.

The Quarterly Dose

ALL RISE - Notable Litigation Achievements*

The Quarterly Dose – May 2025

May 1, 2025

Missy Minehan (Harrisburg, PA), with assistance from paralegal Angela Lentz, obtained a defense award on behalf of a skilled nursing facility client in a hotly contested “wound” case after a two-day arbitration. The 93-year-old plaintiff had been a resident at a skilled nursing facility for over three years without having suffered any pressure injuries, despite a plethora of risk factors. She was transferred emergently to an acute care hospital and was diagnosed with a myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock. The hospital administered vasopressor, a life-saving medication that can increase the risk of pressure injuries, and recommended that she consult with Palliative Medicine, which the family declined. Within several weeks of her return to the assisted living facility, she was found to have a Stage III left wound and a Stage II wound, which were treated and resolved within four and five months, respectively. The plaintiff did not suffer any additional pressure injuries until she was re-admitted to the acute care hospital in January 2025. 

Rob Aldrich (Scranton, PA) obtained a defense verdict on behalf of an anesthesiologist after a medical malpractice jury trial in Lehigh County. The plaintiff, who underwent an elective right-shoulder surgery, alleged that the anesthesiologist and the CRNA who performed his laryngoscopy intubated him too soon, and under suboptimal paralytic conditions, leading to permanent throat damage. After a five-day trial, the jury returned a defense verdict within 15 minutes.

Joe Hoynoski (King of Prussia, PA) received a defense verdict at the Montgomery County Arbitration Center where the three-attorney panel found in favor of our clients, a pediatric primary care office and a pediatric nurse. We represented the pediatric practice and the nurse against claims from the plaintiff who claimed her median nerve was injured by a venipuncture procedure performed by the nurse. The case was originally filed in the Court of Common Pleas; however, after discovery revealed a weak damages claim—we found many TikTok videos helpful to our defense—it was dropped to the arbitration level.

Leslie Jenny and Gabriella Wittbrod (Cleveland, OH) were granted summary judgment on behalf of our corporate nursing home clients in a medical negligence case in the Richland County Court of Common Pleas. The judge granted our request, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish liability, causation, or viable claims against individual employees—rendering vicarious liability inapplicable under Ohio law.

Brett Shear (Pittsburgh, PA) received a defense verdict for his client, a general surgeon, in a case where the plaintiff had been suffering from bilateral carpal tunnel and came to our client who performed carpal tunnel surgery on his left hand. Following surgery, the plaintiff continued to complain of tingling, numbness and weakness in his hand. He went on to have two additional surgeries, performed by two different surgeons. During the third surgery, the surgeon found a median nerve injury. The plaintiff claimed that this nerve injury was caused by the defendant cutting the median nerve during his initial operation and that the injury resulted in permanent dysfunction such that he would no longer be able to work or use his hand normally. At trial, the defendant demonstrated how he performs carpal tunnel surgery and protects the median nerve, making it nearly impossible to cut or injure the nerve. We contended that the median nerve injury must have happened later, likely during the second surgery. The jury rendered a defense verdict in favor of our client.
 
Adam Fulginiti (Philadelphia, PA) received a defense verdict in a nursing home malpractice matter involving the development and progression of pressure injuries that the decedent experienced during her admission. As a result of these injuries, the plaintiff claimed damages, including but not limited to pain, suffering and death. Adam cited the resident’s significant comorbidities, non-compliance with pressure reduction measures and nutritional support, and documentation of the wound consultant, and overcame potential liabilities including several wounds that developed in-house and documentation deficiencies.

Gary Samms (King of Prussia, PA/Philadelphia, PA) obtained a defense verdict in a complicated urosepsis case where the damages included neurological sequelae and cognitive deficits. The trial was marked by aggressive cross examination of experts and comprehensive neurological records and literature. Instrumental in the successful result were Raymond Petruccelli (King of Prussia, PA), Michael Mongiello (Harrisburg, PA) and Angela Lentz (Harrisburg, PA).

