Results

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 His drug test showed a positive indication for the presence of marijuana, and his offer was rescinded.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claimed that he notified the facility that he held a valid Medical Marijuana Identification Card, yet our client still rescinded its offer in violation of the Pennsylvania Medical Marijuana Act.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 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. 

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.   

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. 

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 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 lawsuit involved claims of child abuse committed by a pastor that occurred during church-based camp activities. We obtained a dismissal of all counts for abuse filed by all plaintiffs against our client, one of the church defendants. Our client did not employ the pastor when the abuse occurred and had no knowledge of the claims asserted.

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.

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.

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 obtained a defense verdict in a two-week jury trial in Middlesex County, New Jersey, in a case against a tavern alleged to have violated the New Jersey Licensed Alcoholic Beverage Server Fair Liability Act (aka The Dram Shop Act). The plaintiff claimed the bar violated the Act by serving a patron—a settled co-defendant—alcohol while he was visibly intoxicated, resulting in that patron driving drunk and colliding with the plaintiff’s vehicle. The plaintiff suffered significant injuries to her neck, requiring two cervical fusion surgeries. Police were unable to obtain objective proof of the patron’s blood alcohol concentration (BAC) via a blood sample or breathalyzer. The tavern had no record of the patron, who paid cash for his beverages, and first learned of the accident upon being served with a complaint more than nine months later.  At trial, the plaintiff relied on the patron’s deposition testimony as to the timing of three different drinks he consumed at the bar, as well as a toxicology expert, to prove liability. The expert, in providing an opinion as to what the patron’s BAC would have been “while at or when leaving the bar,” used a dose reconstruction methodology based upon the patron’s testimony. However, on cross-examination, we were able to establish that the expert’s calculations of the amount of pure alcohol ingested by the patron were erroneous and unreliable and that the expert never provided an opinion as to whether the patron was visibly intoxicated at the time of service—the key issue in any Dram Shop case.  We also presented a credible toxicology expert on behalf of the defendant, who provided the jury a visual timeline of events to demonstrate that at the time the patron was last served alcohol (more than an hour before the accident), his BAC would have been well below the .15 threshold whereby most people would show visible signs of intoxication. We further argued that, despite any sympathy the jury may feel for the plaintiff, she failed to meet her burden of proving that the patron was exhibiting “clear signs of intoxication” at the time of service, as required by the statute. The jury agreed.  

We convinced the Commonwealth Court to affirm a workers’ compensation judge’s decision. The judge had denied the claimant’s petition to review a Utilization Review (UR) determination and rejected the claimant’s argument that the judge was barred from ruling on UR petitions by the rules of collateral estoppel and issue preclusion.

We persuaded the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to deny a claimant’s petition for allowance of appeal. In this workers’ compensation matter, the claimant challenged the constitutionality of Act 111 and its Impairment Rating Evaluation (IRE) provisions.

In a case that was closely watched by other Public Housing Authorities (PHAs), we obtained a defense verdict after a six-day jury trial in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio where we defended a PHA accused of discrimination against disabled persons under the ADA and FHA.  The dispute surrounded the PHA’s failure to apply to the U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH) vouchers as requested by a developer. The plaintiff claimed that the PHA arbitrarily, capriciously, intentionally, and based on discriminatory animus blocked funding and financing for 60 units of affordable housing for veterans, most of whom were disabled, which stood in violation of the ADA and the Fair Housing Act of 1968 (FHA). For background, the PHA’s administrative plan required it to issue a RFP. The developer argued the PHA should have amended its administrative plan to allow it to choose a developer and that the PHA’s refusal to apply for VASH vouchers on the developer’s behalf was discrimination against disabled persons under the ADA and FHA.  In defense of the allegations we argued: The developer never claimed to be acting on behalf of disabled persons; the only request was for a letter of intent, which the PHA could not submit since it would have violated its Administrative Plan and federal regulations; and the request was not necessary to enable disabled persons equal access since the PHA’s decision had the same effect on non-disabled persons. The jury unanimously agreed that the plaintiff developer failed to prove all the necessary prima facie elements of discrimination and issued a verdict for the defendant Housing Authority.   

The claims arose from the alleged occurrence of an unrecognized left tibial/medial plantar nerve injury during left ankle deltoid ligament reconstruction. Despite challenging liability issues the defense was able to significantly discredit the plaintiff at her videotaped discovery deposition based on the findings of an extensive pre-suit investigation. After testifying to having no criminal history, the plaintiff was confronted with multiple guilty pleas for writing bad checks. Also, we were able to get the plaintiff to admit that she had asked a subsequent treating orthopedic surgeon to change his documentation in the records to enhance her lawsuit. Further, we established that much of the plaintiff’s testimony was inconsistent with the medical record documentation. Finally, although the plaintiff certainly has a component of nerve damage in her left foot, we elicited favorable testimony on damages, which suggested that the primary cause of her pain and debility was unrelated and due to preexisting mechanical conditions. The plaintiff’s demand pre-deposition was $450,000; we resolved the case after the deposition for a de minimus payment of $30,000.

The plaintiff brought a professional negligence claim against our client arising from the firm’s representation of the plaintiff in a lease agreement dispute. After the deadlines passed for the completion of discovery and the 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. True Railroad Realty v. McNees Wallace and Nurick, LLC, _ A.3d _, 2022 PA Super 70 (April 19, 2022).

