O'Donnell Law

Social Media Negligence

Samuel O'Connell — Wed, 01 Apr 2026 20:11:35 +0000

Author: Neil O'Donnell and Connor Graham

A California jury recently issued a 7-figure verdict against social media giants that were accused of negligently designing their apps to be addictive to adolescents and children.¹

In terms of profits and audience capture, social media has been an economic success. A 2024 Pew Research article found that one-third of teen use these sites “constantly.”² That same report noted nearly all teens, 96% in fact, use the internet daily. YouTube, owned by Google, is reportedly used by 90% of US teens ages 13 to 17, making it the most popular site. Meta’s offerings have a strong hold on the market. 61% of the aforementioned teens use Instagram; 51% Snapchat; 32% Facebook; 23% WhatsApp; and 6% Threads.

Social media companies receive frequent criticism for the potentially addictive nature their technology possesses, especially when it comes to children. Many fear that the algorithms behind these products (ie., how the sites determine what videos to suggest to users) are addictive to children, which are detrimental to their mental health and development. About 81% of US adults favor parental consent for minors to use social media (only 45% of teens are in favor of such measures).³ Similarly, around 70% of adults support age verification and time limits for minors using social media sites.

Social media giants have avoided potential liability through legislation such as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Such legislation protects companies from the content posted on their sites. In essence, the host company is unlikely to be found liable for objectionable content on their platforms posted by anonymous users.

The recent case out of California cleared this hurdle by focusing on design rather than content. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that the companies negligently designed the apps and failed to effectively warn about the dangers of their products. This argument was a winner for the jury, which awarded $3 million to the Plaintiff in compensatory damages, and issued $3 million in punitive damages. Meta and Google were found 70% and 30% responsible for Plaintiff’s injuries, respectively.

The case is an important bellwether as thousands of similar lawsuits across the country are being brought against social media companies. While $6 million is effectively nothing to these companies, the magnitude of litigation by victims alleging serious harm is certainly compelling.

Sources & References

¹ Meghan Bobrowsky, Erich Schwartzel, and Katherine Sayre, Meta, YouTube Found Addictive, Harmful , The Wall Street Journal (March 26, 2026).
² Michelle Faverio and Olivia Sidoti, Teens, Social Media and Technology 2024 , Pew Research Center. Accessed March 30, 2026.
³ Michelle Faverio and Monica Anderson, 81% of U.S. adults – versus 46% of teens – favor parental consent for minors to use social media , Pew Research Center. Accessed March 30, 2026.

About O'Donnell Law Offices

O’Donnell Law Offices is a trusted personal injury and workers’ compensation law firm proudly serving clients throughout Wilkes-Barre, Scranton, and Northeastern Pennsylvania for more than 35 years. With a strong reputation built on results, integrity, and personalized service, our attorneys are committed to helping individuals and families navigate some of life’s most challenging moments.

Our legal team represents clients in a wide range of cases, including car accidents, truck accidents, workplace injuries, medical malpractice, Social Security Disability claims, and premises liability matters. Whether you’ve been injured on the job or due to someone else’s negligence, we provide experienced guidance and aggressive advocacy every step of the way.

At O’Donnell Law Offices, we combine deep local roots with a modern, client-focused approach. We understand the unique needs of individuals in Luzerne County, Lackawanna County, and surrounding communities, and we are proud to stand alongside our neighbors when they need it most.

If you’ve been injured in Wilkes-Barre, Scranton, or anywhere in Northeastern Pennsylvania, our team is here to help you pursue the compensation you deserve. Contact O’Donnell Law Offices today or visit odonnell-law.com to learn more about how we can assist you.

The post Social Media Negligence first appeared on O'Donnell Law.

Don’t Skimp on Fire Safety

Samuel O'Connell — Fri, 20 Mar 2026 19:37:27 +0000

By attorney Neil T. O'Donnell

There has been a growing trend among states to ease fire safety rules.

Everyone pictures residential buildings possessing two fire escape stairways on either side of the structure. That concept was adopted roughly in the 20th century because those units were not well-equipped to handle fires. Today, standardized building codes typically default to two staircases as a minimum means of egress for occupational buildings.

Single-stairwell buildings are allowed under certain circumstances. However, some legislatures are looking to open more buildings to single-stairwells in the interest of lessening development costs.

Washington, for example, has recently permitted single-staircases for buildings up to six feet. Colorado allows the same for buildings up to five stories. Proponents of this shift often point to features of modern buildings, such as better sprinklers and fire-proof materials, which make developments safer. The chief concern, of course, is construction of safe and affordable housing. Proponents argue easing the stairway regulations would be a step toward freeing up space.

