Initially, Township contends that the WCJ erred in finding that Claimant was in the course and scope of his employment and, thus, concluding that the personal animus exception did not bar Claimant’s claim.

Section 301(c)(1) of the Act provides in pertinent part as follows:

The terms “injury” and “personal injury,” as used in this act, shall be construed to mean an injury to an employe . . . arising in the course of his employment and related thereto . . . . The term “injury arising in the course of his employment,” as used in this article, shall not include an injury caused by an act of a third person intended to injure the employe because of reasons personal to him, and not directed against him as an employe or because of his employment . . .

77 P.S. §411(1).

In Heath v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole), 580 Pa. 174, 860 A.2d 25, 29 (Pa. 2004), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court determined that the personal animus exception “is an affirmative defense, which the party who is defending against a claim brought under the Act has the burden of proving.”

Here, the WCJ credited Claimant’s testimony that he was assaulted during the course and scope of his employment while waiting to make a presentation to the Board. The WCJ further found Township’s witnesses not credible because they were “self-interested and vindictive.” (WCJ’s Findings of Fact, No. 14.) The WCJ determines witness credibility and the weight of the evidence and may accept or reject any witness’s testimony in whole or in part. Pennsylvania Uninsured Employers Guaranty Fund v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Bonner and Fitzgerald), 85 A.3d 1109, 1115 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014). Therefore, without any credible testimony, Township failed to prove personal animus. The record contains substantial evidence to support the WCJ’s finding that Claimant was injured while at the firehouse on official firehouse business. Thus, the WCJ did not err in finding that Claimant was injured in the course and scope of his employment and that the personal animus exception did not apply.

Next, Township contends that the WCJ erred in awarding total disability benefits because Claimant did not offer any medical evidence establishing a work-related disability.

In a claim petition, the claimant has the burden of proving all of the elements necessary to support an award. Id. at 1114-15. As noted previously, the WCJ determines the weight and credibility of the testimony and evidence. Id. at 1115. In this capacity, the WCJ has “the authority to draw reasonable inferences from the evidence.” Id.

Here, Claimant presented the May 17, 2012, medical report of Dr. Sewards and the June 1, 2012, dental report of Dr. Buehner. Both reports describe Claimant’s injuries from the October 11, 2010, assault and the subsequent treatment. Claimant also credibly testified regarding the assault. The WCJ found that “[C]laimant’s injuries and the resulting disability are obvious as the [C]laimant was a victim of an assault, lost consciousness, spent two days in the hospital and underwent surgeries.” (WCJ’s Findings of Fact, No. 9.) There was sufficient evidence to support the WCJ’s determination that Claimant suffered a work-related injury.

Next, Township contends that Claimant’s benefits should have been suspended before April 15, 2011, because Claimant had returned to work at the firehouse prior to that date. A claimant has the burden of proving the duration and the extent of the work-related injury. Bonner and Fitzgerald, 85 A.3d at 1114-15.

Claimant testified that he did not return to the firehouse until “three, maybe four months” after the assault and did not respond to a fire call until sometime in the spring. (N.T., 4/16/12, at 30; N.T., 1/4/12, at 44.) There is no credible testimony that Claimant was capable of returning to work prior to April 15, 2011. Also, Claimant’s restriction of no work for 10-12 weeks after his surgery was not an automatic release to return to work after 12 weeks. It was a speculative timeframe and, thus, insufficient evidence to prove Claimant’s recovery after 12 weeks. See Bonner and Fitzgerald, 85 A.3d at 1116-17. Because there is no evidence that Claimant was released to return to work prior to April 15, 2011, nor any evidence that Claimant resumed his full duties at the firehouse prior to that date, the WCJ did not err in refusing to suspend Claimant’s benefits before April 15, 2011, when Claimant commenced self-employment.