Lynne Nahmani and David Drake (Mount Laurel, NJ) successfully defended an anesthesiologist after a two-week trial which included testimony of five medical experts and three treating doctors. The plaintiffs claimed the doctor's regional nerve block, executed in advance of an orthopedic Achilles rupture repair, was performed negligently causing permanent nerve damage. Damages were sought for pain impacting marital relations and all aspects of the plaintiff's life. Under Lynne's cross examination, the plaintiff's standard of care expert flipped his opinion. Despite excellent conditions for a directed verdict, the court declined to rule, ultimately resulting in a unanimous jury verdict for the defense.

Suzanne Utke and Benjamin Matzke (Philadelphia, PA) received a defense verdict in a five-day jury trial in Philadelphia County involving multiple defendants. We defended the medical malpractice claim alleging a violation of HIPAA privacy and an intrusion upon plaintiff's seclusion resulting in his eviction and severe emotional distress. The plaintiff claimed an anonymous email he sent to our client, a social worker, purporting to seek mental health therapy was a "mental health record" and subject to HIPAA privacy laws. When it was discovered that the email was from the same individual stalking and harassing the client's sister who worked at the apartment complex where he lived, our client provided the email to her sister, who then gave it to her employer to support legal action against the plaintiff. The email was used in an eviction proceeding, and the plaintiff claimed that the disclosure of the email violated his privacy rights under HIPAA and that he suffered humiliation and severe emotional distress as a result. The claim involved counts for medical and legal professional negligence, negligence per se, intrusion upon seclusion, conspiracy to commit an intrusion upon seclusion, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and a plea for punitive damages. The initial demand of $5 million was reduced to $125,000 before trial. No offer was made, and a unanimous defense verdict was rendered in less than three hours.
 

*Prior Results Do Not Guarantee a Similar Outcome 

 

The Quarterly Dose – May 2025, has been prepared for our readers by Marshall Dennehey. It is solely intended to provide information on recent legal developments and is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We welcome the opportunity to provide such legal assistance as you require on this and other subjects. If you receive the alerts in error, please send a note to tamontemuro@mdwcg.com. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2025 Marshall Dennehey. All Rights Reserved.

Firm Highlights

News

Veteran Trial Attorney Joseph M. Toddy Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Casualty Department in Philadelphia

Congratulations to our 2026 Florida Super Lawyers & Rising Stars: Elizabeth Ferguson, A.C. Nash, Taylor Naughton, Sophia Philor, Amara Rodriguez

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Florida Super Lawyers & Florida Rising Stars

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

Result

Unanimous Verdict Obtained in a Medical Malpractice Matter in Bergen County, New Jersey

Thought Leadership

Vendor Cyber Attack Compromises PII of More Than 3 Million Hunting and Fishing License Holders in Texas

The Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD) announced earlier this month that one of its vendors which handles the sale of state hunting and fishing licenses was the victim of a cybersecurity attack. The threat actor appears to have exfiltrated personal driver’s license information, passport numbers, email addresses, phone numbers and addresses of over 3 million hunting and fishing license holders.  The State Parks Department advised that the attack did not compromise social security numbers, dates of birth or financial information. Texas Cyber Command, the state’s new cybersecurity authority formed to protect critical infrastructure and coordinate threat responses across state and local government, reportedly assisted in detecting and containing the attack. TPWD has already set up free credit monitoring for those impacted through Kroll.  According to press reports, no specific group has yet been identified as the perpetrator of the theft. TPWD also advised that business has not been interrupted and license sales were continuing. This incident once again demonstrates that cybersecurity is only as strong as the weakest link in the supply chain. Businesses must prioritize security across their own environments and those of their vendors and contractors as well.

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. 