Fire organizations such as the IAFF and Metro Fire Chiefs are less inclined to this idea. These organizations have been making an effort to prevent single-stairwells from becoming the norm. In case of fire, firefighters would have to use the same stairwell that families use to go down. While fire alarms and sprinklers have improved, they are still imperfect systems. Having multiple methods of egress is important because stairways may become compromised by exceptional levels of smoke.

Developing housing is important, but we should not sacrifice safety in the process.

Sources

1. See Section 1006.3.3 of the 2021 International Building Code.

2. Keith Schneider, Easing Fire Safety Rules to Cut Costs, The New York Times (March 12, 2026).

If you’ve been injured due to unsafe property conditions, contact O’Donnell Law Offices—we can help.

Premises liability cases arise when unsafe property conditions lead to serious injuries—whether from slip and falls, inadequate maintenance, poor lighting, or negligent security. Property owners have a responsibility to keep their spaces safe, and when they fail to do so, the consequences can be life-altering.

At O’Donnell Law Offices, our team has extensive experience handling premises liability claims and advocating for individuals and families who have been injured due to unsafe conditions. Serving clients in Wilkes-Barre, Scranton, and throughout Northeastern Pennsylvania, we are committed to holding negligent parties accountable and helping our clients pursue the compensation they deserve.

About the Author

Neil T. O'Donnell is an experienced attorney at O’Donnell Law Offices, serving clients throughout Northeastern Pennsylvania. Neil is known for his thoughtful legal insight and commitment to helping individuals and families navigate complex legal matters. Through his writing, he provides commentary on important issues that impact safety, rights, and the broader community.

The post Don’t Skimp on Fire Safety first appeared on O'Donnell Law.

Think Your Online Search History Is Private? Think Again.

Samuel O'Connell — Mon, 16 Mar 2026 18:17:50 +0000

Author: Neil T. O’Donnell

Last December, Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided Commonwealth v. Kurtz, 348 A.3d 133 (2025). That case involved State Police obtaining a “reverse keyword search” warrant for Google search records generated during the week of a reported assault. In plain words, the police asked Google to figure out who was researching the victim on their service during the week of the assault. One year later, Google informed police that an IP address associated with the Kurtz residence ran those searches during the specified time period.¹

The police then obtained a discarded cigarette butt near the home and found that Kurtz’s DNA matched that found at the scene.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision effectively means that there is no expectation of privacy in your internet search history in criminal cases, at least in the short term. Internet companies do not hold onto that history forever. However, the time frame can reach multiple years’ worth of information capable of being searched by an appropriate warrant. There is also the consideration of companies utilizing your data to adjust their algorithms.

The full implications of this decision to civil cases has yet to be determined. Stayed tuned.

¹ An IP address (“Internet Protocol”) is essentially like a phone number associated with your device connecting to a network.

About Neil T. O'Donnell

Neil T. O’Donnell is a trial attorney and founding partner of O’Donnell Law Offices in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. For more than three decades, he has represented individuals and families throughout Northeastern Pennsylvania in personal injury, workers’ compensation, and complex civil litigation matters. Known for his thoughtful analysis of emerging legal issues and his commitment to advocating for clients during difficult moments, Neil regularly writes about legal developments that may impact the public.

The post Think Your Online Search History Is Private? Think Again. first appeared on O'Donnell Law.

Internet Romance Scams: Love Is Blind

Samuel O'Connell — Wed, 11 Mar 2026 00:05:49 +0000

By Neil O’Donnell

Fraudsters have existed since time immemorial. One of the more recent time-tested forms of this deceit are romance scams. The scammer tricks the victim into surrendering their affection, and, over prolonged periods of time, uses that endearment to obtain money through false pretenses. These scams have been occurring for centuries, but the advent of the internet, and recently artificial intelligence, have made their stories more compelling. In a recent case, a Michigan man lost $3,000 to someone impersonating Jennifer Aniston.¹

Such events are not one-off occurrences, but part of an underground multi-billion dollar industry. Scam centers from countries such as India and Columbia hire employees, sometimes human trafficking victims, to carry out various aspects of the often prolonged scam. The industry obtained an estimated $1.16 billion within nine months in 2025 alone. Oftentimes these companies will lure victims through text or phone calls to build rapport. Once the relationship is established, they create a persona through actors or generative AI and trick victims so that they fall in love.

