Results

We successfully defended against two review petitions in a case in which the client had accepted the claim as a right shoulder injury. As the claimant was lowering a trailer to a hitch, the trailer fell a few inches, causing the hand crank to spin and jerk the claimant’s shoulder. The claimant filed a review petition seeking to expand the description of injury to include orthopedic injuries (described as a cervical herniation at C6-7, a protrusion at T2-3, and multilevel disc bulges between C2-C6, cervical radiculopathy, lumbar strain/sprain, right frozen shoulder, right brachial plexopathy) and psychiatric injuries (described as somatic symptom disorder with predominant pain and adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depression). The claimant’s second review petition sought to increase his average weekly wage to include an expectant rate based on his communications with his dispatcher about potentially working more hours in the future. We argued the claimant did not seek treatment for the additional injuries until months after the work injury. With regard to the psychiatric injuries, we argued the claimant’s expert did not have a full understanding of the claimant’s past and did not discuss his prior substance abuse issues, familial/marital issues, or how he had dealt with prior workers’ compensation injuries. Furthermore, through cross examination, the claimant conceded he did not really understand what psychiatric treatment he was receiving. The workers’ compensation judge found the employer’s orthopedic and psychiatric experts more credible and persuasive than the claimant’s; therefore, the judge did not expand the injury to include the cervical, lumbar and psychiatric diagnoses. Additionally, the judge found there was no evidence to support a higher average weekly wage and compensation rate as the claimant’s wages reflected what he actually earned.   

We received a defense verdict for an emergency room physician in a medical malpractice case after a six-day trial. The plaintiffs alleged that the physician failed to diagnose and treat a transient ischemic attack in the emergency department and that this failure caused the plaintiff’s ischemic stroke 48 hours later. The plaintiff at the time was 44 years old. Following an hour and a half of deliberations, the jury found that the emergency room physician did not violate the standard of care.

We received a unanimous defense verdict on behalf of an orthopedic and physical therapy practice in a case where the plaintiff’s demand was $5 million. The jury deliberated for approximately six hours and had to decide whether the injuries sustained by the plaintiff  (detached retina, macular hole and other related eye injuries resulting in five surgeries in two years) were related to any negligence by his clients. We were able to prove, through aggressive cross-examination, that the injuries were not related to any negligence on the part of the practice, even though they occurred while the patient was being monitored and treated in physical therapy. 

We achieved a unanimous defense verdict in a hotly contested wrongful death case. The lawsuit included allegations of failure to do a workup and diagnose lung cancer. The plaintiffs claimed the patient’s symptoms were related to a Pancoast tumor that was undiagnosed, resulting in his death. We were able to establish with the jury the superiority of the defense experts by comparison. We also successfully explained there can be concurrent diseases and there was an objective reason for each and every one of the patient’s symptoms.

After an eight-day trial, we secured a directed verdict on behalf of his client, an orthopedic surgeon, who allegedly breached the standard of care as it relates to his performance of a reverse right shoulder replacement. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish that the surgery performed by the orthopedic surgeon was unnecessary, as alleged.

We won a defense verdict in a complex New Jersey medical malpractice trial, defeating claims that surgical negligence caused severe complications, after undermining the plaintiff’s case through expert cross-examination and strong defense testimony. We obtained a defense verdict in a complex medical malpractice case after a two-week jury trial in New Jersey. The elderly plaintiff claimed his posterior lumbar laminectomy for decompression was negligently performed. It was alleged that care failures in the performance of surgery caused a loss of bowel and bladder control that ultimately required an irreversible colostomy and placement of a suprapubic catheter, as well as subsequent infections requiring extended medical intervention and rehabilitative care. The plaintiffs also made a claim for lack of informed consent for an alleged failure of the physician to inform the plaintiff regarding the risks of the subject surgery, which was thrown out by the court at trial. The defense was successful in obtaining favorable admissions from the plaintiff’s expert during cross-examination, and the strength of the defense’s standard of care expert testimony was convincing to the jury, resulting in a defense verdict. 

