Anthony J. Baratta

Bar / Professional Activity

• Acting as a Judge of the Temple Law School Stern Moot Court Competition, 2026
• Teaching trial advocacy course for the Keenan Trial Institute, 2026
• Acting as a Judge for the Temple Law School LLM final jury trial competition, 2026
• Board Member - Brain Injury Association of PA, 2025
• Hearing Committee Member serving the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2025
• Montgomery County Bar Association Fee Dispute Committee, 2025
• Pennsylvania Association for Justice, 2025
• Bucks County Bar Association Inn of Courts, 2025
• Philadelphia Trial Lawyers Association, 2025

Verdicts / Settlements (Case Results)

• $295,000 gross settlement achieved for an elderly woman struck by a car in a shopping mall.  The plaintiff suffered a fractured hip and wrist.  The driver maintained only $15,000 in insurance coverage.  A lawsuit was filed against the management company and the owner of the shopping center for defective maintenance of a stop sign and a crosswalk which contributed to the crash.  The case settled at the close of discovery and after presentation of expert reports., 2025
• $2 + Million Dollar Verdict in Philadelphia Medical Malpractice Jury TrialAn 11-day trial, a Philadelphia jury returned a $2 Million verdict for our client. Our deceased client went to Aria Health Torresdale Hospital with a blood clot in the lung and died after he waited 10 ½ hours without getting the right treatment at the right time.  The blood clot in the lung cut off the oxygen to his heart causing his heart to stop. The cause of death was contested by the defense.  Baratta Law called eight experts and the defense seven experts over the 11-day trial. The defense had offered $0 in this case., 2024
• $900,000 Settlement / Company Policy Change AccomplishedWrongful Death of Wheelchair Bound Passenger in Medical Transportation Van Montgomery County  Our 89-year-old client, with end stage renal disease and a pre-existing cervical fracture, was a wheelchair bound passenger in a medical transportation van on his way to dialysis.  The driver of the medical transport van failed to secure him, and the wheelchair fell backward to the floor of the van while in transit.  The driver stopped the vehicle and proceeded to pull him back up without supporting his head or neck.   What happened next is what caused his death.   Following the incident, the Bux-Mont driver stops the vehicle on the side of the road and enters the passenger area using the right-side door. The driver does not call EMS or headquarters to find out what to do. Instead, the driver immediately begins to upright our client and his wheelchair by grasping the wheelchair and pulling him up providing no support or control of our client’s head or neck.  He did this without evaluating and without even asking whether our client was injured. .  The driver then dropped our client off at dialysis without reporting anything had happened. Once arriving to dialysis, it was clear that our client was injured, and the nurses contacted 911 to summon an ambulance. Bux-Mont’s failure to train its drivers the necessary and required steps to safely handle any passenger injury caused a delay of more than 33 minutes to safely secure our client’s cervical spine.   Our client died 4 days later of complications from the neck injury.   Bux-Mont had offered No Training to its drivers how to handle this foreseeable incident other than to call Dispatch immediately.  The driver admitted he did not do this.   Because the driver had not been trained not to, he picked up the passenger with a possible head or neck injury aggravating the pre-existing underlying cervical spine fracture that led to a phrenic nerve injury which led to respiratory compromise and death 4 days later.  If the driver had simply left the passenger on the floor of the van and called 911 and not moved him, that aggravation injury could have been avoided.    This case settled for $900,000 - As part of the settlement, Baratta Law made Bux-Mont Transportation Inc. agree to adopt a training policy which requires training of drivers to not move a passenger with a head or neck injury and contact 911.   , 2024
• $450,000 SettlementPassenger Injured in Single Car Accident on Roosevelt Boulevard Prevails against PennDOT and Contractor for Clear Zone ViolationPhiladelphia CountyOur client was the injured passenger in a speeding car which crashed into a two feet high tree stump located four feet off the edge of Roosevelt Blvd. where PennDOT failed to remove the tree from the “clear zone” and the contractor failed to cut the tree down to 2 inches or less from the ground.   A row of 11 Sycamore trees had been planted twenty-five feet apart and four feet from the edge of the roadway on Roosevelt Boulevard near 5th St.  PennDOT had determined that the tree required removal because it was dead.  It therefore hired a contractor to cut the tree down.  The contract required that the contractor cut the tree to a height of no more than 2 inches from the ground. The contract also required the contractor to comply with PennDOT Publication 23, Chapter 13, which specifically addresses duties related to the clear zone concept, and specifically, the duty to create a space free of woody vegetation for vehicles to leave the roadway and safely recover.  The contractor left behind a huge stump, 24 inches in  height and 30 inches in diameter.   By not enforcing the contract, PennDOT violated the clear space concept.      The crash occurred at 2AM.  The driver had been speeding and left the roadway striking the large stump.  Our client, a 30-year-old man, suffered lower extremity fractures that required surgical repair.  , 2024
• $1.4 MM  Verdict - Wrongful Death & Survival - Electrocution Injury and death, 2023
• $750,000 Settlement - Car Wreck Involving Truck - Philadelphia County, 2023
• $372,500 Settlement - Slip & Fall Case requiring multiple surgeries, 2022
• $ 6 figure Settlement -  Motor vehicle accident, 2021
• $495,000 Settlement - Night time Collision into Unmarked Parked Flatbed Trailer, 2021
• Settlement - $750,000 in a Fatal Hit & Run , 2020
• Confidential Multi-Million Dollar Settlement  - Truck Accident causing TBI and Foot Fractures, 2020
• Settlement - $425,000  - Bicyclist knocked down by Dog causing Brain Injury , 2020
• Jury Verdict - $400,000 in Bucks County Fall Down Case., 2019
• Settlement $1MM-motorcycle accident, Settlement $550,000-Uninsured Motorist, Settlement $565,000 -mild traumatic brain injury in a motor vahicle accident Confidential Settlement $over 5MM - a young man who had lost both legs above his knees trying to help a motorist who had suffered a flat tire.This case involved 9 years of litigation against 4 defendants. Confidential Settlement high six figures  - slip and fall due to a wet floor in a bathroom and died due to the head injuries suffered, Confidential Settlement high six figures -  medical malpractice vs orthopedic surgeon, Verdict $625,000 - medical malpractice vs OB/Gyn, Settlement $675,000 - traumatic brain injury in SUV vs. tractor tanker wreck, Settlement $ 315,000 - Motor Vehicle Accident caused by motorist fleeing police, Settlement $350,000 - ankle fracture - slip on ice, Settlement $500,000 - Party bus accident causing mild traumatic brain injury,  Settlement $450,000 - Sexual assault case vs. defendant Church, Verdict $4 Million -  failure to treat bile leak post laparoscopic cholecystectomy, Settlement $3.8 Million - burn victim death following energy plant explosion, Verdict $1.6 Million - herniated discs in low back and neck and knee injury leading to knee replacement in fall down case, Settlement $1,775,000 - pedestrian hit by vehicle suffers brain injury,  Settlement $750,000  - failure to diagnose skin cancer resulting in death, Settlement $600,000 - foot fractures in 30 year old woman caused by MVA), Settlement $500,000  - herniated discs in low back caused by MVA, Settlement $275,000  - post-concussion syndrome suffered in slip and fall, Settlement $250,000  - nerve lacerated during surgical fixation of fracture humerous, Settlement $575,000 - wrongful death case for an inmate at the Philadelphia Federal Detention Center - failure to timely treat deep vein thrombosis leading to a pulmonary embolus and death, 2018

