PART VII
CIVIL ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS
Chapter
71. General Provisions
73. Arbitration
74. Collaborative Law Process
75. Commencement of Actions
77. Trial
79. Post-trial Matters
81. Judgments and Other Liens
83. Particular Rights and Immunities
85. Matters Affecting Government Units
Enactment. Part VII was added July 9, 1976, P.L.586, No.142, effective 60 days from the date
of final enactment of the act of April 28, 1978, P.L.202, No.53.
CHAPTER 71
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec.
7101. Settlements and other agreements with hospitalized persons.
7102. Comparative negligence.
7103. Interpreters for the deaf (Deleted by amendment).
Enactment. Chapter 71 was added July 9, 1976, P.L.586, No.142, effective 60 days from the date
of final enactment of the act of April 28, 1978, P.L.202, No.53.
§ 7101. Settlements and other agreements with hospitalized persons.
(a) General rule.--
(1) No person whose interest is or may become adverse to a person injured who is confined
to a hospital or sanitarium as a patient shall, within 15 days after the date of the
occurrence causing the injury to such patient:
(i) Negotiate or attempt to negotiate a settlement with such patient.
(ii) Obtain or attempt to obtain a general release of liability from such patient.
(iii) Obtain or attempt to obtain any statement, either written or oral, from such patient
for use in negotiating a settlement or obtaining a release.
(2) Any settlement agreement entered into, any general release of liability or any written
or oral statement made by any person who is confined in a hospital or sanitarium after
he incurs a personal injury, which is not obtained in accordance with the provisions
of subsection (b) shall not be admissible in evidence in any matter relating to the
injury and shall not be utilized for any purpose in any matter in connection therewith.
(3) Where a person is injured and confined as a patient to a hospital or sanitarium due
to such injuries, no attorney shall, during the first 15 days of the confinement of
such patient, enter or attempt to enter into an agreement relating to compensation
wholly or partly on a contingent basis with such patient in connection with his injuries.
(b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply if at least five days prior to obtaining the settlement,
release, statement or contingent fee agreement, the injured person has signified in
writing, by a statement acknowledged before a notary public who has no interest adverse
to the injured person, his willingness that a settlement, release, statement or contingent
fee agreement be given or entered into.
Notes of Decisions
Lloyd v. Fishinger, 605 A.2d 1193 (Pa. 1992).
· cites it 6× “3 The Fishingers filed preliminary objections to the complaint alleging the invalidity of the contingent fee agreement on the basis of 42 Pa.C.S. § 7101(a)(3), entitled Settlements and other agreements with hospitalized persons, which provides in pertinent part: Where a person…”
City of Pittsburgh v. Silver, 50 A.3d 296 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2012).
“§ 7101(a)(3), was an unconstitutional attempt by the legislature to enact rules of conduct relating to an attorney’s solicitation of clients, an area exclusively regulated by the Supreme Court through the Rules of Professional Conduct).”
Anderson v. Commonwealth, 414 A.2d 774 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1980).
“202, as amended, and was replaced by Section 7101 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa. C.S. §7101. Section 7101 of the Judicial Code provides that the statements which are inadmissible as evidence are those taken while an injured person is confined to a hospital and taken for the…”
Ludwig v. Osterland, 5 Pa. D. & C.4th 340 (1989).
· cites it 3× “*343 The basis of the motion and objections was 42 Pa.C.S. §7101 which provides in pertinent part as follows: “§7101.”
Walker v. Gen. Motors Corp., 587 A.2d 308 (Pa. 1991).
· cites it 2× “The Petition for Review was granted limited to the construction of 42 Pa.C.S. § 7101 in the context of this case.”
Commonwealth v. Stern, 23 Pa. D. & C.4th 21 (1995).
· cites it 2× “In Lloyd, the Supreme Court on constitutional grounds, overturned 42 Pa.C.S. §7101(a)(3). This civil statute regulated the conduct of attorneys by regulating the time within which an attorney could enter into a contingency fee agreement with a hospitalized client.”
Crockett v. Waller-Smith, 63 Va. Cir. 562 (Roanoke County Cir. Ct. 2004).
“Stat. Ann. tit. 17, § 3964 ; Md. Code Ann., Cts.”
Mummery v. Farley, 32 Pa. D. & C.3d 307 (1984).
“On April 28, 1978, the Comparative Negligence Act (42 Pa. C.S. §7101 et seq.) was passed: §7102.”
42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 7101(a)(1): 1 case
Ludwig v. Osterland, 5 Pa. D. & C.4th 340 (1989).
“*343 The basis of the motion and objections was 42 Pa.C.S. §7101 which provides in pertinent part as follows: “§7101.”
42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 7101(a)(3): 3 cases
Lloyd v. Fishinger, 605 A.2d 1193 (Pa. 1992).
“3 The Fishingers filed preliminary objections to the complaint alleging the invalidity of the contingent fee agreement on the basis of 42 Pa.C.S. § 7101(a)(3), entitled Settlements and other agreements with hospitalized persons, which provides in pertinent part: Where a person…”
City of Pittsburgh v. Silver, 50 A.3d 296 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2012).
“§ 7101(a)(3), was an unconstitutional attempt by the legislature to enact rules of conduct relating to an attorney’s solicitation of clients, an area exclusively regulated by the Supreme Court through the Rules of Professional Conduct).”
Commonwealth v. Stern, 23 Pa. D. & C.4th 21 (1995).
“In Lloyd, the Supreme Court on constitutional grounds, overturned 42 Pa.C.S. §7101(a)(3). This civil statute regulated the conduct of attorneys by regulating the time within which an attorney could enter into a contingency fee agreement with a hospitalized client.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.