We received a defense verdict in a high/low arbitration. We represented a surgeon in a case in which the plaintiff alleged a delay in the performance of an appendectomy for a perforated appendix. The plaintiff went on to require a prolonged hospitalization and two subsequent surgeries. We successfully argued that the delay in the performance of the surgery did not result in any of the plaintiff’s alleged injuries.  

We successfully defended a Philadelphia-based university in litigation surrounding a penalty petition filed by the claimant. The penalty alleged that the university unilaterally suspended indemnity benefits on an open and accepted work injury claim. We presented complex evidence from the insurer that Pennsylvania’s Workers' Compensation Automation and Integration System (WCAIS) electronic system has internal problems which result in unwanted and unrequested claim documents being issued when simple data changes are made to an open claim. We were able to prove that the carrier properly suspended the claim in the system and any and all updated “acceptance” documents filed by the WCAIS system were on the basis of a faulty data system. The penalty petition was dismissed in its entirety.

We won a motion for summary judgment in a slip and fall case in Pennsylvania. The plaintiff suffered a hip fracture when he fell on the defendant’s sidewalk while delivering a food order. At the time of the accident, there was an active freezing rain and sleet storm, and generally slippery conditions prevailed. We filed a motion for summary judgment based on the “hills and ridges” doctrine. The plaintiff argued that the doctrine was inapplicable due to human intervention that allegedly altered the natural accumulation. The defendant had applied rock salt to the sidewalk approximately 45 minutes prior to the accident. In granting our motion for summary judgment, the court found there was no evidence that the application of rock salt created a dangerous condition or increased the natural hazards of the existing ice.

We obtained a defense verdict after a bench trial in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, which found the plaintiff did not meet the definition of an insured entitled to underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage. The case arose out of a motor vehicle accident in which the plaintiff was a back seat passenger in a vehicle that was struck by the tortfeasor. After settling his bodily injury claim with the tortfeasor and with the underlying UIM carrier that insured the vehicle he was a passenger in, the plaintiff submitted a UIM claim seeking UIM benefits under his alleged sister’s UIM policy with our client. There was no dispute the plaintiff was living with his “sister” at the time of the accident. Therefore, the only issue was whether the plaintiff could show he was an insured and entitled to coverage by proving he was related to his “sister” by blood, adoption or marriage to meet the definition of a “family member” under the policy. She testified during discovery and at trial that she is not related to the plaintiff by blood, adoption or marriage. As a result of this testimony, the judge found the plaintiff failed to meet his burden of proof and entered a defense verdict for our client. 

We successfully defended a Pennsylvania-based industrial linear actuator supplier on appeal before the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board. The claimant appealed a termination order which found her to be fully recovered from work injuries to her low back and multiple other body parts. The claimant alleged on appeal that factors considered by the underlying workers’ compensation judge supporting the full recovery opinion (including a post-injury new slip and fall) were not supported by the evidence record. To the contrary, we successfully argued on appeal that the workers’ compensation judge’s decision was based on cross examination of the claimant’s own medical expert wherein he gleaned a history from the claimant of subsequent injuries that were never disputed by the claimant in follow-up testimony. The Appeal Board held that the judge can only decide cases based on evidence before the court, and the Board would not overturn the judge based on new allegations of the claimant.

We obtained an order granting our motion to dismiss for failure to allege facts supporting a bad faith claim pursuant to Pennsylvania and federal case law. The case arose out of an uninsured motorist (UM) claim from a motor vehicle accident involving the plaintiff and a phantom vehicle. As a result of the accident, the plaintiff averred that he sustained various injuries, including to his head, neck, back, both knees and left shoulder. The plaintiff asserted an uninsured motorist benefit claim under his insurer’s policy, with $50,000 in UM benefits and with no stacking. In the complaint, the plaintiff asserted claims for breach of contract and bad faith. After we filed a motion to dismiss the bad faith count for failing to allege facts specific to support such a claim, the court agreed and dismissed the bad faith count with prejudice. Shortly after the decision, the plaintiff settled his UM claim for a little over $8,000.