Videos

• Anthony Baratta, Esquire discusses the importance of preserving evidence after a serious accident., Why Preserving Evidence after a Serious Accident is Extremely Important, 2021
• Anthony Baratta, Esquire explains when use of a product causes severe injury and legal steps that can be taken., When Use of a Product Causes Severe Injury, 2020
• Anthony Baratta, Esquire explains the importance of staying connected to friends after a TBI, The Importance of Staying connected to Friends after a TBI, 2020
• Anthony Baratta, Esquire explains how he makes the invisible brain injury "visible" to a jury., Making the Invisible Brain Injury "Visible", 2020
• Anthony Baratta, Esquire explains the three categories of traumatic brain injury symptoms., 3 Categories of TBI Symptoms, 2020
• Anthony Baratta, Esquire explains what happens to the brain when there is a physical impact., What happens to the Brain when there is a Physical Impact, 2020

Transactions

• Erie Insurance Exchange vs. Christiana Montesano, Anthony Montesano and Donna Montesano The court found in favor of the defendants, concluding that Christiana qualifies as an insured under the Erie policy and that the Erie is liable for $200,000.00 representing the full amount of the policy limits., 2020

Special Licenses / Certifications

• Board Certified Civil Trial Advocate Pennsylvania, 2024
• Board Certified Civil Trial Advocate by the National Board of Trial Advocacy, 2007

Pro bono / Community Service

• Board Member - Brain Injury Association of PA, 2025
• Philadelphia Volunteers for the Indigent Program (Philadelphia VIP)-I represent individual clients who cannot afford counsel in civil and domestic cases, 2025

Educational Background

• LaSalle University, B.A., Named to Who's Who in American Colleges and Universities, 1986, 1982-1986

