Results

We obtained summary judgment on behalf of our client, an amateur baseball league located in Monmouth County, New Jersey. In this matter, the plaintiff, an umpire assigner, filed a lawsuit alleging improper breach of contract, tortious interference and conspiracy to cut this assigner out of his company. The plaintiff also maintained a cause of action for emotional distress and punitive damages. On summary judgment, the defense argued that due to discovery deficiencies, as well inadequacies with the substantive claims alleged, the plaintiff could not state any material facts to surpass summary judgment. The court agreed, holding that the plaintiff failed to properly oppose the summary judgment motion and had not stated any facts in discovery that would support the claims of breach of contract or tortious interference, among others. The damages exposure of this case, prior to the dismissal, was approximately $10 million, especially considering the punitive damage potential in this matter.

In a highly unusual move in a case with potential national implications, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel filed a petition for allowance of appeal seeking to have the decision of the Disciplinary Board changed from a private reprimand to a public reprimand. The defense successfully defeated this petition, thus maintaining the client’s privacy.

The decedent died of a heart attack after a three-day, over-the-road run for the trucking company. The decedent’s dependents argued that the heart attack was caused by the rigors of the job. Although the decedent died as he was about to execute paperwork denoting his employment status as an independent contractor—he never signed the document. The case, therefore, proceeded to litigation in the Workers’ Compensation forum. Expert evidence was presented on the issue of whether the decedent’s job duties had any contribution to the death. The court concluded, based on the evidence presented, that the work duties had no relationship whatsoever to the demise of the decedent. The fatal claim was dismissed in its entirety.

We successfully obtained dismissal with prejudice of federal civil rights claims brought against an Assistant District Attorney. The plaintiff alleged he entered an involuntary guilty plea to murder following a defective plea colloquy with a judge, who now sits on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. The plaintiff alleged the transcript evidence of the colloquy was improperly altered by our client during his first post-conviction collateral proceeding, thereby resulting in violations of his Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. While recognizing the “quite sparing” application of common law immunities in Section 1983 litigation, the court accepted, and adopted, our argument that the Assistant DA was entitled to both absolute prosecutorial immunity and qualified immunity for his evaluation of the relied-upon transcript evidence. “Because nothing [Plaintiff] could allege would change this outcome, the Court’s dismissal [was] with prejudice.”

The parties were litigating a motion for medical treatment in which a physician was recommending an additional spinal surgery. The physician moved forward without authorization and performed spinal surgery on the petitioner. In order to complete the surgery, the physician brought in several ancillary services, including a vendor to perform diagnostic monitoring during the surgery. Following the surgery, the medical provider submitted its bills to the carrier, which were rejected based upon the lack of authorization. After a medical provider claim petition was filed, the respondent filed a motion to dismiss the matter for failure to obtain the requisite statutory authorization. The medical provider argued that it was only providing ancillary services and, therefore, did not require the authorization of the carrier under the New Jersey Workers’ Compensation Statute. The medical provider also argued that they were the “victim” since they were advised by the physician that the procedure was authorized. The judge rejected both arguments, holding that all medical providers including providers that provide ancillary services for surgical procedures, are required to obtain the same authorization for their treatment, or risk not receiving financial reimbursement.

We obtained the dismissal of a legal malpractice action against our client arising from its representation of the plaintiff in a lease agreement dispute. After the deadlines passed for completion of discovery and production of the plaintiff’s expert report, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of our client on the basis that the plaintiff’s claim for professional negligence failed as a matter of law because the plaintiff failed to produce an expert report to support its allegations of professional negligence. On appeal, the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the dismissal and rejected the plaintiff’s argument that it had been improperly sanctioned for a discovery violation. In support of its affirmance, the Superior Court found that summary judgment was properly granted because the plaintiff had been given ample time in which to satisfy its evidentiary burden of producing an expert report, but failed to act with due diligence and could not substantiate each element of its claim without an expert report. 

We convinced the Superior Court of Pennsylvania to unanimously reverse a Philadelphia trial court’s refusal to compel arbitration of a claim against a nationally recognized online coupon marketing platform. The plaintiff claimed the company was responsible for an alleged sexual assault during a massage that the plaintiff’s son purchased on the coupon platform and gifted to the plaintiff. The Superior Court ruled that the plaintiff was a third-party beneficiary of the agreement between her son and the company and she was, therefore, bound by the arbitration clause in the agreement.

We successfully defended an appeal of summary judgment granted in favor of our insurance company client in the Kentucky Court of Appeals. The court agreed our client was entitled to challenge liability for the plaintiff’s claim and defend its insured, despite the requirements of the Kentucky Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act.