We successfully defended a manufacturer serving OEMs in the aerospace, defense, semiconductor and high-tech industries. The case involved a claim petition with complex injury allegations and a potentially catastrophic initial judgement on the pleadings since the employer failed to timely answer the claim petition. When we became involved, we were able to limit the judgement on the pleadings to the date that a timely answer could have been filed. Ongoing disability in the case turned on the credibility of the claimant’s medical evidence. The claimant presented an expert witness who opined that the claimant’s virtual lifetime of serious low back and neck abnormalities were “aggravated” by his having sat down at work after feeling dizzy. Tony presented rebuttal expert evidence from a well-respected orthopedic surgeon demonstrating no architectural change in the claimant’s lumbar spine or cervical spine due to the alleged injury event and no ongoing or acute problems. The court accepted the defense evidence as credible, and the claimant was found to be without ongoing disability and fully recovered from any condition subject to the former judgement on the pleadings.

We successfully represented an insurance company before the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. The court agreed with our argument that the claimant needed to provide notice of his work-related injury to the defendant insurance company within 120 days of the occurrence of the injury due to his combined status as sole proprietor/owner and also the employee in this matter. The judges distinguished the facts of the case due to the fact that the claimant was a sole proprietor, owner and the only employee of his own business. The court agreed that allowing the claimant to pursue a claim, by claiming that he provided notice to himself immediately when the accident occurred, but did not bother to report the injury to the insurance company for over a year thereafter, would result in an absurdity and put the insurance company at a disadvantage in the investigation of the claim. The court also noted that the definition of “employer” in certain portions of the Act includes not only the actual employer as a business itself, but also the employer’s duly authorized agent or its insurer, if such insurer has assumed the employer’s liability. Since the claimant failed to provide notice to the insurance company within 120 days of his injury, the court held that the Claim Petition was barred. The Claim Petition was dismissed, and the claimant was not entitled to any benefits at all.

We secured a defense verdict on behalf of a surgical oncologist in a binding high/low arbitration. The plaintiff alleged that the surgeon performed unnecessary surgery on a mass in her left arm, causing permanent scarring, continuous throbbing pain, and severe depression and anxiety. Two imaging studies were highly suspicious for malignancy, but the pathologic examination ultimately determined the mass to be benign and an allergic reaction to Lupron injections, which were given by the co-defendant gynecologist.

We secured a dismissal with prejudice in a product liability case in Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs, who were involved, but not responsible, for a drunk driving accident, claimed that the beverage manufacturer was liable to them because the product had more alcohol than other alcoholic beverages and was improperly marketed to minors. Our team successfully argued several points, including that Pennsylvania does not recognize such a product liability cause of action because the dangers of drinking alcohol and driving are obvious, and the manufacturer has no duty to warn potential users of such dangers.

We successfully defended a Claim Petition on behalf of a national trucking company where the claimant alleged a disabling aggravation of a pre-existing cervical condition from a fall at work. Our thorough review of the medical records and the presentation of the evidence convinced the judge that the claimant did not meet his burden of proof on causation. While providing the requisite direct testimony, on cross examination, the claimant’s expert admitted when he first saw the claimant one month after the work incident, the claimant had a head droop from cervical fusion surgery five months before the date of injury, and said that surgery “unrelated” to the work injury would be needed to correct it. This was inconsistent with the expert’s direct examination testimony, which was that the work incident had caused the head droop. Further, with the employer’s expert, who reviewed the testimony of the claimant’s expert and reviewed all medical records pre- and post-incident, we were able to establish that the opinion of the claimant’s expert was flawed, pointing out that the claimant’s expert failed to perform a side-by-side comparison of pre-injury diagnostic studies to post-injury studies, which would indicate whether the head droop was a slow progression from the prior surgery or due to a traumatic incident. The Judge found that the claimant’s expert failed to adequately explain what he saw in the studies completed after the work incident that supported his theory on causation.