The scammer will begin to collect money once the connection is established. Up until recently this was done by having the victim send numerous gift cards, but companies have recently enacted increased protection to combat this method. Fraudsters compensate by having the victim learn how to transfer cryptocurrency, or they may resort to plain-old credit card theft.

How to Protect Yourself from Internet Romance Scams

Some important information to protect yourself. Scammers will eye potential victims of all ages, young or old, so long as there is money to steal. Be wary of unknown online presences which personally contact you and ask for your financial aid. Be wary if the individual says they cannot meet in person. Never send money to people you only communicate to through the internet or messaging services. Lastly, be careful of what information about yourself you post online because scammers use these intimate details to find their targets.

Footnote

¹ Mark Twain, Chapters From my Autobiography – IX, 184 The North American Review 1, 12 (January, 1907).

About the Author

Neil T. O’Donnell is an attorney at O’Donnell Law Offices with decades of experience representing individuals and families throughout Northeastern Pennsylvania. Throughout his career, Neil has built a reputation for strong advocacy and a commitment to helping people navigate complex legal issues.

At O’Donnell Law Offices, he focuses on protecting the rights of individuals who have been harmed by the negligence or misconduct of others. Neil and the team at the firm are dedicated to providing thoughtful legal guidance and pursuing the best possible outcomes for their clients.

The post Internet Romance Scams: Love Is Blind first appeared on O'Donnell Law.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court agrees that factual issues could allow for civil liability against co-worker

Michael O'Donnell — Fri, 06 Mar 2026 16:27:02 +0000

Author: Attorney Michael O’Donnell

On February 18, 2026, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s ruling reversing a Trial Court’s entry of summary judgment dismissing an injured man’s negligence lawsuit against his co-worker.

Brown v. Gaydos, begins as a result of September 1, 2016 incident where John Brown suffered injuries while working for American Concrete Solutions, Inc (ACS). Brown suffered crush injuries when the arm on a piece of industrial equipment, a skid loader, malfunctioned. There was no dispute that Brown was working for ACS at the time of injury and the workers’ compensation insurer for ACS paid benefits.

The skid loader was owned by George Gaydos, a part owner and a fellow employee at ACS. Factually significant, Gaydos owned, maintained, stored, and insured the skid loader individually and separate from his employment relationship with ACS. Gaydos occasionally loaned the skid loader to ACS for use in connection with ACS’s operations.

Section 72 of the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act (77 P.S. § 72) provides immunity from civil liability to a co-employee whose negligence caused injuries to a co-worker, so long as the injuries occur while the co-employee was in the same employ as the injured worker and acting within the course and scope of employment at the time of the incident.

Brown filed a negligence lawsuit against Gaydos in his individual capacity arguing that because Gaydos maintained the skid loader outside of his work with ACS, inspected, maintained, stored, and insured the skid loader in that individual capacity, and that because Gaydos was not present at ACS at the time of injury, that Gaydos did not enjoy the protections of co-employee immunity. The Trial Court sided with Gaydos finding that he was a co-employee of Brown and, as a result, was automatically immune from civil liability under Section 72. A three (3) Judge panel of the Superior Court reversed finding a factual dispute existed as to whether Gaydos and Brown were acting “acting in the same employ” when Brown was injured. The Superior Court found facts presented by Brown could establish co-employee immunity does not apply because of the custody and control over the skid loader. It was also noted that because Gaydos was not on the ACS job site at the time Brown was injured raises additional course and scope questions preventing entry of summary judgment.

Gaydos sought review by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which was granted.

A majority of the Supreme Court Justices affirmed the Superior Court’s ruling citing it’s 1971 decision in Apple v. Reichert, holding that co-employee immunity applies to acts occurring when the alleged negligent actor is in the same employ as the injured worker and acting within the course and scope of their employment at the time of the worker’s injury. Brown had alleged that Gaydos was negligent in maintaining the skid loader outside of the co-workers’ employment relationship with ACS. Additionally, Gaydos was not on site when Brown was injured leaving a factual dispute as to course and scope of employment at the time of injury. If Brown’s position is accepted by the fact-finder, it is possible for a jury to conclude that co-employee immunity did not apply making entry of summary judgment improper.

In short, a co-worker is not automatically immune from civil liability simply because the injured worker is employed by and works for the same employer. A closer analysis must be given to whether the alleged negligence occurred within the co-employee relationship and whether the negligence occurred while both workers were acting within the course of scope of employment at the time of injury.

