too remote a distance to recover, (citations and quotations omitted) Like the plaintiffs in Oregon Laborers, plaintiffs’ alleged injuries are derivative by nature. The injuries to plaintiffs occur only if there is first an injury to smoking patients. Oregon Laborers, 185 F.3d at 963. Without any injury to smokers, plaintiffs would not have incurred the additional expenses in paying for the medical expenses of those smokers. Id. There is therefore no direct link between the alleged misconduct of the tobacco companies and the claimed damage to plaintiffs. See Id.; Laborers Local 17, 191 F.3d at 239 (dismissing RICO claims because trust funds’ damages “are entirely derivative of the harm suffered by plan participants as a result of using tobacco products”); Steamfitters, 171 F.3d at 928 (<HOLDING>) (c) Speculative nature of harm Plaintiffs
holding that ineffectiveness claims raised in a pcra petition are distinct from those claims raised on direct appeal and must be reviewed under the threeprong test of pierce but recognizing that in many instances the claim may ultimately fail on the arguable merit or prejudice prong for the reasons discussed on direct appeal holding claims must be raised on direct appeal or waived holding that regardless of plaintiffs characterization as direct or indirect claims fail for being too remotely connected in the causal chain from any wrongdoing on defendants part holding that plaintiffs consequential damages were too speculative because no evidence connected damages to defendants breach of contract holding that a 7month time period between the protected activity and the adverse employment action is too indirect to satisfy the causal connection requirement