We successfully defended a home appraiser in a regulatory investigation undertaken by the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Bureau of Enforcement relating to the appraisal of a five-acre parcel of property. The complainant contended the valuation arrived at by the appraiser (as part of a divorce proceeding) was artificially low given the fact the parcel was sub-dividable. We convinced the investigator that the appraisal number arrived at was in line with comparable properties in the area, particularly given some of the ingress issues involved in accessing the property. After an in-person interview of the appraiser and submissions, the investigator elected to shut the investigation down and take no further action against the appraiser. 

The investigation was undertaken by the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Bureau of Enforcement relating to the appraisal of a five-acre parcel of property. The complainant contended the valuation arrived at by the appraiser (as part of a divorce proceeding) was artificially low given the fact the parcel was sub-dividable. We convinced the investigator that the appraisal number arrived at was in line with comparable properties in the area, particularly given some of the ingress issues involved in accessing the property. After an in-person interview of the appraiser and submissions, the investigator elected to shut the investigation down and take no further action against the appraiser.

We successfully excluded the cervical spine from an established workers’ compensation claim. The claimant injured his lumbar spine and alleged he passed out while at home from the lumbar spine pain, causing a neck injury. We presented hospital records revealing no injury to the cervical spine and that the claimant did not seek any medical treatment to the cervical spine until seven months after this alleged incident.

The suit involved the death of an infant following a visit to an urgent care facility. It was alleged the child was improperly discharged following examination and should have been emergently transferred to a hospital for evaluation of peritonitis and a malrotation of the gut. Dismissal was granted on the basis of the plaintiff’s failure to timely comply with the statutory pre-suit requirements prior to bringing the lawsuit.

We succeeded in having the Industrial Accident Board grant reimbursement of an amount of total disability benefits tendered that were offset by contemporaneous short-term disability payments. The Board denied the claimant’s motion to compel production of paystubs that he claimed were required to determine the appropriate offset amount, if any. The Board reasoned that the information provided was sufficient to calculate the overpayment amount and that the Fair Labor Standards Act did not require the pay records be kept in any particular form.

The plaintiff alleged she was exposed to COVID-19 while caring for a patient and infected both of her adult sons. One son died from COVID-19. We argued that COVID-19 was not an occupational disease and that she could not establish she contracted COVID-19 at work. The Industrial Accident Board agreed, resulting in a significant win for the employer.

The case involved a middle school student diagnosed with epilepsy and ADHD. Throughout middle school, the student was accommodated for his medical conditions through a 504 Service Agreement, and was provided intensive, small group instruction in reading and math as he struggled in those areas. The student was evaluated for special education twice by the school district, at the parents’ request, because they believed he might have a learning disability. The school district concluded both times that the student did not have a learning disability; however, the district also determined in the second evaluation that the student was eligible for special education with an Other Health Impairment, in light of his medical diagnoses. The school district presented the parents with an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) for the student, which they initially approved. Before the school district had a chance to implement the plan, however, the parents unilaterally withdrew the student from public school and placed him at a private school for children with special needs. In their complaint, the parents claimed the school district conducted inadequate evaluations and, therefore, failed to timely identify the student as eligible for special education (and to recognize his alleged learning disability), and that the school district denied the student a Free Appropriate Public Education by offering him an inadequate IEP. The parents also claimed the school district failed to take appropriate measures to prevent the student from being bullied by his peers. The family sought, among other relief, reimbursement for the cost of the private school at the school district’s expense, reimbursement for the cost of a private educational evaluation and a finding of intentional discrimination because of the school district’s response to the alleged bullying. After nine hearing sessions, the Hearing Officer found in favor of the school district on all claims. Preliminarily, the Hearing Officer agreed with our argument that the complaint was not timely filed and, therefore, much of the parents’ claim was precluded by the IDEA statute of limitations. The Hearing Officer also found that the school district’s evaluations were appropriate and that the family was not entitled to tuition reimbursement because there was insufficient evidence to show the private school was an appropriate placement. Additionally, the Hearing Officer concluded that the school district responded promptly and appropriately to the parents’ reports of alleged bullying and, therefore, the school district did not discriminate against the student. 

The alleged incident occurred outside of a school construction site. We received a favorable decision of a pre-answer motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint while simultaneously succeeding in defending against the plaintiff’s cross-motion seeking leave to file a late notice of claim. The plaintiff filed a summons and complaint, alleging a trip and fall over several cinderblocks located outside of a construction site. In the pre-answer motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint, we argued that the plaintiff failed to comply with the New York General Municipal Law, which requires the plaintiff to satisfy several preconditions prior to commencing an action against a public corporation, including filing a notice of claim within 90 days after accrual of the claim and performance of a 50-H hearing. The plaintiff opposed and cross-moved, seeking leave to file a late notice of claim. We opposed, arguing that should the late filing of a notice of claim be granted, the defendant would incur substantial prejudice as the incident occurred over a year prior and the defendant would not be able to properly conduct the necessary pre-suit investigation, as is the intent of the preconditions prescribed by New York General Municipal Law. The judge granted our motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint and denied the plaintiff’s motion seeking leave to file a late notice of claim. 