Thought Leadership

The Enforceability of Online Arbitration Agreements Remains Unresolved in Pennsylvania, But the Pennsylvania Superior Court has Provided Substantive Guidance on the Issue

Key Points: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court confirms that an order compelling arbitration is not immediately appealable as collateral orders. The outcome of Chilutti II has generally left the substantive enforceability issues with browsewrap agreements unresolved in Pennsylvania. Until this issue is resolved by the Pennsylvania courts, companies operating in the Commonwealth should strive to ensure that their registration websites and/or application screens conspicuously present arbitration agreements in manners which ensure their users and consumers assent to the terms of the agreements by following the standards set forth in Chilutti I. Browsewrap agreements have been defined as agreements “‘in which a website offers terms that are disclosed only through a hyperlink and the user supposedly manifests assent to those terms simply by continuing to use the website,’ and typically do not require an electronic signature.” See, Cobb v. Tesla, Inc., 2026 WL 458470, at *1 n. 2 (Pa. Super. Feb. 18, 2026) (citation omitted). They are largely regarded as the “if you keep using this, you agree to everything buried in this link” terms embedded into almost every online agreement consumers and users sign before proceeding with purchases of goods and/or services. While consumers are generally aware of them, many almost never click on the link, nor read them in their entirety. This leaves many consumers and users ignorant of the terms and impact of such agreements. However, one’s ignorance of the otherwise neatly-tucked-away terms rarely renders them unenforceable. The issue of the enforceability of browsewrap agreements has been up for debate for some time in many jurisdictions, including Pennsylvania. Indeed, Pennsylvania had a brief grip on this issue for a period in time. Specifically, in 2023, an en banc Superior Court set forth heightened standards for companies to meet in order to secure assent and enforce browsewrap arbitration agreements. See Chilutti v. Uber Techs., Inc., 300 A.3d 430 (Pa.Super. 2023) (en banc) (“Chilutti I”) Chilutti I involved a husband and wife who sued Uber and its subsidiaries after the wife, a wheelchair bound passenger using Uber’s rideshare service, fell, struck her head, and lost consciousness due to her uber driver failing to provide a seatbelt and making an aggressive turn during the trip. The Chilutti’s filed a negligence lawsuit against Uber and its subsidiaries. In response, the defendants moved to compel arbitration, arguing that “the couple’s conduct on the company’s website and application — when they registered for the ridesharing service — signified that they agreed to be bound by the mandatory arbitration provision found in the hyperlinked terms and conditions.” The trial court granted the defendants’ petition and stayed the proceedings pending the results of arbitration, and the Chilutti’s appealed. On appeal, the Superior Court addressed two issues. First, it addressed the issue of whether it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal. A divided Superior Court determined that it did, with its basis for the holding being that the order from which the Chilutti’s appealed was a collateral order. Next, the Superior Court set out to address the merits of the Chilutti’s substantive claim. The Superior Court concluded that the parties lacked a valid agreement to arbitrate. Its rationale was that Uber’s website and application did not provide reasonably conspicuous notice of the terms to the Chiluttis. In reaching this decision, the en banc Superior Court held that browsewrap arbitration agreements are enforceable in Pennsylvania only if the registration website and application screens explicitly inform consumers that they are waiving the right to a jury trial, the registration process cannot be completed until the consumer is fully informed of this waiver, and, when the agreement is available via hyperlink, the waiver appears at the top of the first page of the terms in bold, capitalized text. Since the ruling, Pennsylvania courts have applied Chilutti I to determine if browsewrap agreements are enforceable.  For instance, the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas invoked Chilutti I to reject an agreement that lacked an express jury-trial waiver on the assent screen.  See Miller v. Festival Fun Parks, LLC, 92 WDA 2025 (C.P. Alleg. Cnty. Mar. 24, 2025). Similarly, the Superior Court has held that notice which failed to explicitly state the consumer was waiving a jury-trial right did not “me[e]t the strict burden set forth by our en banc Court in Chilutti I.” Pierce v. FloatMe Corp., 348 A.3d 1077, 1088 (Pa. Super. 2025). While the issue of enforceability of browsewrap agreements appeared to have been resolved by Chilutti I, Pennsylvania courts’ grip on this issue has been slackened by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s January 21, 2026, opinion in Chilutti II. See Chilutti v. Uber Techs., Inc., 349 A.3d 826 (Pa. 2026) (“Chilutti II”). Therein, the Supreme Court did not address the merits of the Chiluttis’ substantive claim, but rather the issue of whether the Superior Court had appellate jurisdiction to immediately review the orders staying litigation pending arbitration. The Court ultimately vacated the en banc opinion on jurisdictional grounds, holding that the Superior Court did not have appellate jurisdiction because the trial court’s order from which the Chiluttis appealed did not qualify as a collateral order and, thus, the Superior Court erred in holding to the contrary and lacked jurisdiction to entertain the merits” of the Chiluttis’ substantive claim. As such, Chilutti II has rendered Chilutti I nonbinding, and the issue of enforceability of online arbitration agreements remains unresolved. However, in light of the fact the Supreme Court did not address or comment on the merits of the Chiluttis’ appeal, Chilutti I is still meaningful. Specifically, it provides guidance as to the standards a company should strive to meet to ensure they have obtained users’ assent so that they are able to enforce online arbitration agreements. Additionally, it may serve as persuasive authority in judges’ evaluations of petitions and/or motions to compel browsewrap arbitration agreements until this particular issue is properly put before our appellate courts. Keanna works in our Pittsburgh, PA office. She can be reached at (412) 803-1174 or KASeabrooks@MDWCG.com.