Next, Township contends that the WCJ erred in awarding a penalty because Claimant did not file a penalty petition or otherwise request penalties. According to 34 Pa. Code §131.121(a), (b) and (c), a penalty proceeding may be initiated by the filing of a penalty  petition, by a motion on the record in a pending proceeding, or sua sponte by the WCJ during a pending proceeding. Further, “[t]he penalty hearing may be conducted in conjunction with a hearing on the merits in a pending proceeding.” 34 Pa. Code §131.121(e).

Here, the WCJ and the WCAB both stated that Claimant amended the claim petition in his first filing memorandum to include a penalty petition for Township’s failure to timely accept or deny the work injury. (WCJ’s Findings of Fact, No. 15; WCAB’s Decision, 8/13/14, at 1.) Further, at the January 26, 2012, hearing, Claimant’s attorney stated on the record that Claimant had a pending penalty petition. (N.T., 1/26/12, at 44.)

An employee who suffers a work-related injury is required to notify his employer. Auto Service Councils of Pennsylvania, Inc. v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Compton), 139 Pa. Commw. 466, 590 A.2d 1355, 1357-58 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991). However, the notice requirement is satisfied by actual knowledge of an employee’s injury. Id. at 1358. Once the employer has actual knowledge of an employee’s injury, the employer shall promptly investigate the injury and must accept or deny the injury within 21 days of the notice. See Section 406.1 of the Act, as amended, added by Section 3 of the Act of February 8, 1972, P.L. 25, 77 P.S. §717.1(a); Croman v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Township of Marple), 706 A.2d 408, 410 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998) (stating that pursuant to the Act, an employer must promptly investigate an injury and commence compensation  within 21 days after the notice of disability).

The record reflects that Claimant was injured on the fire company’s property during a Board meeting he was asked to attend; the Board members assisted Claimant and visited Claimant after the injury; and the Board president informed Claimant that he could not get workers’ compensation benefits. However, Township never issued a formal denial. Ultimately, the WCJ found that Claimant was injured at the firehouse during the course and scope of his employment, the Board was aware of the injury, and the injury was obvious. (WCJ’s Findings of Fact, Nos. 1, 3-6, 9, 18; WCJ’s Conclusions of Law, Nos. 1, 8.) The WCJ did not err in determining that Township violated the Act.

Imposition of penalties is within the WCJ’s discretion and will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. Croman, 706 A.2d at 410. Because Township violated the Act by failing to issue an acceptance or denial of the injury, the WCJ did not abuse its discretion in awarding a penalty.

Accordingly, we affirm.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has upheld the trial court decision of the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas. The case was handled at all levels by Attorney Timothy P. Brennan

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has upheld the trial court decision of the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas. Attorney Timothy P. Brennan was the trial attorney and handled the appeals to both the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court and Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2015/04/harrisburg_alan_kennedy-shaffe.html

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2015/05/supreme_court_blocks_alan_kenn.html

ORIGINAL STORY BELOW:

HARRISBURG- Alan Kennedy-Shaffer will have to wait a few more days to find out if his name will remain on the primary ballot for a seat on the Harrisburg City Council.

A court hearing to decide the matter Friday ended after nearly two hours without a verdict.

Dauphin County Judge Scott Arthur Evans said he wanted to give Kennedy-Shaffer’s attorney time to summarize his legal arguments in a written motion. The plaintiff’s counsel presented a written motion in court Friday morning.

Ron Clever, Kennedy-Shaffer’s attorney, agreed to submit his motion by 8 a.m. Monday.

With both motions in hand, Evans could decide the case Monday, or schedule additional oral arguments on Wednesday and decide then.

Friday’s hearing stemmed from two petition challenges intended to knock Kennedy-Shaffer off the ballot. The challenges were filed by Jan Prosseda, and David L. Smith, both of Harrisburg.

The challenges contained nearly identical legal arguments and questioned the validity of Kennedy-Shaffer’s nominating signatures because he notarized most of the petitions himself. Each candidate is required to collect the signatures of at least 100 registered voters from their party.

Specifically, Kennedy-Shaffer notarized the signatures of the people who circulated his nominating petitions.