About the Author

Attorney Michael A. O’Donnell is a lawyer at O’Donnell Law Offices in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. His practice focuses on representing individuals and families in personal injury and workers’ compensation matters throughout Northeastern Pennsylvania. Michael writes regularly about developments in Pennsylvania law and court decisions that may impact injured workers and their families.

The post Pennsylvania Supreme Court agrees that factual issues could allow for civil liability against co-worker first appeared on O'Donnell Law.

How is AI Impacting the Insurance Industry?

Samuel O'Connell — Mon, 02 Mar 2026 00:40:06 +0000

Authors: Attorney Neil O'Donnell and Attorney Connor Graham

How Artificial Intelligence Is Transforming the Health Insurance Industry

The health insurance industry has been integrating AI into their processing systems. Debate has begun on how to regulate it. While the ultimate effects on society remain nebulous, AI has proven to be transformative in certain fields. One of the most affected areas is data processing. The AI is capable of analyzing through thousands of pages of documents in a fraction of the time a human would take. Its outputs can flag important information missing from documents, and flag the important documents or information amidst hundreds of thousands of words. Health insurance companies have begun to move with gusto to take advantage of these perceived benefits.

Use of AI in Utilization Review, Prior Authorization, and Claims Processing

Many health insurers use AI in utilization review to determine whether coverage is applicable in a given case. Utilization review involves: Prior authorization (Physician preapproval of health procedures), concurrent review (assessing whether current health procedures are warranted), and decisions about claims for prior services rendered.¹ Other AI use cases involve fraud detection and risk adjustment.² In total, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners believes that 84% of health insurers use AI, or some form of machine learning, across their product lines.³

Public Trust Concerns Surrounding Artificial Intelligence in Health Care

The move to AI is not without issues, and chief among them is public trust. A recent survey found that roughly two-thirds of adults reported low trust in the health care system to responsibly utilize AI.⁴ For general trust in the health care system, that survey sample had a mean trust of 5.38 out of 12.⁵ A recent Fox poll finding 63% of votes are “very” or “extremely” concerned about AI, including majorities across the political spectrum.⁶

Legislative and Regulatory Scrutiny of AI in Health Insurance

Lawmakers in the House Ways and Means Committee summoned various health insurer executives to address affordability back in January. In that meeting, insurer executives were adamant that AI is not used in the claim denial process. Still, they were forthcoming when it came to AI use in the prior authorization process, which one executive described as having “friction.” These statements come as multiple states enact legislation restricting use of AI in health insurance, including California and Texas.⁷

Rhode Island, for example, is attempting to pass a bill restricting AI use in coverage denials. That bill failed to pass last year, with one Democratic State senator stating that insurers formed “tremendous opposition” to regulation targeting prior authorization and identifying intermediaries such as private insurers or pharmacy benefit managers. A renewed push for that bill is expected this year.

Federal Executive Orders and the Future of State AI Regulation

Under this umbrella of uncertainty, the Trump administration is issuing executive orders that restrict federal funding for any state that enacts “excessive” state regulation of AI. The constitutionality of that order notwithstanding, it shows a desire in higher echelons of government to curtail state regulation of the burgeoning AI sector.

Footnotes

¹Michelle M. Mello, et al., The AI Arms Race In Health Insurance Utilization Review: Promises of Efficiency and Risks of Supercharged Flaws, 45 Health Affairs 1, 6-13 (2026).

²National Association of Insurance Commissioners, Health insurance artificial intelligence/machine learning survey results, Kansas City (MO): NAIC; c 2025 [accessed Feb. 27, 2026]. Available from: https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/inline-files/NAIC%20AI%20Health%20Survey%20Report%20.pdf .

³Id.

⁴Paige Nong, PhD; Jodyn Platt, PhD, Patients’ Trust in Health Care Systems to Use Artificial Intelligence, 8 JAMA Network Open 2, e2460628 (2025).

⁵Id.

⁶Darius Tahir and Lauren Sausser, Should AI weigh in on your insurance?, The New York Times, (Feb. 24, 2026), at 2.

⁷Id.

About O'Donnell Law Offices

O'Donnell Law Offices has served individuals and families throughout Northeastern Pennsylvania for over 35 years. With offices in Wilkes-Barre and Scranton, the firm focuses on personal injury, workers’ compensation, and disability claims, advocating for clients facing serious injuries, workplace accidents, and complex insurance disputes. Led by experienced trial attorneys, the firm is committed to protecting the rights of injured Pennsylvanians and helping clients secure the compensation and benefits they deserve.

