.

Defense Digest

On the Pulse…Marshall Dennehey Is Happy to Celebrate Our Recent Appellate Victories*

Defense Digest, Vol. 28, No. 3, October 2022

October 1, 2022

Kimberly Berman (Fort Lauderdale, FL) succeeded in obtaining an affirmance by the First District Court of Appeal of a termination of parental rights judgment. This judgment was entered against a father who refused to acknowledge he was the father. Instead, he wanted to wait five years until he was released from prison to establish paternity and have a relationship with the child. Kimberly served as pro bono counsel for the statewide Guardian ad Litem program to represent the interests of the child as part of the Defending Best Interests Project. In affirming the order below, Judge Tanenbaum gave an in-depth analysis for the least restrictive means prong in TPR cases. P.B., Natural Father of J.C.T., Minor Child v. Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families & Guardian ad Litem for J.C.T., 335 So.3d 804 (Fla. 1st DCA Mar. 29, 2022).

Kimberly Berman (Fort Lauderdale, FL) and Amanda Podlucky (Orlando, FL) succeeded in obtaining an affirmance by the Fifth District Court of Appeal of a final summary judgment in a premises liability action. This case arose from a slip and fall in the bathroom of a renter’s own residential unit. The trial court ruled that there were no genuine issues of material fact as to actual or constructive notice concerning the transitory foreign substance found, or negligent maintenance of the bathroom. The Fifth District agreed and affirmed. Foreman v. Grep Southeast, LLC & Sabal Club Holdings, LLC, LLC , No. 5D21-1724 (Fla. 5th DCA Mar. 22, 2022).

Kimberly Berman, Patrick DeLong and Holly Hamilton (Fort Lauderdale, FL) succeeded in obtaining an affirmance by the Third District Court of Appeal of a non-final order dissolving a temporary injunction initially entered against a multi-condominium association following the erroneous entry of a temporary injunction. Three unit owners contended the Association improperly passed a special assessment to be used toward reconstruction of one of the buildings following a fire. The unit owners obtained a preliminary injunction invalidating the special assessment, halting construction, and mandating the Association convene a membership meeting and community-wide vote. The Association swiftly moved to dissolve the injunction, which the trial court granted, recognizing that it committed clear legal error and a misapprehension of the facts when it entered the injunction. In affirming the order below, Judge Miller commended the trial judge for acknowledging its error and found there was a sufficient basis in law and fact for the dissolution and that allowing the injunction to stand would have been incompatible with equity principles. The court also granted the Association entitlement to a conditional award of appellate attorney’s fees should it prevail below. Lecorps v. Star Lakes Association, Inc., 2022 WL 16534285 (Fla. 3d DCA May 25, 2022).

Audrey Copeland (King of Prussia, PA) obtained the Commonwealth Court’s affirmances of decisions favorable to the employer in three Pennsylvania workers’ compensation cases. In Hinchey v. Mercy Catholic Medical Center (WCAB), No. 47 C.D. 2021 (Pa.Cmwlth. Apr. 28, 2022), the court affirmed denial of a reinstatement petition and found no error in the judge’s alleged failure to issue findings of fact on incompetent medical evidence, and as to the claimant’s testimony, which was thus irrelevant. In Jaskulski v. Weis Markets, Inc. (WCAB), 2022 WL 1099606 (Pa. Cmwlth. Apr. 13, 2022), the court affirmed a modification of the claimant’s benefits status based on an IRE of below 35% impairment. The court also found that Act 111 can be constitutionally applied to work injuries occurring before its effective date and that Act 111 contains sufficient language for retroactive application. Finally, in Daquilante v. Mercy Catholic Medical Center (WCAB), No. 630 C.D. 2021 (Pa. Cmwlth. Jul. 18, 2022), the court affirmed denial of a claim petition, for scarring of the legs, and declined to find that Section 306(c)(22) of the Workers’ Compensation Act, 77 P.S. § 523 (22) limiting compensation for scarring to the head, neck or face, violates the Remedies Clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution or Equal Protection provisions of the Pennsylvania and U.S. Constitutions.

