Results

We obtained a unanimous defense verdict on behalf of an anesthesiologist who was accused of causing nerve damage during the performance of an adductor canal block during significant knee surgery. The week-long trial was punctuated by emotional testimony about the plaintiff’s limitations, however cross-examination of experts regarding the performance of the blocks and the nerves actually affected, and effective use of medical literature and cross-examination, was the key to the defense verdict, according to jurors afterwards.

We obtained an appellate victory in an insurance coverage matter before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. The case involved a dispute over coverage under an accountant’s professional liability policy after claims were asserted against the insured arising from its role as trustee for a bankrupt charter school. After the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the insurer on cross-motions for summary judgment, the plaintiff appealed. The Third Circuit affirmed the ruling, finding that the claim was first made prior to the inception of the policy period and that the policy’s prior knowledge condition barred coverage because the insured reasonably could have expected its prior acts or omissions to result in a claim.

We succeeded in securing a per curiam affirmance by the Sixth District Court of Appeal of a final judgment dismissing with prejudice a negligence action in favor of our clients, a condominium association and property manager. The plaintiff, a condominium unit owner, alleged he sustained injuries after falling on his patio and asserted claims for negligence and punitive damages arising from the association’s alleged failure to repair the patio. After multiple opportunities to amend, the trial court granted our motion to dismiss, and dismissed the third amended complaint with prejudice for failure to state a cause of action. On appeal, the plaintiff argued the dismissal was erroneous and further asserted that the trial court engaged in improper ex parte communications and failed to exercise independent judgment by adopting a proposed order submitted by defense counsel. After briefing, the Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed the final judgment in the association’s favor and granted the association’s motion for appellate attorneys’ fees.

We secured a complete defense victory in a workers’ compensation matter before the Washington Workers’ Compensation Office of Adjudication. The claimant alleged ongoing disability following a work-related cervical spine injury sustained in a truck accident. The defense successfully demonstrated that the claimant had been released to return to full-duty work, was subsequently discharged for cause after failing a mandatory drug test, and had fully recovered from his work injury. Following litigation of both the suspension and termination petitions, the court found that the claimant was capable of returning to unrestricted employment and had fully recovered from his cervical spine injury. As a result, the termination petition was granted.

We obtained a defense verdict following binding arbitration in a premises liability action arising from a plaintiff’s fall in a residential parking lot following a snowstorm. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants negligently allowed snow and ice to accumulate near her vehicle and failed to properly remove snow from a designated handicapped parking space, asserting claims under both premises liability law and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Our client, a snow removal contractor, had an agreement expressly providing that snow removal services would not be performed in occupied parking spaces during or immediately following a snowstorm. After the other defendants settled with the plaintiff for more than $700,000, the matter proceeded to binding arbitration against our client with an arbitration range of $0 to $140,000. Following submission of supplemental briefing addressing the inapplicability of the ADA and the lack of liability on the part of our client, the arbitrator entered a defense verdict.

We secured a complete victory in a workers’ compensation matter before Judge Karl Peckmann. The claimant alleged that a workplace hand laceration resulted in additional shoulder and upper extremity injuries and sought ongoing benefits. The defense successfully demonstrated that the claimant did not sustain the additional injuries alleged, had fully recovered from the accepted injury, and was terminated for performance-related reasons unrelated to his work injury. Relying in part on text messages and photographs that contradicted the claimant’s alleged limitations, the defense secured a decision denying the claim petition in its entirety and granting the termination petition. The claimant recovered no additional benefits despite previously making a $230,000 settlement demand.

We obtained a jury defense verdict in a high-profile employment law case in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. We represented a prominent New Jersey teaching college in litigation involving claims of gender discrimination and retaliation brought by a former professor after the college elected not to renew her contract. The college maintained that its decision was based on documented performance concerns, including poor teaching evaluations and unprofessional conduct. The plaintiff asserted a novel “cat’s paw” theory of liability in what she claimed was an “Old Boys Club” at the college. During the six-day trial, the defense presented evidence regarding the college's review process, the representation of women in leadership positions, and compensation data for similarly situated faculty members. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the college on both claims.

