Results

We successfully defeated a workers’ compensation appeal involving a claim penalty/termination petition on behalf of a worldwide youth adult development organization. ​A Medical Only Notice of Compensation Payable acknowledged liability for a skull contusion and denied any associated disability. The claimant alleged injuries to the cervical spine, head, eyes, a concussion and post concussive syndrome, resulting in total disability. It was the claimant’s position that the judge failed to render a well-reasoned decision in favoring the opinions of the three defense expert doctors and seven fact witnesses who challenged the mechanism of injury as well as disability. The Appeal Board concluded that the judge summarized the relevant evidence, rendered credibility determinations, provided objective explanations for those credibility determinations and was justified in granting the termination petition.

We initially successfully defended a bifurcated claim petition filed by the claimant, an independent contractor. Opposing counsel appealed, and the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board reversed and remanded the decision for evidence on the medical component of the claim. However, contrary to the defendant’s argument, on remand, the judge granted the claim petition, finding she was “constrained” to reaffirm the Board on the independent contractor issue. The defendant once again appealed, and the Board re-affirmed the claim petition. We took the case up on appeal, and the Commonwealth Court agreed that the record did not demonstrate a “high level of control” such that an employment relationship has been established. Accordingly, the court reversed the order affirming the claim petition.

This was a high-stakes FINRA arbitration case, motion to vacate the defense award in federal district court, and a precedential decision in the First Circuit following oral argument. The claimant retired early with a pension and 401(k) and rolled the funds into a securities account in 2002. On a tip from a friend, he invested his nest egg with a registered representative who years later was charged by the SEC and convicted of securities violations. Through the registered representative’s bad advice and improper conduct between 2002 and 2016, the claimant’s retirement account was drained to zero, though the total amount was distributed to the claimant himself. The claimant sued the registered representative and the rep’s former broker-dealers through whom the representative was affiliated (prior to his residency with the Bureau of Prisons). The FINRA arbitration panel granted a complete defense award in favor of our broker-dealer client, seeing no improper or negligent conduct on the broker dealer’s part, and finding all improper conduct of the registered representative to be outside the scope of his affiliation with the broker-dealer. The claimant then moved to vacate the award in favor of our broker-dealer client in federal district court in Boston, which was denied. He then appealed that decision to the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. In both courts, Shane briefed and orally argued the case. The First Circuit handed down a published opinion even stronger than the district court victory, adopting word-for-word many of the arguments Shane made so as to secure confirmation of the FINRA award in its entirety for the benefit of our client.

​The defendants were two family-owned companies that grow, process and sell mushrooms. One defendant, our client, owned the property, and the other operated the business there. The plaintiff worked for an independent company that was contracted to load compost into the defendants’ mushroom beds. The plaintiff encountered a problem with the equipment used to lift the compost (the source of the problem is in dispute). A connection between components broke, and a metal pan fell on the plaintiff’s arm, crushing it. The plaintiff alleged he had previously reported the problem to the defendants. Our attorneys successfully argued that the defendant who owned the property was a “landlord out of possession” and not responsible for injuries to third parties on the premises. The plaintiff argued that his complaint to one defendant about the equipment problem was notice to both, because both companies were owned by the same family. The court ruled that the shared ownership of the companies did not impose a legal duty on a defendant that was not otherwise responsible for the property.