Audrey Copeland also convinced the Commonwealth Court to affirm the trial court’s order sustaining a municipality’s preliminary objections and dismissing a retired police officer’s and union’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due their failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). The dispute was over health benefits (a monthly allowance) and a retroactive pay increase. The court held that, notwithstanding the fact that the plaintiff had retired, the exclusive remedy was the grievance procedure in the CBA.

Sara Mazzola (Roseland, NJ) and Walter Kawalec (Mount Laurel, NJ) received an affirmance from the New Jersey Appellate Division of the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to a national concert promoter. The original claim alleged a wet and muddy lawn at an outdoor theatre constituted a dangerous condition. The appellate division agreed with the trial judge and rejected the plaintiff’s claim that the promoter had a duty to warn the plaintiff that the lawn and dirt could become slippery when wet.

Edwin Schwartz (Harrisburg, PA) and Kimberly Boyer-Cohen (Philadelphia, PA) obtained the dismissal of a legal malpractice action against our client arising from its representation of the plaintiff in a lease agreement dispute. After the deadlines passed for completion of discovery and production of the plaintiff’s expert report, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of our client on the basis that the plaintiff’s claim for professional negligence failed as a matter of law because the plaintiff failed to produce an expert report to support its allegations of professional negligence. On appeal, the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the dismissal and rejected the plaintiff’s argument that it had been improperly sanctioned for a discovery violation. In support of its affirmance, the Superior Court found that summary judgment was properly granted because the plaintiff had been given ample time in which to satisfy its evidentiary burden of producing an expert report, but failed to act with due diligence and could not substantiate each element of its claim without an expert report. True Railroad Realty v. McNees Wallace and Nurick, LLC, 275 A.3d 490 (Pa. Super. 2022).

*Results do not guarantee a similar result.

 

Defense Digest, Vol. 28, No. 3, October 2022 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2022 Marshall Dennehey. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Congress Passes Financial Exploitation Prevention Act

On June 25, 2026, the House passed the Financial Exploitation Prevention Act of 2025 (“the Act”) by a vote of 414 to 2. The Act allows financial advisors and firms to delay suspicious transactions regarding the accounts of clients who are 65 or older, if they believe financial exploitation has occurred or is about to take place. With the advancement of technology and AI, the House’s overwhelming bipartisan passage of the Financial Exploitation Prevention Act represents an important step in strengthening the financial industry’s ability to combat the growing threat of elder financial exploitation. The Act recognizes what advisors have long known that financial professionals are often the first to detect suspicious behavior but have historically lacked clear legal authority to intervene before irreversible financial harm occurs. From the industry’s perspective, the bill accomplishes several important objectives, including the following: (1) Provides a practical “pause button” by allowing financial professionals to temporarily delay certain transaction requests when there is a reasonable belief that a senior or vulnerable adult is being financially exploited; (2) Empowers financial professionals to act by providing greater certainty that firms can act in good faith to protect clients without unnecessary legal risk; and (3) Strengthens investor protection without sacrificing client rights by allowing temporary delays based on a reasonable suspicion of exploitation, which is intended only to allow additional review and not to deny clients access to their money indefinitely. In sum, the Financial Exploitation Prevention Act will equip financial professionals with practical, carefully tailored tools to stop suspected financial exploitation before client assets are lost. By allowing firms to temporarily delay suspicious transactions under defined circumstances, Congress is recognizing the critical role advisors play as the first line of defense against increasingly sophisticated fraud schemes. The Act strikes an appropriate balance between protecting vulnerable investors and preserving individual financial autonomy, while reinforcing collaboration among advisors, families, and law enforcement to combat financial exploitation. The bill now awaits Senate action.