We obtained summary judgment in an underinsured motorist coverage case pending in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Camden County. The case involved a plaintiff seeking underinsured motorist benefits arising from a motor vehicle accident after settling her claim against the tortfeasor. During discovery, we established that the plaintiff settled with the tortfeasor without providing the required Longworth notice to USAA, thereby depriving the insurer of the opportunity to protect its subrogation rights. We filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the notice requirements barred her claim as a matter of law. The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to provide USAA with notice of her intention to settle with the tortfeasor; and finding that USAA’s subrogation rights had been extinguished as a result.

We secured summary judgment in a motor vehicle insurance coverage case pending in Madison County, Florida. The case involved a passenger who sought underinsured motorist benefits under the same policy that provided bodily injury coverage for a family-owned vehicle involved in an accident caused by a permissive driver. After USAA tendered its bodily injury policy limits, the plaintiff pursued underinsured motorist benefits, contending additional coverage was available. We moved for summary judgment, arguing that under the policy and Florida law, the vehicle could not simultaneously be considered both insured and underinsured under the same policy. Following a hearing, the court granted final summary judgment in favor of USAA, finding that no uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage was available for the claim.

We secured an order granting motion for judgment on the pleadings and final judgment in favor of an insurance carrier in a complex first-party property loss case involving a residential roof and interior damage claim. The carrier initially provided coverage for damage to the insured’s metal porch roof caused by a fallen tree branch. Several months later, however, the plaintiff reported additional damage to the home’s shingle roof and interior, which the carrier denied. In response to the lawsuit, we asserted several affirmative defenses, including that the carrier had properly paid the covered portion of the loss, that the delayed reporting of the additional damage prejudiced the carrier’s ability to investigate the claim, and that policy exclusions applied to the shingle roof and interior damage. The plaintiff failed to file a reply addressing those affirmative defenses. The defense moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the plaintiff had therefore failed to challenge or otherwise avoid the new matters raised by the carrier. The court agreed, granted the motion and entered final judgment in favor of our client.

In this products liability case, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed the Superior Court and upheld the constitutionality of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which resulted in judgment as a matter of law for the defendant manufacturer.

In this construction accident case that resulted in a $5 million verdict, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania upheld the Statutory Employer Doctrine, which immunizes general contractors and other contractors on construction sites when certain elements are satisfied.

In this medical malpractice case, the trial court vacated $10 million of a $19 million verdict in post-trial motions and the Superior Court of Pennsylvania vacated the remaining $9 million on appeal.

In this products liability crashworthiness case, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania reversed a Philadelphia jury verdict of $1.09 billion, the largest verdict ever overturned by a PA appellate court.  The court ordered a new trial based on deficient jury instructions, clarified important aspects of crashworthiness law, and confirmed that so-called standard jury instructions may be incompatible with Pennsylvania law. 

We secured summary judgment for a law firm by successfully arguing that its role in implementing and overseeing a client’s anti-money laundering policies did not encompass the accounting functions the accounting firm had agreed to perform, and that there was no evidence the law firm acted negligently. The underlying malpractice claim was brought by a check cashing company against its accountants, alleging that the accounting firm failed to detect thefts committed by one of the company’s employees. The accounting firm, in turn, filed a third-party contribution claim against the law firm, contending that the firm should have detected the employee’s thefts through its work overseeing the company’s anti-money laundering policies. The Court rejected the accounting firm’s arguments, granted our motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the contribution claim.

We obtained denial of a motion for emergency injunctive relief in a data center case. Two pro se plaintiffs filed a complaint and a motion for emergency injunctive relief following a township planning commission's meeting to discuss conditional review of a proposed data center development plan. The plaintiffs asserted various violations under Pennsylvania's Sunshine Act and related public meeting statutory requirements. Following a hearing wherein witness testimony was presented and cross examined, the court issued an order denying the motion for injunctive relief, finding that no immediate and irreparable harm existed relative to the planning commission’s meeting and the purported Sunshine Act violations.