Smith’s challenge was withdrawn on Friday, so the hearing pertained only to the one filed by Prosseda, who did not attend the hearing.

His attorney, Tim Brennan, argued that Kennedy-Shaffer knew, or should have known, that he could not notarize his own petitions. Brennan said Kennedy-Shaffer even asked about a candidate notarizing his own petitions at an educational meeting in February led by Jerry Feaser, Dauphin County’s elections director.

Feaser testified Friday that he advised people at the meeting against a candidate notarizing his own petitions for “public relations” reasons, not legal reasons, because he is not a lawyer and not familiar with the state’s notary public law.

Brennan said Kennedy-Shaffer had a direct interest in the petitions and therefore could not notarize them, under the state’s notary public law. He said the candidate didn’t show good faith or due diligence.

“You can’t cover up your eyes and pretend you didn’t do anything wrong,” he said.

Kennedy-Shaffer testified that he understood Feaser’s comments to reaffirm what he already knew, which was that a notary could not notarize his own signature. Kennedy-Shaffer said he thought it was acceptable to witness the signatures of his petition circulators on petitions that did not contain his nominating signature.

Clever, Kennedy-Smith’s attorney, argued that even if Kennedy-Shaffer violated the state’s notary public law, that wasn’t the issue before the court.

“If it’s a violation of the state notary law,” Clever said. “It’s not a violation of the election code.”

Even if the judge determines the notarizations are flawed, the petitions can be amended, Clever said, adding that at least 20 precedent-setting cases prove the statute is intended to allow amendments.

In fact, Clever said, Evans ruled in recent days in favor of Middletown council member who had a district judge notarize his petitions. A challenger said the judge was not a legal notary, but Evans concluded a district judge “can in fact notarize,” and even if he could not, that “we find that this is amendable.”

Attorney Timothy P. Brennan, solicitor for the Northampton County Controller’s Office, files suit that leads to withdraw of controversial no bid contract in Northampton County.

Northampton County Executive John Brown announced Wednesday he was canceling a contract with a public relations company, the same day the county controller filed a lawsuit alleging the transaction broke county rules.

Brown’s administration had vigorously defended the $84,000 contract with Sahl Communications, but Brown said in a statement Wednesday, provided by the company, that “it was in the best interest of the county to withdraw the agreement.”

It was the resolution Controller Steve Barron was hoping for, and it came 66 minutes after he filed the lawsuit in Northampton County Court.

Brown’s decision should stop some of the negative attention the contract drew, but it doesn’t necessarily squash the legal dispute. Barron, the county’s elected controller responsible for policing internal controls over fiscal policy, said he needs more than a statement to the media to withdraw his suit
“I’m glad that it appears to be resolved, but I’m not withdrawing the lawsuit just yet,” Barron said.

In the statement, Brown also noted he met with Barron on Monday to discuss the disputed contract and chose to pull it that day after consulting his legal counsel.

“We came to this conclusion prior to learning about Mr. Barron’s decision to file suit,” Brown said. “I met with Mr. Barron on Monday morning and told him I would respond back to him after considering his request.”

Brown had already avoided one lawsuit on the matter when council voted 5-4 along party lines against taking him to court. The split was the same when council voted against a resolution to repeal the contract.

Councilman Lamont McClure, who introduced those measures, argued council had a sworn duty to enforce the administrative code, which dictates procurement procedures. McClure also sent Brown a letter last month urging him to rescind the contract.

Brown in February inked the deal with Sahl Communications without putting the contract out for bid or soliciting proposals from other agencies. He instead used a method of selection in the county code called noncompetitive negotiation, which is allowed when the services aren’t considered professional.

But in that case, the executive’s order must include specific reasons for using noncompetitive negotiation, and council solicitor Phil Lauer said Brown didn’t meet that requirement.

Additionally, the spat parses the phrase “professional service,” as defined by the administrative code — a distinction that determines whether Brown can pick a service provider or must seek multiple offers.

McClure argues that public relations is a professional service under the administrative code, requiring the executive to seek multiple offers.