Marshall Dennehey’s appellate attorneys filed an amicus curiae brief on behalf of the Pennsylvania Defense Institute and Pennsylvania Association of Defense Counsel in a case pending in the Pennsylvania Superior Court that involved interpretation of a “regular use” exclusion that commonly appears in underinsured motorist coverage in automobile policies. The Superior Court enforced the exclusion, as PDI and PADC had requested. The plaintiff regularly used a company vehicle for his daily work. But one or two days before the accident, the specific vehicle he had been driving was taken out of service for repairs, and his employer rented a replacement vehicle for the plaintiff’s use. The insurer denied the UIM claim, based on the “regular use” exclusion, because the plaintiff was driving a company vehicle, which was his regular practice. The plaintiff countered that the vehicle he was operating at the time of the accident had not, in fact, been made “regularly” available to him because he only began using it a day or two prior. Relying on its prior decision in Brink v. Erie Ins. Group, 940 A.2d 528 (Pa. Super. 2008), which held that the “regular use” exclusion properly barred coverage for a plaintiff injured in a “fleet vehicle,” even though the plaintiff may have driven a different specific vehicle each day, the Rawl court held that the employer’s temporary rental of a replacement vehicle triggered application of the “regular use” exclusion and barred coverage. “Stated simply,” Rawl explains, “it does not matter whether Mr. Rawl had regular use of a particular vehicle furnished by his employer, but whether he regularly used a vehicle supplied by his employer.” The court, therefore, affirmed the trial court’s award of summary judgment to the carrier.

The plaintiff was named as a defendant in a debt collection action for failing to pay her attorney’s legal bills. Judgment was entered against her but never fully enforced. More than five years later, our client filed a Praecipe to Issue Writ of Revival and then mistakenly filed a Praecipe for Writ of Execution before the judgment was revived by the court. Although the Sheriff’s Sale of the plaintiff’s home never proceeded, she nonetheless sued our client for due process violations, abuse of process, conspiracy, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act. Most of the claims were dismissed early in the proceedings. Thereafter, we successfully argued in a summary judgment motion that the plaintiff failed to adduce evidence that our client acted in a manner to harass, oppress or abuse her, or that our client engaged in any other activity in violation of the FDCPA or FCEUA. The court agreed and dismissed the plaintiff’s remaining claims.

Marshall Dennehey succeeded in having the Pennsylvania Superior Court reverse, as excessive, a $10 million wrongful death award. ​The jury had also awarded $10 million in survival damages, but that award was reversed in post-trial motions.

We obtained a unanimous 12-0 defense verdict after a two-week trial in Santa Fe County, New Mexico, where the plaintiff was seeking approximately $40 million in damages. In this asbestos litigation case, it was alleged that the decedent contracted mesothelioma and died at the age of 76 as a result of being exposed to asbestos-containing joint compound manufactured and sold by our client. The decedent worked as an electrician for 40 years and contended he worked in the vicinity of drywall workers at various commercial worksites throughout Albuquerque and New Mexico. The plaintiff claimed that our client’s joint compound was defective because it was sold without a warning of the well-established dangers of asbestos. Further, the plaintiff argued that our client was negligent because it knew or should have known of the dangers of asbestos, which were readily known from as early as the 1930s. The defense argued that the asbestos fiber used in our client’s joint compound was safe because the fibers were short fibers and not known to increase the risk of disease. It was further argued that our client acted reasonably and in a timely manner when it placed a government-mandated warning on their product in the early 1970s. Lastly, it was argued that the only product identification witness called by the plaintiff was not credible because he gave three depositions in 2017 and did not identify our client’s product. He first identified our client’s product during his fourth deposition in late 2019, when our client was the only remaining defendant. The jury found our client’s product was not defective, but that they were negligent. However, the jury found the negligence was not a cause of the decedent’s mesothelioma.

We successfully defended a machine shop in the litigation of a claim petition involving post-concussion syndrome. The claimant was struck in the head with a wrench while repairing a machine for the employer. The carrier accepted a head laceration by way of medical only notice of compensation payable. The claimant was treated for a laceration to the side of his head and released to return to work. Several months later, he was taken out of work by his treating neurologist for symptoms allegedly related to post concussive syndrome. The claimant then returned to modified duties within new work release restrictions. He abandoned that job several weeks later, alleging he was totally disabled due to post concussive syndrome. We presented surveillance evidence demonstrating the claimant’s ability to perform all activities of daily living. A nationally renowned neurologist testified that, while the claimant suffered a mild concussion at the time of injury, he did not suffer from post concussive syndrome and was fully recovered. The claimant’s co-workers testified that they observed the claimant after the injury, and the claimant was able to continue working with no signs of post concussive problems. We cross examined the claimant, and it was discovered that he was performing work duties on his own in the carpentry field, despite alleging he was totally disabled. The workers’ compensation judge opined that the claimant’s injuries were limited to the head laceration and mild concussion, and then concluded that those injuries had fully recovered. The claimant was due no additional workers’ compensation benefits other than what he had already received. The claim petition for disability was dismissed.