Scholarly Lectures / Writings

• Restatement Third, Medical Malpractice: Beware!By Anthony J. Baratta Esq. According to the Journal of the American Medical Association there is a ‘new legal standard for medical malpractice.”[1]  The AMA has close to 300,000 members and considers itself the largest and only national association that convenes more than 190 state and specialty medical societies and other critical stakeholders.[2]   So, when the AMA tells its members there is a new legal standard to measure patient care, it warrants our attention too. The new standard referenced is the American Law Institute (ALI) approval of the first ever restatement of the law for resolving medical malpractice claims.  The ALI’s mission set forth in its 1923 charter is “to promote the clarification and simplification of the law and its better adaptation to social needs, to secure the better administration of justice, and to encourage and carry on scholarly and scientific work.”  Its restatements of the law are written primarily for judges, to help them understand an area of law and aid judicial decision making.[3]  In describing ALI, the American Medical Association equated it to the National Academy of Medicine, and called it a “broadly constituted group of acknowledged leaders who bring an expert professional perspective to both what the law is and what the law should be.”[4]The JAMA article focused on the ALI’s uniform definition of “reasonable care” and to emphasize to physicians the shift from “customary care” which defers to the practice habits of physicians. Reasonable care, the JAMA article encouraged, does not allow the physician to rely on habits from their training, but requires physicians keep up to date with current understanding of evidence-based medicine.  The JAMA article points out that the infusion of current medical science into malpractice law is consistent with the changes by the World Medical Association to the physician’s pledge in its Declaration of Geneva to practice “in accordance with good medical practice” and the American Medical Association’s principles of medical ethics to include that “a physician shall continue to study, apply and advance scientific knowledge.”  The purpose of the JAMA article was to emphasize to physicians that the ALI and the American Medical Association endorse evidence-based practice as a hallmark of competent care.  In other words, to act competently, the physician must act in accordance with evidence-based medicine and the failure to do so is negligent.  “Medical decision making has gone through a fundamental change in the last 40 years.  Simply put, the foundation for decision making has shifted away from subjective judgments and reliance on authorities toward a formal analysis of evidence…Now, before recommending a treatment, physicians ask: what’s the evidence?[5]The JAMA article may be a valuable exhibit to your Motion in Limine to allow admission of your expert’s testimony that relies upon evidence-based guidelines or practice guidelines.  The AMA itself recognizes that compliance with evidence-based guidelines is both good medicine and helps to establish what the standard of care is.     The new Restatement definition of standard of care seems to be in line with the way most jurisdictions handle the issue, which is what is intended.  However, what practicing trial lawyers must be wary of is the new Restatement’s encouragement to courts to allow a defendant’s proof of compliance with evidence-based guidelines to exonerate while evidence of failure is not sufficient to prove liability. Before getting to that concerning aspect of the new Restatement, it is necessary to explain that the ALI came to offer its definition of standard of care by examining the evolution of the definition in the courts over time.The Restatement Definition of Standard of CareThat the Restatement would attempt to codify a definition that moves from a custom based approach to what a reasonably prudent physician would do is consistent with what the law is in most jurisdictions.  Most state’s laws allow juries to judge medical malpractice by the standard of what a reasonably prudent physician should do under similar circumstances instead of what care is customary amongst a similar group of physicians.  However, custom is still a prevailing consideration used to define the standard of care in a number of jurisdictions.[6]  How did customary practice become how courts came to define standard of care in medical malpractice cases has root in deference to the medical profession and mistrust in juries.  In personal injury law, generally, although an industry’s customary practice may be relevant, it is not binding in determining whether the defendant acted negligently.[7]  However, historically doctors and medical providers were treated differently by the law.  According to an old friend we first met in law school, William Prosser, tort law “gives the medical profession…the privilege, which is usually emphatically denied to other groups, of setting their own legal standards of conduct, merely by adopting their own practices.”[8]  The custom based standard of care for physicians was supported by the belief that juries should not be given the power to determine that practices widely followed were negligent and that physicians could be trusted to establish their own standards of care.[9]  As recently as 2017, the Wisconsin Supreme Court stated that “[b]ecause the standard of care is determined by the care customarily provided by other physicians, it need not be scientifically tested or proven effective.”[10]  Echoing the special status for physician standard of care, The Third Restatement of Torts endorses a custom based standard of care for all professionals.[11]  However, the common law has evolved to recognize both that the over confidence in the medical profession to set its own standards and the under confidence in a jury’s ability to judge medical care, was misplaced.  