We secured a dismissal of all claims against a seller’s realtor following a favorable no-cause arbitration award through the New Jersey Arbitration Program. This case alleged misrepresentation and violations of the Consumer Fraud Act based on information contained in the MLS listing for the property. The property never went to closing, and the plaintiffs bought another house for a lower purchase price. The arbitrator found that there was no breach of contract and no meeting of the minds to substantiate the claims, based on this deal never going to closing, and the property never being transferred to plaintiffs.

We secured a defense verdict on behalf of the driver of a golf cart involved in an incident at a Delaware campground resort. The plaintiff alleged serious injuries, including shoulder and orbital fractures, post-concussive symptoms, a subsequent back injury, and more than $600,000 in past and future medical expenses. We presented expert testimony from the State of Delaware’s Chief Forensic Toxicologist establishing that the plaintiff's blood alcohol concentration was between .19 and .24 at the time of the incident, which likely contributed to her fall from the golf cart. After trial, the Sussex County jury returned a defense verdict in favor of our client.

We secured dismissal of a lawsuit which alleged constitutional violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. He argued that the claim was not ripe because the plaintiff’s conviction had never been vacated or terminated in the plaintiff’s favor. Under the “favorable termination” requirement pronounced in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1984), and later discussed in McDonough v. Smith, 588 U.S. 109 (2019), 42 U.S.C. §1983 cannot be used to pursue alleged constitutional violations unless and until the underlying criminal conviction was vacated or otherwise terminated.

We secured a voluntary dismissal with prejudice in a legal malpractice action pending in the Supreme Court of New York County. The case stemmed from the sale of a high-end gym in New York, where the plaintiff alleged that the seller’s attorney failed to place tenant improvement funds into escrow during the transaction. Recovery was obtained on certain claims, but the claim for tenant improvement funds was unsuccessful. The subsequent legal malpractice action alleged that the seller’s attorney’s handling of the transaction was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s losses. In defense of the claim, we impleaded the attorney who handled the underlying litigation, asserting that his representation and litigation strategy contributed to the alleged damages. After unsuccessful efforts to dismiss the third-party action, including motions to dismiss and reargue, the third-party defendant ultimately advised that the plaintiff wished to discontinue the action. The matter concluded with a dismissal with prejudice, eliminating a claimed exposure of more than $476,000.

We secured a favorable decision in a Pennsylvania workers’ compensation matter involving a dispute over wage-loss benefits. The parties stipulated that the claimant had sustained a work injury, but left unresolved whether he was entitled to indemnity benefits for the period from June 2, 2025, through November 17, 2025. The claimant testified that the employer had failed to accommodate his work restrictions during that time. In response, we presented testimony from an employer fact witness establishing that the claimant had been provided work within his restrictions without any loss of wages. The judge denied the claim for approximately five months of wage-loss benefits, resulting in a favorable decision for the employer.

We secured a significant victory in a catastrophic injury workers’ compensation matter involving an above-knee amputation and approximately $2 million in past medical bills. After more than a year of litigation, the claimant sought an order requiring payment of medical expenses for which certain providers had intervened and were pursuing their own claims through separate counsel. We argued that the intervenors’ bills were not properly before the court and should not be included in the order. The court agreed and, as a result, the claimant’s counsel was not entitled to a potential 25% fee on the approximately $2 million in intervenors’ medical bills, preserving up to approximately $500,000 in potential savings. The ruling also preserved the client’s ability to negotiate the outstanding medical bills rather than requiring their immediate payment.