If you have questions about your rights or need legal guidance, contact O'Donnell Law Offices today to schedule a consultation. Call 570-821-5717 or visit our contact page to get started.

The post How is AI Impacting the Insurance Industry? first appeared on O'Donnell Law.

SSI vs. SSDI: What’s the Difference in Wilkes-Barre and Scranton?

JPerry — Sun, 22 Feb 2026 19:28:37 +0000

If you’re considering applying for Social Security Disability benefits in Wilkes-Barre or Scranton, one of the first questions you may have is: what’s the difference between SSI and SSDI?

Although the acronyms look similar, Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) are two very different programs — with different eligibility rules, income requirements, and work history considerations.

What Is SSDI?

SSDI is an insurance-based program. If you’ve worked and paid Social Security taxes, you may have earned enough “quarter credits” to qualify.

You must have sufficient work credits (typically 20 of the last 40 quarters).
There is no strict income or asset cap like SSI.
Eligibility is based primarily on your work history and disability.

For many workers in Wilkes-Barre, Scranton, Luzerne County, and Lackawanna County, SSDI is the primary disability program if they have built up enough credits.

What Is SSI?

SSI is a needs-based program. It is designed for individuals who are disabled but do not have enough work credits to qualify for SSDI.

No prior work history required.
Strict income limits apply.
Assets are reviewed (generally a $2,000 limit for individuals, excluding home and primary vehicle).

Income for SSI purposes is broader than just wages. The Social Security Administration may consider:

Part-time earnings
Money from family members
Free or reduced housing
Food assistance
Monthly stipends

The Disability Standard Is the Same

Whether you apply for SSI or SSDI, the medical standard for disability is the same. Your condition must be medically determinable and supported by objective evidence.

There is no one-size-fits-all approach. Two people with the same diagnosis may qualify differently based on age, work history, and functional limitations.

What Happens If Your Application Is Denied?

If your application is denied, you generally have 65 days from the date of the denial letter to file an appeal.

Reconsideration
Administrative Law Judge Hearing
Further appeals if necessary

Strong medical documentation and understanding Social Security regulations are critical at the appeal stage.

Applying for SSI or SSDI in Northeastern Pennsylvania

If you’re applying for Social Security Disability benefits in Wilkes-Barre or Scranton, understanding which program applies to you can prevent delays and costly mistakes.

If you would like your case evaluated, contact O’Donnell Law Offices to discuss your options.

About the Author

Joshua Perry is a personal injury and disability attorney serving Wilkes-Barre, Scranton, and Northeastern Pennsylvania. Before becoming a lawyer, he spent 11 years as a registered nurse in the Intensive Care Unit at Geisinger Wyoming Valley Medical Center, giving him firsthand insight into the serious medical conditions and injuries his clients face. A Back Mountain native, Joshua earned his nursing degree from Wilkes University and his law degree from Syracuse University College of Law.

The post SSI vs. SSDI: What’s the Difference in Wilkes-Barre and Scranton? first appeared on O'Donnell Law.

Uber Hit With $8.5 Million Verdict in Sexual Assault Lawsuit

Samuel O'Connell — Sat, 07 Feb 2026 18:34:42 +0000

By Neil O'Donnell and Connor Graham

Uber continues to face unflagging pressure from authorities seeking to hold the ride-sharing giant accountable for prevalent sexual violence inflicted during rides.

This pressure stems from a recent New York Times article detailing how Uber underreported instances of sexual assault committed by their drivers.¹ Evidently, the company received a report of sexual violence every eight minutes from 2017 to 2022. This is problematic for a company that touts the safety of its services. And it appears Uber sought to prevent this information from going public.

Shareholders and lawmakers are searching for accountability.² The New York State comptroller is pushing for a report detailing Uber’s oversight of passenger safety. The comptroller’s proposal seeks a summary of the company’s overseeing safety standards, safety issue reports, and screening procedures.³ A proposed ballot initiative in California would cement liability to rideshare companies for sexual violence against drivers and passengers. Debbie Dingell, a Representative of Michigan, suggests a congressional hearings to explore potential legislation on the issue.

These events come as Uber is playing defense of cases across the country from passengers alleging sexual harassment or assault. An ongoing docket of particular note occurring in Arizona is Dean v. Uber Technologies, No. 2:2025cv04276. The jury recently reached a $8.5 million verdict, finding that Uber was not negligent with respect to its rider safety standards, but nonetheless liable for the driver’s actions in his capacity as the company’s agent. No punitive damages were issued.

¹ Emily Steel, After Felons Are Cleared by Uber, Passengers Accuse Them of Rape , New York Times, Dec. 22, 2025.