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

Thought Leadership

Featured Conversations... Key Takeaways from A.M. Best’s Webinar on the Misuse Defense in Product Liability Claims, Featuring Michael Salvati

Michael Salvati, shareholder in our Philadelphia office, was a panelist for the April A.M. Best webinar, “The Misuse Defense: Strategic Approaches to Defending Product Liability Claims for Insurers.” During the program, Michael and his fellow panelists offered practical, jurisdiction‑specific guidance on how misuse and failure‑to‑warn theories intersect in modern product liability litigation. Michael emphasized the unique challenges these claims present—particularly in states like Pennsylvania, where evidentiary rules diverge sharply from those applied in many other jurisdictions. Failure to Warn as the “Flip Side” of Misuse Salvati explained that failure‑to‑warn allegations often arise as a direct counter to a misuse defense. As he noted, “If our misuse defense is that the plaintiff didn't use a product properly or safely, then the failure to warn claim is that we didn't tell them how to use it properly.” He emphasized that these claims can stem from either the absence of warnings or criticisms of existing warnings, such as insufficient specificity or lack of clarity about risks. Pennsylvania’s Unique Evidentiary Landscape One of Salvati’s most notable points was the stark difference in how Pennsylvania treats evidence of compliance with industry standards. He highlighted that Pennsylvania is “one of the only states…where that evidence is not admissible” in strict liability cases. Manufacturers cannot rely on compliance with ANSI, UL, ISO, or even federal safety standards to defend the product against a strict liability claim—because the focus is solely on the product itself, not the manufacturer’s conduct. Salvati acknowledged the challenge this creates for defense counsel and clients who expect such compliance to carry weight. Understanding the Three Defect Theories Salvati also walked through the three primary defect theories recognized in many jurisdictions: - Design defect – a flaw in the product’s intended design - Manufacturing defect – a deviation affecting a specific unit - Failure to warn – inadequate instructions or warnings He noted that warnings claims are increasingly significant and sometimes stand alone when design or manufacturing theories are weak. As he put it, plaintiffs often default to warnings claims because “the default position seems to be, ‘If I got hurt, there must be something wrong.’” Warranties and State‑by‑State Variations Salvati addressed how breach‑of‑warranty claims fit into the broader framework, explaining that implied warranties—such as merchantability—often overlap with strict liability in Pennsylvania. He emphasized the importance of understanding local nuances, as warranty law and admissibility rules vary widely across states. Looking Ahead: The Growing Importance of Warnings In his closing remarks, Salvati stressed that warnings should never be treated as an afterthought in product liability defense. He observed that warnings‑only claims are becoming more common and urged manufacturers and insurers to continually evaluate the clarity and completeness of their instructions and warnings. His takeaway: “We should always be talking about what are the instructions that come with our products…to bolster a misuse defense.” Listen to the complete webinar here: https://www3.ambest.com/conferences/events/eventregister.aspx?event_id=WEB1074.

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.