We successfully prosecuted a termination petition on behalf of a national water company. ​After securing all prior medical records, the defense  uncovered a past medical history of similar complaints and treatment, and a later fall that was not disclosed by the claimant. After questioning, the claimant admitted to the nature and extent of his prior treatment, including office visits, prescription medication and MRIs, which supported our contention that his prior complaints were virtually identical. The workers’ compensation judge found that the claimant was not credible because his testimony contradicted the defense medical expert. Additionally, the judge found the defense medical expert to be competent, credible, persuasive and showed that the claimant was fully recovered from his work injuries, the resulting three surgeries, and all residuals. As such, the termination petition was granted.

We obtained a defense verdict in a three-day jury trial  in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas. ​The 81-year-old plaintiff, who was staying at her daughter's home, alleged that she slipped and fell on water in the basement of the rental property and injured her hip. The property was owned by our clients. The plaintiff's daughter and son-in-law claimed they repeatedly complained to our clients of leaks from the ceiling in the basement, without response. They were in the midst of eviction proceedings with our clients for failure to pay rent for several months when the fall occurred. Our clients denied any knowledge of the leaking problem alleged by the tenants, though they did admit that they were aware of leaks in other areas which they attempted to fix. The jury deliberated for 2 ½ hours, had two questions, and asked for the negligence charge to be read back to them. They then returned a finding of no negligence. There was a nuisance value settlement offer made prior to trial, which was rejected.

We obtained summary judgment in a legal malpractice action in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. The plaintiff, a Philadelphia police officer, was arrested after failing to appear in court following a hit-and-run car accident involving his motor vehicle. After proving that he was not the driver of the vehicle, the charges were dismissed. The plaintiff then sought damages from the township, police department and individual police officers for alleged violations of his civil rights. Our client, an attorney, represented the plaintiff in connection with responding to summary judgment and appealing the dismissal of his civil rights claims. When the dismissal of the plaintiff's claims was affirmed, he sued the attorney for alleged malpractice. We successfully argued on summary judgment that the plaintiff's claims were time-barred and failed as a matter of law because the plaintiff could not have prevailed in the underlying litigation. In fact, the plaintiff brought similar civil rights claims in three separate lawsuits, all of which failed. The court agreed, dismissing the legal malpractice claims as time-barred and further stating that, even if they were not barred by the Statute of Limitations, the plaintiff's claims failed as a matter of law because he cannot demonstrate that he would have prevailed but for something the attorney did or failed to do.

We successfully defended a Philadelphia-based law firm in litigation surrounding an alleged work injury with resultant post-concussion syndrome. ​The claimant tripped and fell at work, alleging that he struck his head during the fall. He donned sunglasses at the hearing and depositions, claiming his injury led to photophobia and post-concussion syndrome. During discovery, it was determined that the claimant had suffered and was treated for headache symptoms and memory loss prior to the alleged work injury. Surveillance revealed that the claimant did not use sunglasses when carrying out everyday activities. The claimant's medical expert admitted on cross-examination that he was unaware of the claimant's pre-existing medical condition and was not aware of the surveillance evidence when arriving at his opinions and conclusions. The workers’ compensation judge found that the claimant and the medical expert were not credible, leading to the successful resolution of the claim.