² Emily Steel, Uber Faces Growing Pressure Over Its Sexual Assault Record , New York Times, Jan. 22, 2026.

³ Alexander MacDougall, State Comptroller Demands Uber Release Report on Sexual Misconduct Incidents in Shareholder Proposal , Times Union, Jan. 22, 2026. Accessed Jan. 27, 2026.

About O’Donnell Law Offices

O’Donnell Law Offices has served individuals and families across Northeastern Pennsylvania for more than 35 years.

If you or someone you love has been injured and have questions about your legal options, our team is here to help.

Contact O’Donnell Law Offices to schedule a free consultation.

The post Uber Hit With $8.5 Million Verdict in Sexual Assault Lawsuit first appeared on O'Donnell Law.

Insurers’ Big Profits Draw Regulators’ Ire

Samuel O'Connell — Mon, 02 Feb 2026 21:36:32 +0000

By Neil T. O’Donnell

In a front page article published on January 23, 2026, the Wall Street Journal reports that auto and home owners insurance companies are making near record profits as customers struggle to pay premiums. These near-record profits are fueling customer anger in every state in the country.

Property and casualty lines insurance, which includes home and auto insurance, racked up last year’s highest underwriting profit in over 20 years – according to S&P Global Market intelligence forecast. Travelers Insurance Company, by way of example, reported a 26% increase in net income in 2025 – of $6.3 billion, up from $5 billion in profit in 2024.

The insurance industry’s financial well being is exactly the opposite of what its customers are experiencing. Rates on homeowners insurance policies continue a “relentless” increase – over 6% nationwide.

Insurers complain about profit curbing regulation. But with numbers like this – what else can be done to protect consumers?

About the Author

Neil T. O’Donnell is a founding partner of O’Donnell Law Offices and has spent decades advocating for individuals and families across Northeastern Pennsylvania. His practice focuses on protecting consumers, holding powerful interests accountable, and ensuring fairness in the civil justice system. Neil is widely respected for his trial experience, leadership in the legal community, and commitment to public service.

La Angels Settled MLB Players’ Wrongful Death Lawsuit While Jury Deliberates

Samuel O'Connell — Fri, 02 Jan 2026 18:20:32 +0000

By Neil T. O’Donnell

With the jury deliberating, the Los Angeles Angels reached an 11th hour settlement agreement with the family of former MLB pitcher Tyler Skaggs on December 17th. Pitcher Tyler Skaggs died on July 1, 2019 after ingesting a pill laced with fentanyl. Mr. Skaggs was battling a serious opioid addiction which, as the family alleged, was never properly dealt with by the team.

The pill was provided by Angels’ communications director Eric Kay, who is currently serving a 22-year federal prison sentence in connection to Skaggs’ death. The 2022 criminal trial included testimony from various MLB members stating that they received oxycodone from Eric Kay from 2017 to 2019.

At the start of trial, the Angels attempted to re-litigate whether the fentanyl pill killed Skaggs. Judge H. Shaina Colover declined to re-hear the issue and proceeded with trial. The team then argued that they acted reasonably given the circumstances of Skaggs’ addiction.

The Skaggs trial brought team players and employees to the stand. Their testimony established a picture of a team overseeing boisterous alcoholic parties, which involved paying Eric Kay for clubhouse stunts. Outfielder Mike Trout, when asked whether he knew attendees provided drugs at the parties, answered with “maybe.”

Deliberations began December 16. The Angels likely reacted when the jury sent written questions such as “Do we as the jury get to decide the punitive damages amount? There is no field for it?” The case settled abruptly on December 17, 2025.

It is an unfortunate reality that people die due to the careless and reckless conduct of others. If a loved one has been fatally injured, our team at O’Donnell Law Offices had decades of collective experience in handling wrongful death cases throughout Northeastern Pennsylvania. We fight to secure our client’s needs and compensation rightfully owed.

Contact O’Donnell Law Offices today at 570-821-5717 for a free consultation.

About Neil T. O'Donnell

Neil T. O’Donnell is the founder of O’Donnell Law Offices and a veteran trial lawyer who has spent decades advocating for victims of injury, abuse, and neglect. A board-certified Civil Trial Specialist, Neil is known for holding individuals and institutions accountable and pursuing justice for those harmed by negligence and misconduct throughout Northeastern Pennsylvania.

The post La Angels Settled MLB Players’ Wrongful Death Lawsuit While Jury Deliberates first appeared on O'Donnell Law.