We successfully defended a claim on behalf of our client where the answer was late without a reasonable excuse. However, we persuaded the workers’ compensation judge that the claim petition was not well-pled as to the main allegation. We further convinced the judge that the claimant did not meet his burden of proof on causation.

In our successful appeal to the Commonwealth Court, the workers’ compensation judge had awarded a closed period of benefits and then terminated all benefits, despite the employer’s late answer. The judge found that the description of injury was not well-pled and, therefore, not deemed admitted. The Appeal Board reversed the judge on the full termination of benefits, saying that, since our IME physician did not acknowledge a work-related psychiatric injury, his testimony was in conflict with the admitted injury due to the late answer. They reversed the judge and ordered reinstatement of temporary total disability benefits. The Commonwealth Court found in our favor and reversed. The court held that the judge was correct that the injury was not well-pled and that we were not deemed to have admitted a psychiatric injury. Therefore, they reinstated the judge’s decision which terminated benefits.

We successfully defeated the claimant’s appeal on a hotly-debated issue surrounding course and scope of employment in a case involving a motor vehicle accident during a paid lunch hour, which resulted in extreme medical treatment costs. We were able to convince the underlying court that the claimant was not in the course and scope of employment at the time of injury due to her deviation to run personal errands. The claimant appealed alleging the fact that, as her lunch hour is paid, she was certainly in the course and scope of employment and the underlying court erred. The Appeal Board affirmed the underlying court’s judgment, and claimant’s appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiff included a count seeking to pierce the corporate veil and pursue the principals of the liquor licensee under an enterprise theory of liability. We argued that there is no cause of action for corporate veil piercing under an enterprise theory; rather, these theories are used to recover if, and only if, the entity is not able to satisfy any judgment against it. The court dismissed the count.

The claimant alleged issues with his speech, vision and balance. His treating physician diagnosed a concussion with post-concussion syndrome and cervicalgia resulting in gait, visual and speech dysfunction, headaches, nausea, vomiting, dizziness, sensitivity to light and sound, and difficulty walking. The judge limited the injury to a scalp contusion and traumatic Bell’s Palsy, awarded less than 11 weeks’ of benefits, and terminated benefits as of our IME.

The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court ruled in favor of our employer client, holding that it was error to “erase” the 500-week employer credit provided by Act 111 for partial disability benefits paid beginning in 2008, and that the claimant’s 2019 reinstatement to total disability status did not retroactively convert those prior partial disability benefits into total disability benefits.  The claimant’s work injury, a contusion to the low back, occurred in 2006. Based on the results of a 2008 IRE that assigned a zero percent impairment rating, the claimant’s benefits were modified from total to partial. The employer filed a Notice of Change of Workers’ Compensation Disability Status, which was not challenged by the claimant. Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Protz, however, the claimant filed a modification petition in 2018, seeking reinstatement of his total disability benefits. The petition was granted, and it was noted at the time that the claimant had not exhausted his 500 weeks of partial disability.  The employer filed a petition for modification, based on the results of a December 2019 IRE performed on the claimant, that was granted by the Workers’ Compensation Judge. The IRE was performed pursuant to Act 111. The parties cross-appealed, and the claimant took the position that Act 111 cannot be applied retroactively to injuries sustained prior to Act 111’s October 24, 2018, effective date and that Act 111 constituted an unlawful delegation of legislative authority. The employer cross-appealed the judge’s failure to award a 500-week credit and to suspend the claimant’s benefits.  Citing prior cases that consistently held that Act 111 applies retroactively with respect to a calculation of a claimant’s weeks of partial disability paid prior to the effective date of the Act, the claimant’s appeal was dismissed.  The employer prevailed on its cross-appeal and the Appeal Board’s order was reversed to the extent that it denied a credit for the previously paid weeks of partial disability.   