We successfully defended a worldwide youth development organization in litigation surrounding an employee fall at work. ​The claimant allegedly fell after walking into an object that he claimed had a metal connector that struck his head, causing his glasses to fall off. He claimed temporary total disability. He was diagnosed with orthopedic, neurologic and neuro-ophthalmologic injuries, including but not limited to the neck, eyes, skull contusion, concussion and post-concussive syndrome. The employer captured the incident on video. Due to the questionable mechanism of injury, the defense convinced the workers’ compensation judge to travel to the employer's location to view the actual video of the incident. The employer presented multiple fact witnesses who corroborated the video and lack of disability. Based upon the video and the credible testimony of the fact witnesses, the judge found only a head contusion and no disability, and no liability for the claimant's extensive litigation costs.

We were successful on a motion for summary judgment that was granted dismissing all claims against our client, an environmental compliance services and tank testing company, in a case where the plaintiff made an $8.75 million settlement demand. ​The plaintiffs, a minor mother and child, were at a gas station in Philadelphia when a vehicle inadvertently struck a fuel dispenser, knocking it over and causing a fire and explosion. The claims and cross-claims asserted against our client alleged it should have installed or advised the gas station owners to install a valve that would have prevented the fuel leakage that exacerbated the fire. We filed a summary judgment motion arguing that the claims and cross-claims asserted against our client went beyond the scope of the environmental compliance services it was hired to perform such that our client had no duty to either install or advise of installing different valves. The court granted our motion dismissing all claims and cross-claims against our client.

We successfully defended a Northeastern Pennsylvania manufacturing and supply company in an appeal involving high medical and indemnity exposure. ​The claimant suffered a shoulder strain while lifting at work. She returned to the job only to allege a recurrence of her shoulder disability shortly thereafter. She filed a reinstatement petition that was denied when the Workers’ Compensation Judge accepted our argument that the recurrence was due to a non-work-related motor vehicle accident. Thereafter, the claimant traveled to Florida and underwent cervical disc surgery. Nearly a year after the surgery, she filed a petition, alleging that the cervical disc herniation was caused by the original work injury and the neck surgery and resultant disability were work related. The judge found the cervical disc herniation was not caused, aggravated, accelerated or worsened by the work injury and the surgery was not payable. The claimant then filed an appeal to the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board, arguing that the judge disregarded substantial evidence of causation. The Board heard oral argument and ruled that the judge's ruling is free of error.

We successfully defended a Philadelphia-based university in an action by a local medical provider for submissions of compound cream medication. The provider submitted the medication to the carrier via three medical specialists from the same medical group. The first doctor submitted an expensive bill for the compound cream to the carrier for payment. A second doctor from the same office submitted another expensive bill for the same compound cream, allegedly based on an exam that took place on the same day as the first doctor’s exam. Then a physician’s assistant submitted an expensive bill for the same compound medication, allegedly arising out of an exam she had with the claimant on the same day as the first two doctors. The carrier refused payment of the bills and filed a Utilization Review Request against all three providers. The UR requests came back in the carrier’s favor, and the providers’ attorney filed a review petition to challenge the UR determinations. We defended the review by establishing that the providers illegally billed the carrier for exams that allegedly took place on the same day, resulting in the same medication being prescribed and submitted for payment three separate times by three separate practitioners. The judge found the medical providers not to be credible and upheld the UR determination in its entirety.

In a case centered around a marijuana gummy bear, we used a violation of law defense to successfully defend a national can manufacturer in the litigation of a reinstatement petition. The claimant sustained an uncontested crush injury to his foot, which required amputation of one of his toes. The claimant returned to work to his pre-injury job and, sometime later, tested positive for marijuana during a routine employee drug screen. The claimant was discharged for cause thereafter. The claimant filed a reinstatement petition, alleging his total disability arising from his crush injury returned—his treating doctor opined that his work-related condition worsened immediately after his discharge, such that the claimant could no longer perform his duties. The defense cross-examined the claimant’s medical expert, exposing the fact that his diagnoses were unrelated to the accepted work injury. Fact witnesses supported the discharge-for-cause based on the drug violation. The claimant alleged that the marijuana gummy bear was given to him by a friend and that he used it to medicate due to his work injury. He further alleged that he was unaware of the company drug policy. The defense submitted evidence proving the claimant was made aware of the drug policy as contained in the company handbook. The Workers’ Compensation Judge ruled that the claimant was discharged for cause and that the expert testimony of the claimant’s medical witness was not credible. The reinstatement petition was denied.         

