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 His drug test showed a positive indication for the presence of marijuana, and his offer was rescinded.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claimed that he notified the facility that he held a valid Medical Marijuana Identification Card, yet our client still rescinded its offer in violation of the Pennsylvania Medical Marijuana Act.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

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 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 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 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 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 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.

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.

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.

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.

We were successful in having a case dismissed on summary judgment in Brooklyn, New York. The plaintiff was a ticket agent for an international airline at LaGuardia airport. Our client was the cleaning service for the airport terminal. The plaintiff claimed she tripped and fell over a “worn/torn defective” floor mat behind the ticket counter. Depositions of the defendant indicated that they did not own, control, maintain or supervise the mats behind the airlines’ ticket counter. Summary judgment was filed in 2020. After two lengthy oral arguments in February 2022, the court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing the action.

The arbitration panel found in favor of the defendant in a motor vehicle accident case where the plaintiff was driving a dump truck and claimed he was side-swiped by a tractor-trailer. The plaintiff filed suit against the driver of the tractor-trailer and his employer, both of whom were represented by Marshall Dennehey. It was the defendants’ position that the plaintiff was not side-swiped, but that the plaintiff actually rear-ended the tractor-trailer because he was going too fast to stop as the tractor-trailer moved from the right lane into the left lane. At the arbitration, plaintiff’s counsel attempted to introduce photographs that were not produced in discovery and were only shown by the plaintiff to his attorney the morning of the arbitration. Plaintiff’s counsel also attempted to enter into evidence the police report. We were successful in getting both items of evidence precluded. The key piece of evidence was that the plaintiff admitted, both in his written responses to discovery and during his testimony, that he first noticed the defendant’s vehicle merging into his lane when the defendant’s vehicle was 30-40 feet ahead of him.

We obtained summary judgment in a legal malpractice matter where the underlying case concerned a matrimonial representation in a highly contested divorce. In the underlying matter, our clients represented the wife in a contentious divorce from her attorney husband.  At all times, our clients advised the wife regarding litigation strategy and the disputes concerning discovery and failure to provide documents, which delayed the matrimonial case even further. At all times, our clients aggressively represented the wife and retained competent experts to evaluate the husband’s law practice for purposes of equitable distribution. When the wife terminated the representation by our clients, they advised the wife of the risks of settling the case with her husband (an attorney) without counsel present (the advice was not heeded by the wife in the settlement of the claims). We were successful in arguing that our  clients did not deviate from the standard of care and represented the wife adequately up until the point of termination of the representation. This was potentially a multi-million-dollar case based on the size of the marital estate, and the judge granted summary judgment on behalf of the attorney defendants.

We successfully prosecuted a termination petition and at the same time defended a review petition on behalf of a Berks County mushroom facility in a falling object case. The claimant sustained a strain injury to his neck when he was struck by a stack of falling mushroom baskets at work. Although the baskets only grazed one side of his head and neck, the claimant alleged that his opposite shoulder was injured in the accident to the extent of a fully torn rotator cuff tendon. The claimant also alleged that a calcified longitudinal ligament in his neck was also caused by this accident, resulting in surgery and disability. We convinced the court that the only injury sustained during the incident was a neck strain that fully recovered—all other alleged injuries were found not to be work related.

We obtained a unanimous defense verdict after a nine-week trial in Suffolk County, New York, where the plaintiff’s counsel requested that the jury award $40 million in damages. The plaintiff was 51 years old when she was diagnosed with peritoneal mesothelioma, allegedly as a result of being exposed to asbestos-containing joint compound manufactured and sold by our client. The plaintiff, who was 56 at the time of trial, testified that she had little or no knowledge of ever being exposed to asbestos. However, her older sister, who served as the only product identification witness at trial, testified that she recalled that their father used asbestos-containing joint compound on two occasions, approximately 50 years ago, when he repaired their home after a fire in 1970 and when he built a home in Florida around 1975. The plaintiff was five years old during the alleged exposures, and her sister was seven years older. The plaintiff’s sister testified that she had a vivid memory of her father using six different joint compounds during the two projects, including our client’s product. She also testified that the plaintiff was present hundreds of times when their father mixed, applied and sanded the joint compound. At trial, we called an industrial hygienist, a toxicologist and an epidemiologist, who testified that the type of asbestos fiber used in our client’s joint compound did not cause or contribute to her mesothelioma because the fibers are too short and do not cause disease. Our epidemiologist testified that the plaintiff’s mesothelioma developed spontaneously and was not the result of asbestos exposure. We also called a construction expert, who testified that the sister’s testimony regarding the amount of joint compound used and the time the sister was exposed were excessive. The jury deliberated an hour before returning the verdict. Post-trial comments from jurors indicated they did not find the sister to be credible.