The plaintiff filed a medical malpractice case, claiming the emergency room physician failed to appropriately treat her elevated blood sugar and groin abscess, leading to necrotizing fasciitis. The evidence presented to the jury supported the argument that the emergency room physician appropriately treated the small spontaneously draining groin abscess as presented, there were no signs of systemic infection, and the physician gave appropriate instructions for the plaintiff to return to the hospital if her symptoms changed or worsened. She did not require admission for treatment of her elevated blood sugar as she was a long-time diabetic and the glucose level of 497 was not abnormal for her. The plaintiff stayed home for seven days with her condition worsening, and when she finally returned to the hospital, she had developed the necrotizing fasciitis. The trial lasted four days, and the jury returned the verdict in 16 minutes. 

We successfully defended a surgical center in a case involving the death of a 56-year-old woman after shoulder surgery. The plaintiff claimed that the procedure should not have been performed at the surgical center due to the decedent’s comorbidities. The plaintiff also claimed that the decedent was post-operatively given an overdose of opioids, which caused respiratory distress and death. The defense argued that the decedent was appropriately monitored after having been given pain medication and that her death was not a result of an opioid overdose.

We obtained a favorable decision dismissing all claims and cross-claims brought against a car rental company in a motor vehicle accident case in Philadelphia. The plaintiff’s complaint alleged several injuries, and she sued several defendants, including our client, the rental car company that owned one of the vehicles involved in the accident. Citing to the rental agreement and the policies covering the rental vehicle, we argued that the car rental driver was not authorized to operate the vehicle as he rented the vehicle under false pretenses, permitted an unauthorized driver to operate the vehicle, and operated the vehicle for hire in violation of the policies. The court ruled in our client’s favor, finding there was no coverage under the policies pursuant to the policy language and Pennsylvania case law. 

The petition was filed by the claimant before an administrative judge. The claimant alleged he was entitled to reinstatement of indemnity benefits after he voluntarily stopped working due to hand pain. We argued the light-duty position available and offered to the claimant was a one-handed position, and presented employer fact witness testimony and video of the light-duty job in rebuttal.

We won a favorable decision from an Administrative Law Judge on a Federal Black Lung claim. The judge credited the claimant with 11 years of qualifying coal mining employment, but found that the claimant had failed to prove a totally disabling respiratory impairment and, therefore, denied the claim. We presented evidence from our medical expert that the claimant did not contract coal workers’ pneumoconiosis as the result of his work in the coal mines, and that he was not disabled by a respiratory impairment. The judge addressed the issue of total respiratory disability first and found the claimant failed to meet the burden of proof with a pulmonary function study, an arterial blood gas study, and medical opinion evidence. The judge credited the opinions of our medical expert over those of both of the claimant’s expert and the independent expert retained by the Department of Labor. The judge found no respiratory disability and, therefore, denied the claim.

We obtained a favorable decision denying a claim petition that alleged a low back injury, including sprain/strains and intervertebral disc displacement status, after multiple surgeries. The claimant had a lumbar laminectomy in 2016 and a lumbar fusion in 2018. He alleged a work injury in April 2019 when emptying a small trash can into a dumpster. During the course of the litigation, however, the claimant and his doctor offered testimony that the claimant’s back problems, including the 2016 and 2018 surgeries, were related to his general employment duties with the employer and that the April 2019 incident was the “straw that broke the camel’s back.” We presented expert medical testimony from an orthopedic surgeon that the claimant’s back problems were degenerative in nature and were not caused or aggravated by his work activities or the alleged April 2019 incident. The judge denied the claim petition outright and found that the claimant had failed to sustain his burden of proving any work-related injury.

We established that the employer was never served with the notice of assignment of the claim petition to a judge. While the claimant’s attorney had properly served the claim petition itself on the employer, we correctly argued that it is the notice of assignment that triggers the employer’s obligation to file an answer within 20 days. We were able to prove that the employer’s address on the notice of assignment had the wrong zip code and that the employer was never served. Therefore, the judge found that the employer had a reasonable excuse for its late answer to the claim petition.