A FINRA arbitration panel recommended the expungement of a customer complaint from a financial advisor’s public record.  The complaint involved an allegedly unsuitable sale of an equity indexed annuity with a nine-year surrender period.  

During early morning hours, a vehicle was observed by police officers driving straight through a turning lane. The officers attempted a traffic stop, but the driver took off and led police onto an interstate highway. A high-speed pursuit ensued, reaching speeds in excess of 115 mph. The plaintiff was a passenger in the vehicle. Due to the high speed and an upcoming construction zone, officers broke off the chase. The driver attempted to exit the interstate via an off ramp, but turned too fast and crashed. Although the driver died on impact, the plaintiff-passenger was thrown from the rear of the vehicle and wedged under the dashboard. The plaintiff sued several municipalities under a negligence theory. Following discovery, Mark filed motion for summary judgment on behalf of our client, arguing that the plaintiff’s claim was barred and the township was immune from suit pursuant to the Pennsylvania Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act. Following oral argument, the court granted our motion.

The plaintiff, a part-time police officer, alleged that she told her Police Chief that she believed the hiring/promotions of three male police officers to full-time positions were illegal. After that meeting, the plaintiff claimed she was not assigned to higher-paying assignments like the male police officers in the department. She sued the borough and the police chief for First Amendment retaliation under Section 1983, and gender-based discrimination and retaliation pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act. Following a six-day trial and five hours of deliberation, the jury returned a complete defense verdict on all counts against both defendants.

The plaintiff fell while walking and sued the owners of the property and York City, alleging the City was negligent in failing to maintain the sidewalk and in failing to inspect, correct or repair it. The defense argued that the plaintiff did not establish that York had any actual or constructive notice of the alleged defect, and that the plaintiff failed to meet her burden under the sidewalks exception to the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act, 42 Pa. C.S. § 8541, et seq.

We effectively shut down a Maryland Insurance Department investigation of a life insurance agent who was the subject of a customer complaint. The complaint alleged the agent oversold life insurance to a couple who contended the amount of insurance was excessive, unsuitable and unnecessary. We were able to demonstrate to the regulators that the agent did a thorough job in explaining the need and purpose for the coverage, and that the couple could afford the coverage and actually drove the decision to purchase the coverage, only changing their mind later, after the client was criticized by a subsequent insurance agent. We also defeated a Certified Financial Planner Board investigation involving the same matter. 

We successfully argued for the dismissal of an action in Wyoming County on a matter involving the sale by an agent of a number of mutual funds (with IRA retirement funds). In this case, the plaintiff contended the mutual funds were excessive and unsuitable. We convinced the trial court judge that plaintiff’s counsel’s lack of activity for several years on the case, and his failure to respond to long-outstanding discovery, warranted dismissal of the lawsuit.

The plaintiff alleged that a physician in the Lehigh County jail failed to properly treat his chronic back pain, and that the physician exhibited a deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Specifically, the plaintiff contended that he should have received a spinal cord stimulator during his incarceration. After two days of testimony, the jury returned a defense verdict, agreeing with the defense’s position that the physician did not exhibit a deliberate indifference to the plaintiff’s serious medical needs.

We prevailed on a lengthy case on behalf of a trash collection company. The case involved testimony from seven employer witnesses, in addition to medical expert testimony. We successfully defended all petitions pertaining to the claim, including review and penalty petitions. This high-exposure case—the claimant had an average weekly wage of $2,846 with a maximum compensation rate—was the result of the claimant being terminated for failure to timely report a work-related injury as per company policy.

We successfully defended an appeal of a trial court grant of summary judgment in favor of a nail salon in a slip-and-fall case. The plaintiff alleged she fell in an untreated wet area inside the salon on a rainy day. However, the plaintiff failed to produce any evidence about the source of the “wet area,” or that the salon had actual or constructive knowledge of the wet area prior to the plaintiff’s fall. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the salon and the Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed that decision.

The applicant, a major medical provider, filed joint arbitration matters in the aggregate amount of $46,095.41, claiming our client owed it for the claimant’s unpaid medical bills. The claimant had been involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought payment for medical treatment. Counsel for the medical provider argued that the original denial basis was insufficient to deny the payment of the claims. However, after our successful argument at the arbitration hearing, our client’s policy of insurance was found to be completely and properly exhausted. Therefore, the arbitrator found in full favor of our client and denied the applicant’s entire claim, on both matters.

The plaintiff’s decedent was shot and killed while allegedly on his way home from school. We  were able to prove that the young man was a trespasser on the common area of the property where he was shot, even though his aunt was a tenant in the apartment complex. The decedent’s family claimed he was on his way to see her. Our investigation revealed that he was connected to local gangs and that, at the time of his shooting, he was wearing a ski mask (in Florida) and carrying a hand gun.

We obtained a directed verdict in a medical malpractice case after successfully challenging the plaintiff’s nursing expert’s qualifications to render standard of care opinions against a certified emergency nurse. The plaintiff, a 61-year-old female with an undisclosed history of seizures, returned to the emergency department with complaints of nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. While she was being worked up, she got out of bed without calling for assistance, had a seizure and fell face forward. She sustained a subarachnoid hemorrhage and subdural hygromas.