Law firm awarded $500K from Shick settlement
A law firm that represented the family of a man who died in the Western Psychiatric Institute & Clinic shooting will receive more than a half-million dollars for its work.
Allegheny County Common Pleas Judge Lawrence O'Toole on Friday awarded Farrell & Reisinger LLC, Downtown, $507,836 in attorneys' fees from a $1.5 million settlement between UPMC and the parents of Michael Schaab, a therapist killed when John Shick, 30, walked into Western Psych in Oakland with two handguns and opened fire on March 8, 2012. University of Pittsburgh police shot and killed Shick.
Schaab's parents, Harry and Nancy Schaab, hired Farrell & Reisinger on March 29, 2012, to represent them in the civil lawsuit against UPMC. Court documents show the couple agreed to pay 35 percent of any award to the firm, or 33 percent if the case was resolved without formal litigation.
On July 20, 2012, both sides agreed to a $1.5 million settlement, but the Schaabs failed to sign the formal release, in part because they wanted to sue Shick's estate and parents. Farrell & Reisinger did not.
The Schaabs terminated the firm and hired attorney Michael O'Day to represent them. Farrell & Reisinger then filed a petition to collect, and the Schaabs sued the firm for breach of contract. Neither the Schaabs nor attorney William Pietragallo, who represents the firm, could be reached.
O'Toole said in his decision that the release “was merely wrap-up paperwork,” and the settlement “demonstrates substantial expertise” because Schaab's death would have been covered under the workers' compensation statute.
Adam Brandolph is a Trib Total Media staff writer. Reach him at 412-391-0927 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.