Brown himself has minimally addressed the spat, but previously said he was confident his office’s handling of the contract complied with the administrative code, a position he said is bolstered by previous administrations’ actions.

The county’s procurement manager, Kathryn Anderson, also said the executive’s methods weren’t out of the ordinary.

In the lawsuit, Barron makes the case that communications are a professional service, and the contract doesn’t meet the standard of a sole-source contract, which would absolve the executive from seeking proposals.

“It’s about keeping the code in check, because next time the stakes could be higher,” Barron said about filing the suit. “I commend the county executive … he did the right thing. It’s a shame it had to come to all this.”

 

Brennan Law Offices successfully defends State Representative, Congressional candidate and former Chairman of the House Campaign Committee

Brennan Law Offices successfully defended State Representative, Congressional candidate and former Director of the House Democratic Campaign Committee, Brendan Boyle, today. The hearing was conducted before Commonwealth Court Judge Gardner Colins as a trial under the state appellate court’s original jurisdiction.

A petition filed last week sought to challenge Representative Boyle’s ability to place his name on the ballot to run for reelection in his current 170th House District. Representative Boyle is also currently running for the United States Congress in the 13th Congressional District of Pennsylvania.

The petition alleged soley that it was improper for a person employed as a legislative assistant to notarize and circulate petitions under the Pennsylvania Notary Law. The Court found no such impropriety, noting the constitutional right to circulate petitions and engage in such activity on one’s personal time.

Notably, the Judge also commended the notary/legislative assistant, Mr. Nicholas Himebaugh, who testified briefly about his service to the community, background and motivations. Soon after, the Judge noted that the Commonwealth was lucky to have a person of his dedication and character.

The Judge also noted how well briefed the matter was by both counsel, Mr. Brennan and distinguished Bucks County Barrister Larry Otter. A published opinion is expected to follow.

Mr. Brennan noted that the case was somewhat of an oddity in that Representative Boyle has no opponent in his state house race. Mr. Brennan noted, “it’s a bit like shadow boxing, usually you know where the punches are coming from.”  He added, “we are pleased with the result, Mr. Boyle is a gentleman of the highest order, I sleep better knowing people like him are in government.  I am glad he will continue his service, hopefully for many more years to come.”

As an ironic aside, the term “shenanigans” was uttered at least three times during the three hour hearing, with the Judge ultimately stating on the record that no “shenanigans” were engaged in by Mr. Brennan’s client or the Democratic Caucus.

Rick credited his legal team for their work on his behalf. That firm also represented Mike Horton, the state rep candidate who was tailed by a Karen Beyer PI. Tim Brennan, one of these legal eagles, was reluctant to discuss details of either case.

Four years ago, Allentown lawyer Rick Orloski and State Senator Pat Browne squared off in the state senate race. Pat come out on top, but I was very impressed by the good will that both of them had for each other, along with their humility. They are both class acts who seemed to have a genuine regard for each other.

This year, Rick is challenging Pat again, and I was really looking forward to their dialogues. Ideologically, they are much different, but it’s so refreshing to see candidates who can actually be nice to each other.

Unfortunately, a Pat Browne proxy challenged Rick’s nomination petition. Had that succeeded, there would be no race at all. There would be no dialogue. Voters would be denied a choice.

On Monday, I told you about an email that Orloski had sent to Browne over the weekend, asking him to reconsider his challenge. Rick’s best argument? “Elections are for voters, not judges.” It was a powerful message.

I doubt I’ll ever know whether Orloski’s email had the same impact on Browne that it had on me. I can’t really call him at his Senate office to discuss politics or the Attorney General will arrest both of us and throw away the key. But I’d like to think that Pat was moved by Rick’s email. What I do know is that, late yesterday afternoon, Browne’s proxies withdrew their challenge to Rick’s nomination petition.

They did the right thing.