The petitioner filed a claim petition within the New Jersey Division of Workers’ Compensation seeking benefits and alleging employment with a trucking company. However, the petitioner had previously obtained an occupational accident policy in the role of an independent contractor. When filing the workers’ compensation petition, counsel for the petitioner erroneously named the occupational accident policy carrier as carrier for the trucking company. Although it would appear clear that jurisdiction and coverage do not exist in such cases, most times it is a lengthy process to have such matters addressed by the court and ultimately dismissed. In this case, we were successful in obtaining the dismissal and ceasing further unnecessary financial costs to the client.

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.

The plaintiffs filed a complaint stemming from the school district’s alleged violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Defense counsel prepared a F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiffs’ pleadings were insufficient to show that the student was disabled under the Act, that the district did not discriminate against the student, and that an isolated incident or comment from one teacher does not impart liability in violation of Section 504. The motion was first evaluated by a U.S. Magistrate Judge who issued a report and recommendation that the motion be granted and the plaintiffs’ complaint be dismissed. The plaintiffs objected, and the defendants briefed the district’s position that the report and recommendation should be adopted. Thereafter, a U.S. District Judge held that the report and recommendation contained no clear errors or manifest injustice, and that “plaintiffs’ objections merely express disagreement with the Judge’s analysis and attempt to rehash or restate arguments already considered and rejected by the Judge in the thorough report and recommendation.” As a result, the defendant’s motion to dismiss was granted and the plaintiffs’ complaint was dismissed with prejudice. 

We successfully defended a real estate agent in a suit brought by the agent’s former client. Our client represented the plaintiff in connection with her purchase of a residential property with an on-lot septic system in Adams County, Pennsylvania. Prior to her purchase, the plaintiff had the septic system inspected by a home and septic inspection company, and the system passed the inspection. Four months after the plaintiff closed and moved into the property, she decided to sell. The plaintiff’s prospective buyers once again had the septic system inspected, but this time the system failed the inspection. The plaintiff claimed she was advised by a local septic contractor who had serviced the property for years that the system likely failed the inspection because the drain field would not perc (and had failed to perc many times in the past), and that the only remedy was to completely upgrade the septic system with a new holding tank. Because the plaintiff did not want her buyers to walk away from the sale, she decided to pay to upgrade the system at a significant expense. Once the sale was finalized, the plaintiff then sued our client, claiming the defendant knew or should have known that the septic system was faulty and that she should have advised the plaintiff not to purchase the property with the faulty system. After the plaintiff presented her case in chief, we moved to dismiss her complaint, arguing that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient, credible evidence that our client had any knowledge prior to the plaintiff’s purchase of the property that the septic system was faulty. The court agreed, granted the motion and entered judgment in our client’s favor.

We successfully defended a public school district that had been sued in federal court for not providing busing to charter schools within its district. The charter schools sought a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to prevent the district from prioritizing busing to students attending traditional schools over those attending charter schools. The court agreed that the district was fairly maximizing its bus driver resources to service the most students possible.

We successfully defended an insurance broker in a negligence claim. After a tornado damaged his property, the third-party plaintiff rented an excavator that was damaged due to a collision during its operation. Before renting the excavator, the third-party plaintiff contacted our client, an insurance broker, requesting that the agency procure insurance to protect him against loss to the excavator. Our client arranged for third-party plaintiff’s purchase of two policies; however, the specific collision that occurred was not covered under either policy. The insurance company for the rental facility paid for repairs to the excavator and demanded reimbursement from the third-party plaintiff who, in turn, requested our client satisfy the claim. The third-party plaintiff eventually dismissed his claims against our client after we argued: (1) the third-party plaintiff could not satisfy the elements needed to establish a negligence claim; (2) our client made no negligent misrepresentation of fact; and (3) our client did not owe a fiduciary duty to the third-party plaintiff. There were no facts to support a finding that there was negligence just because this specific instance was not covered by the policies in place. An insurer has a duty to read his policies and a failure to do so does not impute negligence. Additionally, there were no misrepresentation of facts and there was no fiduciary duty between the agent and the insured. For there to be a fiduciary duty between an agent and insured, there must be a mutual understanding of such, which was not the case here. 