As is noted by Philip Peters, Jr. in Modernizing the Medical Malpractice Standard of Care, Southwestern Law Journal, Vol. 52, p. 465-477, the evidence is now overwhelming that physician care is affected by financial incentives and disincentives[12] and that jurors are able to parse medical evidence to decide what is reasonable.[13]  Mr. Peters concludes from a raft of statistical evidence that juries are aware of their limited expertise and are unwilling to find against a physician if they have any doubt about the merits.[14]  The present understanding is that the custom based approach both under protects and over protects physicians.  It under protects physicians who follow up to date evidence-based medicine and over-protects doctors who practice obsolete medicine. The Jurisdiction where I mostly practice, Pennsylvania, has a mixed custom and reasonable care- based approach to physician standard of care, instructing jurors to consider what care is “normally used” but also requiring that the physician “keep informed of contemporary developments” and use “current skills and knowledge.”[15]   Similarly, most states no longer excuse conduct based solely on what other physicians do.[16]   As aptly recognized, “Negligence cannot be excused…on the grounds that others practice the same kind of negligence.”[17]  Even in states where caselaw seems to suggest a custom based approach, Judge’s allow experts to offer opinion as to whether the physician conduct was reasonable because each case facts vary in such ways to prevent a standard approach and it is likely impossible for experts to know whether a fraction of doctors would have acted similarly to the defendant.[18]  Recognizing the limitations of judging medical malpractice by prevailing standards[19], The American Law Institute has offered the following formulation to explain the Standard of Reasonable Care in Section 5:                § 5.  Standard of Reasonable Care(a)    The standard of reasonable medical care is the care, skill, and knowledge regarded as competent among similar medical providers in the same or similar circumstances.(b)    Circumstances that may be relevant in determining what constitutes reasonable medical care in a specific situation include, but are not limited to:(1)    The patient’s medical condition and medically relevant personal characteristics;(2)    The state of medical knowledge and the treatment options available at the time;(3)    Resources available to the provider in the particular location or practice setting;(4)    Whether the professional standards described in Subsection (a) differ among groups of providers; and(5)    Any representations the provider made to the patient or public about the provider’s level of care, skill, experience, or scope of practice.Some things are immediately apparent.  First, there is no independent significance to the defendant’s training or experience.  Although such evidence is properly admitted, the key question is whether the physician performed competently.  The standard does not hold physicians to level of care that is average but recognizes that those with less than average skill can still act competently.  The committee pointed out in the comments that the medical standard of care is what other peers in the profession regard as acceptable.[20]Second, there is no “error in judgment” rule since Section 5(b)(4), or the “two schools of thought” defense, encompasses this concept of reasonable differences of opinion, and recognizes that the error in judgment jury instruction conveys the incorrect principle that medical professionals are not responsible for negligence so long as their behavior was well-intentioned.[21]  Third, statements made by providers or physicians admitting substandard care or representing themselves as having a certain level of expertise or results may help establish the standard of care, and even a violation of the standard of care, if the statements are sufficiently “detailed and direct”.   See Section 5(b)(5).  The Comments offer an illustration of this point at Comment e, Illustration #2 and 3:                2. During surgery, Dr. Packman applies too much pressure to a needle, causing it to break and injure the patient.  Debriefing with the patient after surgery, Dr. Packman confesses that “I bet the needle wouldn’t have broken if I had used a different one.  I am really sorry I didn’t.”  The comment points out that this statement, by itself, is not sufficient to create a triable issue on medical negligence because it can plausibly be interpreted as reflecting personal regret rather than admitting to a breach of the standard of care.                 3. Same facts as #2, except that a colleague testifies to a conversation in which Dr. Packman told him, “I know I was supposed to use a different needle, but I forgot to stock it on the instrument tray, so I guess I really screwed up.”   The Comments note this statement against interest is sufficient for the factfinder to conclude that Dr. Packman breached the standard of care without expert testimony.[22]Beware how the New Restatement Defines Breach of the Standard of CareLitigation in medical malpractice cases focuses on what practice or evidence-based guidelines exist, whether the guideline is generally accepted or considered authoritative, whether or the guideline applies to the particular circumstances involved in the case, and finally whether the guideline was followed or breached.  Beware that the new Restatement offers a complete defense for the defendant which does not apply to the plaintiff to prove breach of the standard of care.  See § 6 (b) below.                § 6. Establishing Breach of the Standard of Care(a)    Breach of the medical standard of care specified in § 5 must be established through the testimony of a qualified expert….(the remainder of (a) offers situations when an expert is not necessary)(b)    Proof that the provider complied with a practice guideline established by an authoritative body is sufficient to support, although not compel, a finding that the provider did not breach the standard of care under § 5.   (my emphasis supplied). Tellingly, the Restatement does not allow for proof that the provider did not comply with a practice guideline as sufficient to prove breach of the standard of care. The Restatement encourages judges and juries to consider evidence that a defendant followed guidelines as exculpatory, albeit not an absolute safe harbor, but a plaintiff’s proof that the defendant failed to abide by the guideline is not sufficient to establish negligence.  The Restatement specifically identifies adherence to evidence-based guidelines as sufficient evidence that the standard of care was met, but not that it was violated.  According to the Restatement approach, the evidence-based guideline is an almost impenetrable shield but not deadly when used as a sword.  Most troublesome, the “practice guideline” is admissible as substantive evidence that can constitute exculpatory evidence alone, without expert testimony. The Comments to the Restatement recognize that there is limited case-law support for Subsection (b), but offers three reasons why allowing a defendant to be found not liable for following a relevant practice guideline established by an authoritative body is appropriate.  It argues first that the authoritative bodies deliberations avoid the subjective elements that characterize an expert’s judgments about competent medical practice.  Second, the authoritative body can be expected to reflect collective professional opinion more reliably than experts hand-picked by a lawyer.  Third, standards aim for an optimal level of care, more than just merely competent care. Beware the defense attempting to ask a court to adopt section 6(b).  Guidelines are hearsay.  No case-law establishes these as self-authenticating.  Allowing guidelines to be introduced as substantive evidence as opposed to through a witness precludes cross examination.  The learned treatise rule exists to ensure that such guidelines should be introduced only through the testimony of an expert who can be cross-examined.  Section 6(b), therefore, emphasizes the importance of evidence-based guidelines but may also intrude upon the learned treatise rule which allows the evidence of the guideline both as inculpatory and exculpatory evidence.[23]    The new Restatement Comments section offers examples to the courts as to how to determine if a particular guideline meets the criteria to allow the defense to use it as a shield.  1.       Whether the organization that issued the guideline has appropriate expertise and integrity. 2.       Whether the organization speaks with authority for a relevant portion of the medical community. 3.       Whether the organization that issued the guideline did so after a period of careful deliberation. 4.       Whether the guideline was designed to guide medical care in the best interests of patients.  The List of Topics Covered by the New RestatementThe new Restatement addresses the following: § 1 Patient and Provider Defined § 2 Patient-Care Relationship § 3 Duties to Patients and Others § 4 Liability for Breach of Duty § 5 Standard of Reasonable Medical Care § 6 Establishing Breach of the Standard of Care § 7 Res Ipsa Loquitur § 8 Lost Chance § 9 Agreements Affecting Medical Liability § 10 No Waiver of Liability § 11 Agreements to Take a Nonstandard Approach to Care § 12 Informed Consent: Duty and Exceptions § 13 Informed Consent: Factual Cause and Scope of Liability § 14 Medical Institutions’ Duties § 15 Vicarious Liability  ConclusionFive years in the making and approved in May 2024, the medical malpractice Restatement, seeks to present a comprehensive synthesis of existing doctrine and modernization of the law. Fundamentally it shifts the standard of care from strict reliance on medical custom to a reasonableness standard and emphasizes evidence-based medicine.   Its emphasis on evidence-based medicine, and its specific creation of a complete defense for following evidence-based medicine while also not permitting a finding a liability for failing to follow it, is likely to elevate the battle over what evidence-based medicine exists and its reliability.  Expect the new Restatement to be cited for approval by trial courts by the party that believes the language best supports its cause.  The Restatement of the Law Third Torts: Medical Malpractice, can be purchased by contacting the American Law Institute in Philadelphia.  [1] JAMA, doi:10.1001/jama.2025.0097, published online February 26, 2025.  [2] See AMA website, ama-assn.org.  [3] See the American Law Institute website[4] JAMA, supra. [5] JAMA, supra., citing Eddy, DM.  The Origins of Evidence Based Medicine-a personal perspective.  Virtual Mentor.  2011:13(1):55-60.  [6] The new Restatement offers numerous examples of contemporary appellate decisions articulating a central focus on customary practice.  See the Reporter’s Note to Section 5 which cites numerous examples   including Nebraska (Hemsley v. Langdon 909 N.W. 2d 59, 67 (Neb. 2018), Connecticut (Guerri v. Fiengo, 49 A.3d 243, 247 (Conn. Ct App. 2012), Wisconsin (Nowatske v. Osterloh, 543 N.W. 2d 265, 273 (Wis. 1996); Nevada ((Bronneke v. Rutherford, 89 P.3d 40, 45-46 (Nev. 2004); New Jersey (Hutchinson v. Atlantic City Medical Ctr. 715 A.2d 348, 353 (N.J. Super Ct. App. Div. 1998); and numerous other state decisions, and federal court decisions applying state law.      [7] Philip G. Peters, Jr., Modernizing the Medical Malpractice Standard of Care, Southwestern Law Journal, Vol. 52, p. 465, citing RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF TORTS, MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS § 4 cmt. E (AM. L. INST., Council Draft No. 4, 2022) (stating that in general tort law, customary practices are probative but not determinative of reasonable care”).  Subsequently, the medical malpractice provisions of the ALI Miscellaneous Provisions project were spun off into a distinct Medical Malpractice Project.  The standard of care definition is now in section 5 of RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF TORTS: MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (AM. L. INST. Council Draft No. 1, 2023).  [8] Id. at 466, citing, W. Page Keeton, et al, Prosser and Keeton on Torts, § 32, at 189 (5th Ed. 1984)[9] “Id. at 467 (citations omitted).  [10] Seifert v. Balink, 888 N.W.2d 816, 840 (Wis. 2017)[11] See Philip G. Peters, Jr., Modernizing the Medical Malpractice Standard of Care, Southwestern Law Journal, Vol. 52, p. 465,468 citing Comment c to section 4 of the Liability for Economic Harm: “it is more practicable for [the jury] to say whether the professional’s acts were consistent with standard practice in the profession than to say whether the acts were reasonable.”[12] Mr. Peters in Modernizing the Medical Malpractice Standard of Care, supra. offers numerous examples of obsolete medicine (e.g. oncologist confidence in radical mastectomies thwarting clinical trials) and of financial incentives (e.g. early discharge of patients, skipping expensive referrals or diagnostic procedures, surgeons performing surgery aggressively for pain).   [13] See Philip G. Peters, Jr. Doctors and Juries, 105 MICH. L. REV. 1453, 1476 (2007).  [14] Modernizing the Medical Malpractice Standard of Care,” Southwestern Law Journal, Vol. 52, p. 465, at 474.  [15] Pennsylvania Suggested Standard Civil Jury Instructions, Fifth Edition, 2020, § 14.10.[16] See Modernizing the Medical Malpractice Standard of Care, supra. P. 469.  [17] Id. citing Vassos v. Roussalis, 625 P.2d 768, 772 (Wyo. 1981)[18] Id. at 469.[19] RESTATEMENT OF THE LAW THIRD TORTS: MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, § 5, Comments, ALI notes four impractical basis for the custom based approach: it falls short of what medical professionals themselves regard as competent and it should be no defense that other providers render similarly deficient care; unique circumstances of each case prevent a standard approach to emerge and so there is no established practice; the existence or content of a prevailing approach will be difficult to discern; even when clear consensus exists, circumstances may justify deviating from the consensus.[20] Id. See Comment e.[21]Id.  See Comment l.  [22] This writer would never advocate trying to rely upon a statement against interest as anything other than corroborative evidence supporting your expert’s testimony.[23] In Pennsylvania state court, unlike in Federal Court, learned treatises are not permitted as either inculpatory or exculpatory evidence, but merely can be used to impeach the opponent’s expert witness.  See Majdic v. Cincinnati Macine Co. 537 A.2d 334 (Pa. Super. 1988). , Author, Restatement third, Medical Malpractice: Beware!, AIEG Voice, Trial Lawyers, 2025
• Fast & Furious movie fans will remember that actor Paul Walker survived the violence of a crash in his Porsche but burned to death in the fire that followed.  Actress Anne Heche also died in a crash that she survived, only to die in the fire which followed.   Most fire injuries occur because of manufacturing issues and are not the victim’s fault.  Very rarely is the cause of the fire the actual crash.  Fires following crashes occur often because of a release of fuel.  A post-collision fuel fed fire often occurs due to a defect in the vehicle.Fuel Fed FiresPost-collision fuel fed fires are the number 1 cause of car crash deaths.  There were 174,000 highway vehicle fires in 2021.  This is down from 456,000 in 1980.  Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 301, the purpose of which is to reduce deaths and injuries occurring from fires that result from fuel spillage during and after crashes, was first in effect in 1968 and requires vehicles to withstand certain specified impact tests ranging from 20-30 mph without leaking fuel in excess of 1 ounce per minute.   But merely complying with this guideline does not make the vehicle safe for its intended uses.  The Consumer Product Safety Commission suggests as “best practices” that the manufacturer consider foreseeable consumer use and misuse of the vehicle. Also, there are many vehicles in use, ATVs, side by sides, snowmobiles, wave runners, boats, to list a few, that are not governed by the Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, and governed only by standards established by their own industry developed and run organizations.  Burn InjuriesPersons burned in post-collision fuel fed fires typically suffer 3rd and 4th degree burns resulting in the need for extensive skin grafting and permanent scarring.  Burn injuries are devastating, life altering, require lengthy painful treatment and a lifetime of physical and mental scarring.  Ther costs of medical treatment can be in the millions of dollars.  The loss of income can be permanent and life-long.  The loss of self esteem due to disfiguring burns can be the worst injury of all.  Burns range from 1st degree, like a bad sunburn, are rarely permanent and easily treated with over-the-counter salves, to 4th degree burns, which damage every layer of skin and muscles, nerves and bones below.  Can I recover my damages caused by a fuel fed fire?               Yes.  The law requires that all products be safe for their intended and foreseeable uses.  A company has a duty to design, manufacture, distribute, lease or sell products that are not defective.  Even if the company took all possible care in design and manufacture, such as following industry or Federal guidelines, if the danger is unknowable and unacceptable to the average customer, then the product is defective If a jury determines that the product is defective and that the defect caused the fire which caused the injuries, the jury will decide what amount of money fairly compensates you for your past and future medical costs, your past and future lost wages, and most significantly, your physical pain and emotional distress.  Can Baratta Law help?               Yes.  Baratta Law has represented a number of clients against major vehicle manufacturers and suppliers.  These cases require immediate investigation and preservation of evidence.  These manufacturers, as soon as they learn about a fuel fed fire incident, immediately hire investigators, fire experts and lawyers to protect them.  If you don’t hire a capable lawyer, who is experienced in the prosecution of these cases and has the ability to fund the great expense of the fight, you may not be able to properly hold accountable the companies responsible for the defective product. Baratta Law works thousands of hours and pays the hundreds of thousands of dollars to fight for you and you pay nothing unless the fight is won.   , author, Post-Collision Fuel Fed Fires are Not Your Fault, General population, 2024