I spoke with Rick late this afternoon, and he told me it’s really unfortunate to see so many nomination challenges this year. “Politicians are taking elections out of the hands of the people and putting them in the hands of judges.” Judges don’t like it, either. One Commonwealth Court judge, who shall remain nameless, complained “We’re overwhelmed. We need to work on other cases.”

Rick credited his legal team, the Allentown law firm of Crosslis & Brennan, for their work on his behalf. That firm also represented Mike Horton, the state rep candidate who was tailed by a Karen Beyer PI. Tim Brennan, one of these legal eagles, was reluctant to discuss details of either case, and instead told me he’s doing a lot of Equine law these days.

Equine law? Well, his experience in these nomination challenges definitely exposed him to few horses’ asses, including me.

An Allentown councilman has been found not guilty of harassing his neighbor, who filed a private criminal complaint after they argued in May.

An Allentown councilman has been found not guilty of harassing his neighbor, who filed a private criminal complaint after they argued in May. District Judge Maryesther Merlo last month cleared Councilman Michael Donovan of the complaint filed by Maria E. Cordero of 118 N. West St. Cordero alleged Donovan broke her front glass door after pounding on it. She also accused Donovan and his wife of verbally harassing her and her children.

A civil suit filed against Donovan by the property owner seeking $500 to replace the door was withdrawn after the decision in the other case, according to court documents. Donovan said he was pleased with the outcome.“ I just want to have some peace and quiet on this street, for it to be safe to raise kids, for people to get along and to treat each other with some respect,” he said.

– Arlene Martinez

 

Burress’ lawyer said Tuesday he did not want to elaborate on the details of the case, but he acknowledged that Burress is responsible for some damages. The jury will have to decide how much, he said.

LEBANON, Pa. — Plaxico Burress is in court again.

A civil trial is scheduled to begin Wednesday in Pennsylvania to determine how much the New York Giants wide receiver will have to pay in damages over a car he leased that ended up being impounded by New York City police.

New York police said Tuesday that they impounded the car in August 2005 in connection with a shooting in the Bronx. Arrests were made, but the records were sealed and police gave no other details about the incident.

Court papers in Pennsylvania say a Lebanon County car dealer allowed Burress to borrow a 2004 Chevrolet Avalanche worth more than $36,000 in exchange for Burress agreeing to sign autographs at promotional events.

“I thought it would be good for my business,” the dealer, Frederick Laurenzo, said in an interview Tuesday.

But about a month after Burress received the car, Laurenzo said he received a call from police in New York, who told him they had impounded it in connection with a crime. So he called Burress and told him to call police — but the police never heard from Burress and Burress never returned another one of Laurenzo’s calls, Laurenzo said.

Laurenzo filed the civil complaint in September 2006, seeking restitution and accusing Burress of breach of contract because he never showed up to sign autographs and let someone else drive the vehicle. Laurenzo said it took him a year to get the vehicle back from the police.

The complaint did not disclose to whom Burress loaned the vehicle or the reason police impounded it.

After Laurenzo put a lien against Burress’ house in Virginia, the sides agreed to an arbitration. A three-lawyer panel awarded more than $22,000 to Laurenzo last year, but Burress appealed.

Burress’ lawyer said Tuesday he did not want to elaborate on the details of the case, but he acknowledged that Burress is responsible for some damages. The jury will have to decide how much, he said.

The star receiver who caught the game-winning pass in last year’s Super Bowl has been embroiled in controversy for months. Burress was charged with two counts of illegal weapons possession after he accidentally shot himself in the right thigh at a Manhattan nightclub on Nov. 29.

Burress, who received a five-year, $35 million contract extension from the Giants in September, turned himself in on the weapons charges and was released on $100,000 bail. He is due in court on those charges March 31.

After the self-inflicted shooting, the Giants suspended Burress, 31, for the remainder of the season.

In December, Burress was sued in Broward County, Fla., for an accident last May in which he allegedly drove his $140,000 Mercedes-Benz into the back of a woman’s vehicle. The woman’s attorney later said that Burress had failed to pay the premium on his car insurance, which had lapsed three days before the wreck.
Copyright 2009 by The Associated Press

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3830168

A Pennsylvania jury has sided with Plaxico Burress in a dispute over how much the Giants star wide receiver should pay in damages for a car he borrowed that ended up getting impounded by New York City police.