After suffering severe brain damage in a motor vehicle accident, the plaintiff brought claims of negligence and recklessness against our restaurant client and other various defendants, including the owners and operator of the offending vehicle, who was charged with multiple criminal offenses (still pending) for operating under the influence. On behalf of our client, cross-claims were asserted for contribution and indemnification. The co-defendants first requested revision of the cross-claims, which were complied with, and then moved to strike the cross-claims as not recognized under Connecticut law. We argued, on behalf of the restaurant and sole proprietor owner, that there was a minority view of Superior Court cases of more recent vintage than that cited by the co-defendants’ counsel which supported such cross-claims. We submitted that the rationale behind these cases includes the plain language interpretation that Connecticut General Statutes Sec. 52-572h(c) does not prohibit a defendant from acquiring an apportionment evaluation of another (already named) party’s negligence. We argued this is particularly so under the circumstances of a criminally charged co-defendant operating under the influence as the final conduct in the negligence timeline. The Stamford Superior Court agreed that prohibiting the cross-claims would be absurd, irrational and nonsensical. 

The plaintiff claimed that our client, an orthopedic surgeon, was negligent (directly or circumstantially under a theory of res ipsa loquitur) in causing a right common peroneal nerve injury during a L4-5 laminectomy and posterior spinal fusion. The plaintiff sought to prove that the peroneal nerve injury was the result of improper positioning and/or monitoring of the plaintiff intra-operatively. Our defense was that the plaintiff’s peroneal nerve condition was indicative of a spontaneous entrapment unrelated to the allegations of negligence, and for which she was predisposed due to a prior total knee replacement. The arbitrator agreed and returned a finding of no negligence.

The Appeal Board rejected the claimant’s argument that the testimony of the employer’s medical expert did not support the judge’s finding of a termination of benefits for a low back injury because the employer’s medical expert testified that if the claimant was asymptomatic in her back prior to her slip and fall in a kitchen at work, the injury may have aggravated a pre-existing, underlying condition in her lumbar spine. But, at the judge level, the claimant admitted under cross examination that she had a prior work injury to her low back that she did not report, which caused her to experience ongoing low back symptoms. The Board noted that the potential expansion of the claimant’s low back injury, based upon the testimony of the employer’s medical expert, was dependent on whether the claimant had no prior low back complaints, which said she did (and failed to disclose). The Board, thus, held that the judge correctly found the claimant’s low back injury was limited to that of a lumbar strain and sprain from which she was fully recovered. The decision was affirmed. 

We successfully handled a landscaper’s claim of a work-related low back injury. The claimant gave an inconsistent account of how his injury occurred, and when he gave notice. The defense presented five fact witnesses from the employer, two of whom testified the claimant never gave notice, and three of whom testified he told them he was going to fabricate this Workers’ Compensation injury because he wouldn’t be entitled to unemployment compensation benefits at the end of the season. Coincidentally, the testimony revealed the claimant did not receive unemployment compensation benefits. The IME physician found that the claimant fully recovered from any injury he sustained. The claimant subsequently had two surgeries, with $750,000 in medical bills (unadjusted). The judge found that the claimant sustained a low back sprain and then terminated him as of the date of the IME.

Our retail client faced a class action suit alleging claims it charged Pennsylvania state tax on face masks/coverings during the COVID-19 pandemic (when they were not subject to sales tax). The plaintiff on his own behalf and on behalf of the putative class alleged claims for violations of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices Consumer Protection Law and the Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act, as well as common law claims for unjust enrichment, fraud and misappropriation/conversion. The plaintiff claimed that face masks and coverings became exempt from Pennsylvania sales tax as of March 6, 2020, when the governor issued a Proclamation of Disaster Emergency. Prior to the Proclamation, non-medical face masks/coverings were subject to sales tax because they were classified as ornamental wear or clothing accessories. The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for any of the causes of action alleged and held that amendment would be futile.

We obtained a dismissal of an ethics grievance filed against our client, a school law attorney who represented a school board and a school district. The grievance included allegations of ex parte communications with the administrative law judge, undue influence over the court, and conflict of interest based on a mediator’s spouse being retained by this attorney’s firm. We successfully argued to the disciplinary investigator that the conversations this attorney had with the administrative law judge’s staff were rudimentary scheduling and routinely conducted in cases across New Jersey. In terms of the conflict of interest alleged, we also argued that this attorney was an associate with the firm and had no interactions or decision-making authority regarding hiring of attorneys in the firm. The disciplinary ethics investigator found by clear and convincing evidence that the testimony of the school law attorney was credible, and that there was no ethical misconduct by our client.