• This article discusses the use of Audit Trails in medical malpractice cases, Author, Mining for the Truth in Medical Malpractice Cases, AIEG Voice, Trial Lawyers, 2023
• Burn injuries are devastating, life altering, require lengthy painful treatment and a lifetime of physical and mental scarring.  Ther costs of medical treatment can be in the millions of dollars.  The loss of income can be permanent and life-long.  The loss of self esteem due to disfiguring burns can be the worst injury of all.   Burns range from 1st degree, like a bad sunburn, are rarely permanent and easily treated with over the counter salves, to 4th degree burns, which damage every layer of skin and muscles, nerves and bones below.  Persons burned in post-collision fuel fed fires typically suffer 3rd and 4th degree burns resulting in the need for extensive skin grafting and permanent scarring.  Fuel-Fed Fires in Crashes:                Post-collision fuel fed fires are the number 1 cause of car crash deaths.  There were 174,000 highway vehicle fires in 2021.  This is down from 456,000 in 1980.  Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 301, the purpose of which is to reduce deaths and injuries occurring from fires that result from fuel spillage during and after crashes, was first in effect in 1968 and requires vehicles to withstand certain specified impact tests ranging from 20-30 mph without leaking fuel in excess of 1 ounce per minute.   But merely complying with this guideline does not make the vehicle safe for its intended uses.  The Consumer Product Safety Commission suggests as “best practices” that the manufacturer consider foreseeable consumer use and misuse of the vehicle., Author, Motor Vehicle Post-Collision Fuel Fed Fires Are Not Your Fault, 2023
• Under civil laws, accidents that cause death or serious injury to a person make the party at fault liable for economic and non-economic damages. The injured party or the family of the deceased has the right to seek damages and compensation from the person at fault in the accident. But not every civil wrong, tort, or wrongful death case goes according to plan. It’s one thing to get seriously injured or to experience the loss of a loved one because of the fault of another. But proving it in court is a different ball game. The victims or their families must prove that the injury or wrongful death was indeed the result of another person’s deliberate or negligent acts. That’s where the importance of having evidence comes in. If the victims or their families are equipped with the evidence to prove the civil wrong, they have a higher chance of recovering compensation and damages from the party at fault.   Preserving Evidence After a Serious Accident: A Case Study After a serious accident, the first thing a victim should do is to seek medical attention. Afterward, they should take photos of the accident scene, get the information of the other party involved in the accident, and identify key witnesses, among others. All forms of evidence that can serve as proof of the accident should be preserved as much as possible. This is also where having an attorney becomes important, as experts know what to do and how to preserve the evidence of the accident for the court. Take for example a motor vehicle collision, one of the most common causes of accidents resulting in injuries and death. A motor vehicle driver, for example, is driving under the influence and blows through a red light, which causes a car crash. The car that was hit is set on fire. In this instance, the responsible or at-fault party is the drunk driver. However, they do not have enough liability insurance to properly and fairly compensate the victim for the injuries caused. Now, it’s the lawyer’s job to preserve evidence, i.e. the car belonging to the victim. An attorney will then ask crucial questions to determine how and why it caught on fire. Was it because of a ruptured fuel tank? Did something burst and create a fire situation? If so, it’s not only the drunk driver who can be held liable for the damages. The victim can also sue the vehicle manufacturer for the breach of their obligation to anticipate the accident or injuries caused by regular and customary use of the product. If the lawyer did not preserve the vehicle that burst into flames as evidence, the victim or injured party may forever lose the right and opportunity to have that vehicle preserved, inspected, and evaluated. Without this piece of evidence, it will be nearly impossible for the injured party to make a solid case.   Why Is It Important to Preserve Evidence? It’s vitally important that all evidence of a serious accident is preserved and maintained for later inspection by the appropriate experts. Preserving evidence not only helps gather the proof needed to create a solid case, but it also protects the injured party from losing incredibly valuable rights and allowing them to recover the compensation and damages that they deserve., Author, Why Preserving Evidence After a Serious Accident is Extremely Important, 2022
• Every day, we use products to help us accomplish our tasks and fulfill our obligations. When we buy something, we are in fact, relying on the manufacturer of those products and putting our safety and security in their hands. We trust that their products are safe for our use. If you are using products in the way they are intended, yet become seriously injured because of it, you can have a potential claim against the manufacturer. This is called product liability., Author, When Use of a Product Causes Severe Injury, Baratta, Russell & Baratta blog, 2020