LEBANON, Pa. — A Pennsylvania jury has sided with Plaxico Burress in a dispute over how much the Giants star wide receiver should pay in damages for a car he borrowed that ended up getting impounded by New York City police. A jury in Lebanon County civil court decided yesterday that Burress owes $1,700 in damages, far less than the $19,000 sought by the dealer who loaned the car to Burress. Burress declined to comment afterward and was followed by a small crowd of fans seeking autographs.Burress testified that his agent arranged for the Chevrolet Avalanche in 2005. Burress disputed that he had agreed to make personal appearances for the dealership.

New York police later impounded the truck after it was connected to a shooting incident.

Dealer Frederick Laurenzo said Burress understood he was to make promotional appearances on behalf of the dealership in exchange for using the truck. Burress also agreed that no one else would drive the truck, Laurenzo said.

Burress testified that his agent arranged for the car in 2005, but said he did not know of any other obligations or conditions.

New York City police later impounded the truck after it was connected to a shooting incident. While the sport utility truck was impounded for more than a year, the brakes rusted and the battery died.

Laurenzo said it was Burress’ responsibility to return the vehicle.

Burress’ lawyer argued that Burress should not be liable for all the damages the dealer seeks, including the vehicle’s interest and depreciation.

A Lebanon County jury began deliberating last night after more than three hours of testimony.

Laurenzo said the vehicle was worth more than $36,000 at the time he loaned it to Burress. The dealer filed a civil complaint in September 2006 seeking restitution and accusing Burress of breach of contract because he never showed up to sign autographs and he let someone else drive the vehicle. Laurenzo also said Burress made no effort to help him get the vehicle back.

After Laurenzo put a lien against Burress’ house in Virginia, the sides agreed to an arbitration. A three-lawyer panel awarded more than $22,000 to Laurenzo last year, but Burress appealed.

Burress’ lawyer in the vehicle dispute acknowledged Tuesday that Burress is responsible for some damages. The jury will have to decide how much his lawyer said.

The shooting incident occurred about a month after the dealer loaned the truck to Burress. According to New York police, officers saw two men firing rounds from inside the truck on a Bronx street early on Aug. 20, 2005. It did not, however, appear that they were targeting anyone, police said.

Officers recovered two 9-mm pistols at the scene and arrested two people, one of them a cousin of Burress, police said.

Investigators contacted Burress, who came in with a lawyer more than two weeks later for questioning. Burress signed a statement saying he had loaned the car to a cousin, but that he had no knowledge of the incident and was at practice at the time of the shooting.

Burress’ attorney Benjamin Brafman says he was told that at the time of the incident Burress was with the team at a New Jersey hotel because the Giants had a home preseason game later that day.

Giants spokesman Pat Hanlon declined yesterday to discuss Burress’ exact whereabouts at the time of the shooting.

Charges against Burress’ cousin were dropped. The other person in the car pleaded guilty in March 2006 to criminal possession of a weapon, police said.

Police said they released the car to the dealer in January 2007.

Burress, 31, who caught the game-winning pass in last season’s Super Bowl, has been embroiled in controversy for months. He was charged with two counts of illegal weapons possession after he accidentally shot himself in the right thigh at a Manhattan nightclub on Nov. 29.

Burress, who received a five-year, $35 million contract extension from the Giants in September, turned himself in on the weapons charges and was released on $100,000 bail. He is due in court March 31.

After the self-inflicted shooting, the Giants suspended Burress for the remainder of the season.

In December, Burress was sued in Broward County, Fla., for an accident last May in which he allegedly drove his $140,000 Mercedes-Benz into the back of a woman’s vehicle. The woman’s attorney later said that Burress had failed to pay the premium.

To view this article on the NJ.com website, CLICK HERE