Advertising Disclosure Email Disclosure

Law Alerts

State
Practice Area
Keyword

Pages

Atlantic County pelvic mesh jury awarded $7.76 million in punitive damages, three days after a $3.35 million compensatory damages award.
New Jersey • Product Liability, Medical Device and Pharmaceutical Liability • April 11, 2013
Gynecare Prolift pelvic mesh is a product made by Johnson & Johnson subsidiary Ethicon. It is used to treat organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. The plaintiff Gross filed suit in 2008 claiming she underwent 18 surgeries to correct injuries..., Case Law Alerts - 2nd Quarter 2013
The Board denies the employer's request for a credit against the claimant's future medical benefits based on its having paid a lien for child support arrears against the claimant.
Delaware • Workers' Compensation • April 11, 2013
This case came before the Board on a rule to show cause filed by the employer who asserted a credit against the claimant's future medical benefits. The claimant was pro se and was actually not present at the legal hearing. The employer sought a..., Case Law Alerts - 2nd Quarter 2013
Court finds that a confidentiality provision in a Fair Labor Standards Act Settlement Agreement impermissibly frustrates the implementation of the FLSA.
Federal • Employment Law • April 11, 2013
The parties negotiated a resolution of a collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and sought the court's approval of the settlement agreement. In particular, the court noted that "[c]laims arising under the FLSA may be..., Case Law Alert - 2nd Quarter 2013
Case against Colgate-Palmolive dismissed. Colgate-Palmolive is not responsible for counterfeit products sold in the marketplace that violate their trade name and trademarks.
New York • Product Liability • April 11, 2013
The plaintiff unknowingly purchased counterfeit Colgate toothpaste at Dollar Worth and got sick after using it. Colgate's technical associate tested the packaging and product and learned that it was counterfeit. A defendant who seeks summary..., Case Law Alerts - 2nd Quarter 2013
The Supreme Court affirms the granting of a termination petition by the Board, concluding that the employer did not need to show a change in the claimant's physical condition to meet its burden of proof.
Delaware • Workers' Compensation • April 11, 2013
This case involved an appeal on the issue of what exactly is the employer's burden of proof in a termination petition. The claimant was a boiler maker who had a physical injury involving a syrinx, which is a rare abnormal cyst inside the spine...., Case Law Alerts - 2nd Quarter 2013
Plaintiff's ADA testing accommodation claim failed where the testing site attempted to implement accommodations but was interrupted when the plaintiff started a fire in the restroom.
Federal • Employment Law • April 11, 2013
The plaintiff asserted that the defendant violated the ADA when it failed to "[r]easonably accommodate her visual impairment" at the time she sat for an examination. Specifically, the plaintiff requested several accommodations—..., Case Law Alert - 2nd Quarter 2013
Each New York State law claim plaintiffs plead depends on allegations that defendant failed to adequately warn of the risk of SCAR events and to test for and maintain bioequivalence of Dilantin. Plaintiffs' failure to warn claims are preempted by federal
New York • Product Liability, Medical Device and Pharmaceutical Liability • April 11, 2013
The defendant pharmaceutical companies make generic Phenytoin Sodium; the brand name of the designer drug is Dilantin. Dilantin and the generic Phenytoin are anti-epileptic drugs used to slow down impulses in the brain that cause seizures. The...
Despite undisputed medical evidence that claimant could do modified work, the Board denied employer's termination petition based on a finding that claimant, who had an eighth grade education and had only worked as a housekeeper, was a displaced worker
Delaware • Workers' Compensation • April 11, 2013
The claimant sustained a compensable work injury to her low back on October 8, 2004, and began receiving compensation for temporary total disability. The claimant's treatment for the work injury included surgery to two levels of the lumbar spine..., Case Law Alerts - 2nd Quarter 2013
The employer's rule requiring employees to "always store the gun in a safe place" was too vague for the employer to prove violation of the rule and avoid payment of unemployment benefits.
Florida • Employment Law • April 11, 2013
Crespo was employed as an armed security guard by Doyon Security Services. On the day he was discharged, Crespo was assigned to roam the outside perimeter of a detention facility. After realizing he was missing certain necessary paperwork, he drove..., Case Law Alert - 2nd Quarter 2013
New York State does not recognize spoliation of evidence as an independent cause of action. Therefore, the plaintiff's separate count for spoliation fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted.
New York • Product Liability • April 11, 2013
The plaintiff went for a walk carrying her rifle. She set it down to climb over a tree. When she picked it up, it discharged, causing injuries to her hand and abdomen. In an amended complaint, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants destroyed..., Case Law Alerts - 2nd Quarter 2013

Pages

© 2013 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, P.C.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1

Please read the following disclaimer:

Thank you for your interest in our firm. The information contained on this Website contains statements, videos and other content about the type and quality of services offered by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, as well as past results and testimonials about the firm. This information has not been reviewed nor approved by the Florida Bar.

  • The facts and circumstances of your case may differ from the matters in which results and/or testimonials have been provided.
  • All results of cases handled by the firm are not provided and not all clients have given testimonials.
  • The results and testimonials provided are not necessarily representative of results obtained by any individual attorney or by the firm nor of the experience of all clients or others with the firm. Every case is different, and each client's case must be evaluated and handled on its own merits.


Please acknowledge that you have read the above disclaimer by clicking on one of the two links below.

YES I have read and understand the above statements. I am interested in learning more about Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin. NO I do not want to view the information.

Before you send this email please note:

You are attempting to send email, through a link on our website, to an attorney of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin or an employee in our firm. Please note that your email may not be treated as confidential and does not create an attorney-client relationship. You should not rely upon the transmission of an email through this website if you are seeking to enter into such a relationship. Until such time as we have agreed to represent you, no information in your email will be treated as confidential. Please contact us directly by telephone at 1.800.220.3308 if it is your intent to seek legal counsel with our firm or convey confidential information.

If it is still your intent to send this email, knowing that it may not be treated as confidential, you may accept our terms of agreement by pressing "OK". If you choose not to accept these terms of agreement you may navigate away from this page by pressing "Cancel."