• Driving to and from work every day may seem like a normal occurrence. Because we do it all the time, we start getting too confident in our safety. But no matter how religiously you follow traffic rules, there is no assurance that other motorists are doing the same. Car accidents happen every day, many times per day. And the results are devastating not only for the drivers but for their families. Lawyers encounter cases all the time when clients suffer serious injuries due to auto accidents, yet are faced with the frustration of not being able to recover enough compensation even to cover the medical bills. Therein lies the importance of having an auto insurance policy, particularly an Under-Insured Motorist Insurance or UIM., Author, The Importance of Under-Insured Motorist (UIM) Insurance, Baratta, Russell & Baratta blog, 2020
• Speaker at a Philadelphia Trial Lawyer CLE function in which a verdict of over 4 million dollars achieved in a Philadelphia County trial regarding the failure to treat a bile leak following a laprascopic cholecystectomy was discussed., Speaker, How to Win Impossible Cases, Philadelphia Trial Lawyers
• As discussed in my previous blogs, a Mild Traumatic Brain Injury (MTBI) most likely cannot be seen on any x-ray type studies.  Since symptoms may take a long time to manifest and there exist alternative causes for the symptoms, proving a causal connection between the traumatic event and the brain injury requires a vigorous advocate with experience handling brain injury cases.  Cases can be lost even when a wrongdoer has been clearly negligent if such a lawyer is not retained. There are 3 main ways I work with my clients to ensure that I can prove the injury was caused by the trauma., 3 Successful Ways I Prove Mild Traumatic Brain Injury (MTBI), barattarussell.com blog, 2015
• "When a Patient Commits Suicide, Who is to Blame?", American Journal of Psychiatry
•  According to the CDC, head injury results in 138 deaths daily and close to 3 million emergency department visits annually.   Falls are the leading cause of brain injuries, about 40%.  Other causes include being hit in the head unintentionally with an object (15%), motor vehicle crashes (14%) and physical assaults (10%).        Those who suffer a brain injury due to the carelessness of another need an attorney who understands these very difficult to diagnose and treat injuries.  The character of Jordan Belfour in the movie, The Wolf of Wall Street said: “If you think it’s expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur.”   I am passionate about understanding and educating others about brain injuries., Hiring the Right Lawyer for Brain Injury, 2015
• The Assessment of Decision-making Capacity after Acquired Brain Injury: Legal and Neuropsychological Perspectives – Determining decision-making capacity after acquired brain injury is a challenging task even for the most experienced clinician. In this presentation, we present the medico-legal issues and process related to determining capacity, the research and recommendations regarding the components of a capacity evaluation, and clinical case examples outlining the process of assessment., Speaker, Brain Injury Association of Pennsylvania Annual Conference, 2015
• In 2017 the lawyers of Baratta, Russell and Baratta achieved life changing results for many clients.  Below are some of the highlights of 2017. These clients, these heroes, all had one thing in common: a careless actor had changed their life. , 2017 - A Year in Review, 2018
• Go find your automobile insurance policy and look at the Declarations Page. Let’s make sure you have enough coverage to protect yourself and your loved ones. We are going to focus on two areas of auto insurance that people tend to overlook., 2 Reasons Why You Need to Look at Your Auto Insurance Policy – IMMEDIATELY, 2018
• You followed the rules and did everything carefully but someone else didn’t, and now you are suffering the consequences of pain, lost time from work, mounting medical costs and the fear that the life as you knew it has been stolen from you.  Meanwhile the careless person gets to live their life as if nothing happened.Why are you the one suffering all the consequences when you did everything the right way?  Why does the person who caused the harm suffer nothing?  What can you do?, Our 10 Rules for Success in YOUR Personal Injury Claim, 2018
• CLE Presentation at the Crystal Tea room on 3/29/2018, Speaker, CLE- Effective Ethical Negotiation, 2018
• A trial lawyer and forensic psychiatrist explain how to prove physician negligence can cause or fail to prevent suicide, Co-Author, When a Patient Commits Suicide, Who is the Blame?, American Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, Volume 27, Issue 2, 2006

Other Outstanding Achievements

• Awarded Philadelphia VIP Volunteer of the Month for August 2010 for representing indigent motor vehicle owner at trial in a personal injury case. , 2010
• Recipient of the First Judicial District Pro Bono Award for the Civil Trial Division in Philadelphia., 2018

Honors

• Co-Champion of Moot Court Honor Society's Polsky Moot Court Competition, Temple Law School, 1988
• 2008 and recertified  in 2013, 2018, 2023, Nationally Certified Civil Trial Advocate, Nationally Certified Civil Trial Advocate, 2026
• AV Preeminent* from Martindale Hubbell, Martindale Hubbell, 2025
• Millions Dollar Advocate - Trial Lawyers who have demonstrated exceptional skill, experience and excellence in advocacy by achieving trial verdicts and settlements in excess of 1 million dollars., Member, Million Dollar Advocates Forum, 2025

Industry Groups

• Brain Injury Association Of PA

“Simply the best in his field”

“I have had the pleasure of working on several matters with Anthony and have been impressed by his attention to detail and his dedication to do what is right for his clients. He is an effective communicator who will dig to the center of the earth to find the truth on behalf of his client. On top of all of that he is a great person who is always willing to lend a helping hand.”