Portrait of Carolyn Schweizer, with text below: Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

News

Marshall Dennehey Names Carolyn Schweizer New Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

Result

No-Cause Jury Verdict Secured in Wrongful Death Trial

We successfully obtained a no-cause jury verdict in a 13-day wrongful death trial. The decedent, a 59-year-old man, was admitted to the emergency room on February 15, 2019, with complaints of abdominal pain, decreased appetite, and constipation, despite the use of laxatives. The patient did not complain of any nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea. He had a significant medical history including diabetes, hypertension, prior coronary artery stenting, morbid obesity (with past gastric bypass surgery), longstanding ventral hernia, and back pain. A CT scan revealed multiple hernias and a potential closed-loop bowel obstruction, leading to a surgery consultation. Our client, an emergency general surgeon, interpreted that the patient did not have a closed loop or any significant obstruction and recommended non-surgical management. The patient was approved to have clear liquids, and had a vomiting incident shortly after, but our client was not notified. The patient was returned to NPO status, and after improving overnight, he was returned to “clears” and additional medical and renal consults were ordered. Our client did not receive any communications from the residents/nurses of any changes in the patient’s condition. On February 18, 2019, two rapid responses were called due to increased heart rate and vomiting. It is believed that the vomiting resulted in aspiration, causing sepsis, ultimately leading to the patient’s death. During the trial, the plaintiff’s sole medical expert highlighted imaging on the wrong hernia, which called into question all of his opinions in the case. We made key objections related to the expert testimony, limiting what the allegations were, and preventing new allegations from being made. After approximately two and a half hours of deliberating, the jury returned a no-cause verdict. 

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

Thought Leadership

Mitigating Long-Tail Liability: Delaware Court Reaffirms Five-Year Workers’ Compensation Deadline

Williamson v. Donald F. Deaven, Inc., No. N25A-07-004 FWW, 2026 LX 252526 (Del. Super. Ct. June 2, 2026) Claimant was involved in a compensable industrial work accident on May 12, 1995, for a low back injury.  Following this, he received compensation for temporary total disability benefits from July 1996 to September 1996 and for sustaining a permanent impairment in 1997 and 1998. For the next 23 years, the claimant continued treatment and paid his own medical bills without submitting them to the employer’s insurer. In November 2021, the claimant filed a petition seeking payment for medical expenses, including prospective surgery and a resulting period of total disability. The employer moved to dismiss the petition, arguing it was barred by Delaware’s five-year statute of limitations (19 Del. C. § 2361(b)). Pursuant to 18 Del. C. § 3914, insurers must provide prompt written notice of the applicable statute of limitations to invoke the five-year deadline. Due to the age of the case, neither party had a comprehensive file of the claim and the Board had archived its file of the matter. The carrier’s computer system retained only bare information indicating that payments occurred and agreements and receipts were filed with the Board in 1997. While the claimant argued that the employer could not prove it provided the mandatory statutory notice, the Hearing Officer recovered the archived file, which contained two “Receipts for Compensation Paid” signed by the claimant. The receipts explicitly contained the required five-year limitation language, which the claimant testified to signing at the hearing. The claimant also attempted to introduce evidence of payments he claimed the employer made, which would have extended the statute of limitations. As a preliminary matter, the hearing officer excluded the testimony about the payments because the claimant did not produce them to the employer. The Board found in favor of the employer and dismissed the claimant’s petition as time-barred. The claimant appealed the Board’s decision, arguing that he never received adequate notice of the statute of limitations and that the hearing officer’s evidentiary ruling was an abuse of discretion. The Court held that the archived, signed receipts constituted substantial evidence that the insurer fulfilled its statutory notice requirements. Therefore, the claimant’s petition was time-barred under the statute of limitations provisions of 19 Del. C. § 2361(b). Furthermore, the Court reinforced strict procedural compliance: it rejected the claimant’s attempts to introduce evidence of payment on appeal, ruling the argument was waived for failure to preserve it while the matter was still before the Board. This recent ruling by the Court underscores the importance and necessity of robust data preservation and precise compliance with notice requirements. For risk managers, employers, and insurers, the decision highlights how tight administrative execution protects against catastrophic long-tail liability.