Obtained a defense verdict after a three-day trial in Philadelphia County in favor of an automobile manufacturer. The plaintiffs claimed their new truck was purchased with a defect in the truck’s paint called “rail dust.” The plaintiff asserted claims under the Pennsylvania Lemon Law, Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, and Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection law that the “rail dust” either occurred in the manufacturing process or during transportation of the truck by the manufacturer to the dealership. The defense proved through witnesses and expert testimony that the truck was inspected several times during the transportation process by third-party inspectors. Additionally, the vehicle arrived at the dealership and was inspected again, with no problems found. Both the plaintiff and his son inspected the vehicle prior to purchase, and neither of them saw any problems with the vehicle. It was not until the truck was in the plaintiff’s possession for one month when the first spots of “rail dust” were discovered.

We successfully defended a nationally renowned canning and food corporation headquartered in Pennsylvania. The claimant alleged that she sustained an injury to her upper extremities due to repetitive motion at work. She described her duties to include placing slices of cheese on sandwiches and hand-making pizza in an assembly line, which she alleged led to her injuries. The claimant’s medical expert testified that he was told the job duties involved working with jars of mushrooms, repetitively causing the claimant’s injuries. On cross examination, this expert was pinned down as to the mechanics of the claimant’s job duties. The defense then presented fact witness testimony confirming that the claimant did not use her upper extremities at all in performing job duties—contradicting the claimant’s testimony and the expert’s testimony. The Workers’ Compensation Judge concluded that the claimant did not use her upper extremities repetitively at work and dismissed the claim.

Our appellate attorneys were retained shortly before trial. While driving our client’s truck, an employee struck a car from behind that had stopped in the middle of the road after its hood flew open. The collision injured three members of a family and killed a six-year-old child. The Superior Court vacated the judgment and remanded for a new trial on the basis that the trial judge had improperly granted summary judgment to several vehicle repair shops, all of whom knew of but failed to repair the condition that made the car’s hood fly open.

We obtained a defense verdict after a three-day trial in Philadelphia County in favor of a regional automobile franchise. The plaintiffs purchased a used 2011 Chevrolet Cruze from the defendant. They then claimed that their vehicle was purchased with the undisclosed fact that it had been involved in a flood. They asserted claims under the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law that the vehicle’s prior history was not identified and the vehicle was sold having mud, rust and dirt all over the car. The defense proved, through witness and expert testimony, that the plaintiffs drove the vehicle through high water and mud after purchase, causing the vehicle’s damage. 

Defense verdict after a four-day jury trial in northeastern Pennsylvania on behalf of a registered investment advisor and a securities broker dealer who were sued by their former client for investment losses in alternative investments.

We successfully defended a national home décor manufacturer in the litigation of a review petition, which sought to add a cervical disc herniation and surgery to the nature of injury accepted in the case. The litigation had wide ramifications since the same claimant had attempted to reinstate workers’ compensation benefits based on an accepted shoulder/arm injury a year earlier and failed. As a result, the claimant traveled to Florida and underwent cervical disc surgery, claiming it was part of the same work-related injury. The defense proffered medical evidence to support the fact that the surgery and disc herniation were not caused by the work injury and that the medical bills and disability associated with the surgery were, likewise, not work-related.