We recently secured a favorable verdict in a high-value property damage claim following an extensive Palm Beach County jury trial. The plaintiff sought more than $1.3 million in damages after water from a broken pipe spigot on an upstairs balcony damaged the master suite of the plaintiff’s 3,400-square-foot, $4.5 million luxury oceanfront condominium. Because liability was stipulated, the trial focused solely on the amount and scope of damages, consisting of repair/remediation costs to the master suite together with the plaintiff's claim for 21 months of loss of use at a valuation of $33,000 per month totaling $673,000. The defense successfully demonstrated that the plaintiff was not entitled to compensation for the majority of the claimed loss-of-use period (16 months). The jury awarded only five months of loss-of-use damages, along with nearly $200,000 in repair and restoration costs, substantially reducing the plaintiff's overall recovery to only $364,615.

We prosecuted a Termination Petition involving a 71-year-old certified nursing assistant who suffered a work injury to the lumbar spine with a pre-existing back condition, the latter of which the claimant denied. The defense medical expert, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon with a specialty in surgical treatment of spinal injuries, examined the claimant and his opinions were found competent, credible and persuasive supporting a full recovery. The judge rejected claimant’s medical expert as not credible even though he attempted to support an aggravation of her underlying degenerative disc disease. The judge further rejected claimant’s testimony given her efforts to unequivocally deny prior back injury going as far as to say it would be a lie to say she had a prior low back injury despite the medical records that clearly demonstrated prior treatment along with medication for her lumbar spine. Also, the demonstration of her sporadic treatment further supported a lack of credibility as did favorable surveillance showing her active.  

We obtained summary judgment on behalf of our client, a life insurance agent, who sold a disability policy to the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed that the policy was misrepresented to him, and that he was led to believe that if he was ever disabled, he could collect full benefits on the sold policy, as well as another supplemental disability policy he owned through another insurance carrier. When the plaintiff became disabled (nearly two decades after purchasing the initial policy), he discovered that the policies would offset each other to avoid over-recovery. He then filed a lawsuit against the insurance agent, as well as the insurance company, and the referral insurance agent was joined as a third-party defendant in the case. The plaintiff’s demand was in excess of policy limits, and the defense successfully argued a lack of causation and damages to substantiate his claims that an offset would not apply in this case.

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.

We successfully defended an anesthesiologist and pain management physician in a complex medical malpractice matter involving extraarticular facet joint injections which allegedly led to cauda equina syndrome, urinary and fecal incontinence, ED and other serious complications. After six days, a Delaware County jury found on behalf of the physicians. Experts in the case included anesthesiology, pain management, neurosurgery, neurology, neuroradiology, and urology experts. The defense verdict was dependent on successfully relaying the subtle and complex issues in the medical care and the nerves considering the patient’s past medical history, as well as the medications used in the procedure. Plaintiffs were critical of ten different aspects of the doctor’s procedure, but with expert testimony and cross examination, Gary and his team were able to prevail. 

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. 

We received a unanimous defense verdict of behalf of our clients. The plaintiff was a seven-year-old girl who presented with a sacral aneurysmal bone cyst, an expansile, lytic lesion that destroyed sacral bone and was causing compression on her lower lumbar and sacral nerve roots. The plaintiff experienced the inability to control her bladder and bowel post-operatively, and had no sensation in her sex organs. The plaintiff’s experts alleged that the lower sacral nerve roots were transected by the defendants during the surgery, most likely by cinching them via a negligently placed suture circumferentially around the thecal sac. The defendants (and their experts) denied that such a suture was placed. They also contended that the nerves were not transected, but instead were further injured by the necessary manipulation involved in removing the tumor — a recognized and accepted potential complication of this type of surgery. After deliberation, the jury delivered a verdict in favor of our clients.

We obtained a defense verdict on behalf of a major Philadelphia healthcare provider after a contentious six-day trial. After undergoing a kidney transplant, a patient suffered complications in post-operative care and died a day after the surgery. The plaintiffs were critical of the post-operative care, claiming the physicians failed to take the patient back to the operating room in light of post-op bleeding. The hospital and physicians maintained that the post-procedure complications were related to previously unknown liver issues that resulted in liver failure/liver shock that created an unstable condition and prevented re-operation. While the family presented a very sympathetic case, Gary was able to prove, through the science and medicine, that the doctors acted appropriately and did not cause the woman’s passing.