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

Event

Florida Insurance Fraud Education Committee (FIFEC)

Sean and Alex will present, "Life Care Plans: From Low Impact to Policy Limits," focusing on the history and expanding use of life care plans in litigation and their ability to transform low impact injury claims to disproportionate high value claims. By focusing on the limitations of life care planners, Florida's tort-reform on medical damages, and the Daubert standard, extraordinary life care plans with inflated future medical care recommendations can be defended.

Result

Summary Judgment Secured, Preserving $750,000 in Coverage for Insured in Major Trucking Liability Dispute

Ray Freudiger and Michael A. Roberts (both of Cincinnati) successfully obtained summary judgment on behalf of their client in a coverage dispute arising from a May 19, 2022, motor vehicle accident. A permissive driver operated a box truck for an interstate trucking company and caused severe injuries to two tort victims. Prior to the accident, the insured had procured a commercial auto policy for the trucking company with stated limits of $1,000,000. Following the accident, the insurer initiated a declaratory judgment action asserting that only reduced bodily injury limits of $25,000/$50,000 applied and later counterclaimed, alleging it would not have insured the driver had he been properly submitted for approval under the policy. After extensive discovery, briefing, and oral argument, the court rejected the insurer’s attempt to shift responsibility for the $750,000 in coverage it was legally required to provide for permissive drivers under Ohio law, granting summary judgment in favor of the insured and preserving $750,000 in liability exposure.

Casey Alan Coyle Joins Marshall Dennehey's PA Appellate Practice as a Shareholder in Harrisburg and Philadelphia

News

Marshall Dennehey Expands Leading Pennsylvania Appellate Practice With Addition of Shareholder Casey Coyle

Thought Leadership

New Jersey Expands Family Leave Protections Effective July 17, 2026

On January 17, 2026, Governor Murphy signed into law legislation expanding the New Jersey Family Leave Act (NJFLA). Beginning July 17, 2026, significant amendments to the NJFLA will expand job-protected family leave to smaller businesses and more employees across the state. The new law broadens coverage by lowering the threshold for private employers from 30 employees to 15 employees, meaning many smaller businesses will now be subject to the NJFLA. Employees of state and local government agencies will continue to be covered regardless of the size of the employer. The amendments also make it easier for employees to qualify for leave. Under the revised law, an employee will be eligible after three months of employment and at least 250 hours worked during the preceding 12 months, replacing the previous requirement of 12 months of employment and 1,000 hours worked. Currently, New Jersey's Temporary Disability Insurance (TDI) and Family Leave Insurance (FLI) programs provide eligible employees with wage replacement while they are on leave but do not independently guarantee job protection. The recent amendments to the New Jersey Family Leave Act (NJFLA) expand these protections by extending job-protected leave to additional employees. Under the amended law, employees receiving TDI or FLI benefits may be entitled to return to the same position they held before taking leave, or to an equivalent position with the same seniority, status, pay, and benefits. Although the legislation also states that it does not expand or modify an employee's reinstatement rights under the NJFLA, the amendments appear to provide job protection to eligible employees receiving TDI or FLI benefits without requiring them to separately satisfy the eligibility requirements of the NJFLA or the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). As a result, some employees may be entitled to longer periods of job-protected leave than were previously available under existing law. With these amendments, New Jersey continues to strengthen workplace protections by expanding access to job-protected family leave for eligible employees. These changes significantly expand access to job-protected family leave and may require employers to update their leave policies, employee handbooks, and HR practices. Notably, employers who were previously not required to administer NJFLA may need to amend their policies and/or create new protocols to come into compliance with the NJFLA. Failure to do so would prove costly, as the penalties for non-compliance are significant.