The plaintiff sought employment as a fork lift operator in a manufacturing facility. He was extended a conditional offer of employment, contingent on passing a pre-employment drug test. His drug test showed a positive indication for the presence of marijuana, and his offer was rescinded. The plaintiff claimed that he notified the facility that he held a valid Medical Marijuana Identification Card, yet our client still rescinded its offer in violation of the Pennsylvania Medical Marijuana Act. The Act prohibits an employer from refusing to hire a person solely on the basis of that person’s status as a certified medical marijuana user. In response to the complaint, we filed preliminary objections arguing that the employment offer was expressly contingent upon passing a drug test. We also argued that fork lift operation is, by its very nature, an inherently dangerous job that, if done carelessly or under the influence of a narcotic, could result in injury or death to the plaintiff or others on the premises. The court held that the Medical Marijuana Act’s provisions do not require an employer to hire a medical marijuana user as a forklift operator and taking on a substantial risk of liability for injury to persons. Additionally, the court found that a medical marijuana user does not have a right to be hired by a prospective employer who, prior to such hiring, determines that the position for which the prospective employee would be hired would require his or her performance of tasks an employer deems life-threatening to the employee or any of its employees. The demurer was sustained, and the complaint was dismissed.

We obtained dismissal of a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) case in which the claimant was seeking in excess of $200,000 in damages. The dismissal was based upon FINRA’s rule setting forth a six-year eligibility period in which a claim may be arbitrated. The claimant made the investments at issue in 2015 but did not file his Statement of Claim until 2022. Claimant’s counsel argued that the “trigger date” for eligibility was in 2018, which is the date the claimant learned of an alleged Ponzi scheme involving the investments. We argued that the eligibility period began on the date of the investments in 2015. The three-member panel of arbitrators unanimously agreed with our position. Motions to dismiss are rarely granted because FINRA encourages its arbitrators to allow claimants the opportunity to present their case on the merits at an evidentiary arbitration proceeding.

We won summary judgment in the U.S.D.C. for the Middle District of Florida in a first-party coverage case challenging the prompt notice of an insurance claim. The plaintiff alleged extensive damage to the insured premises, including the alleged need to tear out and access the cast iron plumbing for its full replacement following a toilet overflow at the property. The plaintiff failed to report the loss for 20 months following the alleged date of loss. In a written motion, Carolin and Danielle argued that the plaintiff cannot rebut the presumption of prejudice because, at the time the insurance carrier investigated the loss, there was no actual damage to the property. The court agreed and granted summary judgment in favor of our client.

Our client represented a plaintiff in a personal injury action. The personal injury plaintiff had signed a lien letter, agreeing to repay her physical therapist from the proceeds of the personal injury claim. After the case settled, our client reimbursed the physical therapist for less than the amount billed by the therapist, who filed the ethics complaint. We successfully argued that our client was representing the best interests of his client, who claimed the bills were excessive. By doing so, the attorney increased the recovery for his client.

We obtained a defense verdict in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in a Section 1983 malicious prosecution case. The plaintiff alleged that city narcotics officers planted drugs and stole money from her and then falsely charged her with possession and possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine. The criminal charges against her were dismissed following a Post Conviction Relief Act hearing. 

We obtained dismissal, with prejudice, of a wrongful death and survival action against a home aide care service. The plaintiff filed an action alleging that employees of our client transmitted COVID-19 to his elderly parents and that, as a result, both of the plaintiff’s decedents passed away. We filed preliminary objections on the grounds that Pennsylvania does not recognize a duty to prevent a ubiquitous, communicable virus such as COVID-19, that the tort claims were barred by the gist of the action doctrine, and on the grounds that the allegations do not give rise to punitive damages.

We successfully defended a claim petition on behalf of a well-known local hospital. The judge’s decision was based upon a full recovery opinion by a Board Certified orthopedic surgeon who was found credible, competent and persuasive given his credentials and understanding of the claimant’s extensive history, along with his review of post- and pre-injury records and diagnostic study films supporting no post-traumatic abnormalities. Based upon this strong medical expert testimony, the judge limited the claimant’s claim to a period of three months only, despite the claim for ongoing total disability, and did not expand the claimant’s nature of injury to include a herniated disc in the lumbar spine. In addition to expert deposition testimony, surveillance was also submitted and accepted, which demonstrated the claimant’s activities contrary to any ongoing disability and, more importantly and just as significant, were extensive medical records demonstrating that the claimant downplayed her prior injuries and her complaints, completely inconsistent with the actual medical records.  Further, the judge recognized the defense’s cross-examination of the claimant’s medical expert, particularly with respect to his credentials, analysis of the MRI and lack of identifying a herniated disc diagnosis in all of his medical records, yet testifying to same in an effort to support the claimant’s allegations of this description of injury.