We successfully defended an eastern regional can corporation in the litigation of a brain injury case. The claimant was struck in the lower extremities by a form of sheet metal which caused him to become unconscious. Nearly three years later, the claimant filed a petition alleging that he sustained a brain injury with post-concussion syndrome and cervical disc herniations as a result of the incident. The defense presented fact witness testimony from the scene of the accident which directly contradicted the claimant’s version of the facts. Moreover, the defense emphasized the weaknesses in the claimant’s medical expert’s opinions on cross examination as to causation. The Workers’ Compensation Judge found the claimant did not sustain a brain injury, post-concussion syndrome or cervical disc herniations related to employment.  

We successfully defended a national car company in a case involving the defense of a termination petition, the claimant’s petition for review of the utilization review determination, the claimant’s petition to review compensation benefit off-set, and a petition for penalties. The case involved a 2013 injury involving low back sprain/strain and an aggravation of degenerative disc disease with radiculopathy and facet arthropathy. The defense expert, a board certified orthopedic surgeon, reviewed all of the claimant’s pre- and post-injury medical records and diagnostic study films. The claimant admitted that he had increases of pain with activities not associated with work (long drives out of state, shoveling snow, housework) which he had failed to report to the IME physician or his own treating doctor. The Workers’ Compensation Judge ordered the termination of all the claimant’s benefits. The judge also dismissed the claimant’s petition to review the URO, finding the treating physician’s treatment no longer reasonable and necessary. Finally, the claimant’s penalty petition was dismissed.  

We argued successfully before the Pennsylvania Superior Court on behalf of a commercial real estate developer. The case involved a probation officer who fell and badly injured himself during a blizzard. The demand was in excess of $4 million. In its decision that reaffirms the “Hills and Ridges Doctrine,” the court reiterated our argument that, in essence, our client had no duty to remove snow and ice while it was still snowing. The court went further and held that no landowner has a duty to “pre-treat” their premises, and there is no duty to salt or place sand on parking lots during a storm or IMMEDATELY thereafter. It also reaffirmed that oral contracts for snow and ice removal are valid. 

In this complex lawsuit, the plaintiff suffered traumatic injury when the steering column of his tractor trailer became unyoked, rendering it uncontrollable and causing it to crash. The manufacturer is a Delaware LLC headquartered in North Carolina, but it manufactured the truck at its plant in Virginia. The plaintiff, a Pennsylvania citizen, crashed while driving it in Texas. The suit was filed in Philadelphia, as the LLC’s sole corporate parent is a Pennsylvania corporation. Based upon that, the plaintiff argued that the LLC should be deemed a citizen of Pennsylvania. The trial court sustained our preliminary objections due to lack of jurisdiction. We briefed and argued the appeal the plaintiff filed with the Superior Court, which affirmed on the basis that, despite its Pennsylvania parent, the LLC itself is not “at home” in Pennsylvania because it is formed and headquartered elsewhere. Therefore, there is no general personal jurisdiction over it.

Successfully prosecuted a modification/suspension petition on behalf of a large financial institution nearly 12 years after the claimant’s injury. ​The claimant sustained injuries to her left shoulder and cervical spine in October of 2005. Since that time, she had two cervical spine surgeries and two shoulder surgeries. The defense established that the claimant was able to return to work in a sedentary-duty capacity, working from home in a telemarketing position, thus modifying her total disability benefits to partial disability. The Workers’ Compensation Judge was particularly persuaded by the factual testimony demonstrating that the actual job duties were no more than what she had to do in her normal activities of daily living.

The claimant was a very credible employee who was seriously injured while on a horseback riding excursion at a Continuing Medical Education seminar. While attendance at the seminar was part of the claimant's job, the case evidence focused on whether the horseback riding extracted the claimant from the course and scope of employment. The defense presented fact witnesses from the university who testified that activities undertaken by the claimant outside of the scheduled CME classes (despite fostering camaraderie among the participants) were not within the claimant's course and scope of employment. The Workers’ Compensation Judge accepted our arguments, and the claim petition was denied and dismissed.