Results

We successfully appealed an emergency restrictive order issued by the Department of Health against a physician’s license. ​After allegations by a patient of sexual misconduct, the Department issued an emergency order restricting the physician’s license, thereby preventing him from treating any female patients in his practice. On appeal, the First District Court agreed that the emergency order was facially insufficient to demonstrate that sexual misconduct occurred or that an immediate threat of danger to the public existed, thereby quashing the emergency order and removing the restrictions on the physician’s license to practice medicine.

The agents/agency represented the buyer/plaintiff in his purchase of a home in Dauphin County. ​The plaintiff claimed the agents failed to disclose to him prior to settlement that there were alleged defects in the A/C system and heat pump, and that the roof was old and needed to be replaced. The plaintiff paid for a home inspection report of the property, which noted the age and condition of the A/C, heat pump and roof, but the plaintiff claimed he never received the report, even though he discussed the report with one of the agents and authorized the agent to reply to the report on his behalf. The reply specifically asked the sellers to make repairs to the roof. As part of the defense, we argued that the plaintiff’s claims were barred by the release language in the agreement of sale, which specifically stated that the plaintiff agreed to release the agency and its agents from claims relating to any defects or conditions on the property, and that the release by its terms survived settlement. In addition, we argued that the plaintiff waived his claims, at least as to the costs to replace the A/C and heat pump, when he declined in writing a home warranty plan that was offered to him prior to settlement by the agents. By signing the home warranty application form stating he was declining the plan, the plaintiff agreed in writing not to hold the agency and agents liable for the repair or replacement of a system that would otherwise have been covered by the plan. We introduced testimony that that the A/C and heat pump would have been covered if they did need to be repaired or replaced. The court found for the agency and agents and entered judgment in their favor.

Our client owned a parcel of land upon which a building was being erected. The plaintiff, an employee of a subcontractor, was at the premises cleaning up the worksite on a Saturday morning. He was standing on top of a company-owned work van in the parking lot, securing ladders to the roof of the van, when he slipped and fell off the van to the ground, sustaining serious leg and knee injuries. He underwent two knee surgeries and was also told he needed back surgery. The plaintiff sued our client, as the owner of the property, and the general contractor under Labor Law sections 200, 240 and 241(6). Labor Law section 240, also known as the “scaffold law,” imposes absolute liability to the landowner for height-related injuries that occur at construction sites when someone falls off a building or building under construction. Section 241(6) involves violations of the Industrial Code. At the close of depositions, we filed a summary judgment motion to dismiss all allegations of the Labor Law in that our client was not directing or controlling the plaintiff when he was injured. We further argued that the plaintiff fell off a motor vehicle, not from a building or anything construction-related, as the vehicle was in the parking lot adjacent to the construction and, therefore, the scaffold law did not apply. The court granted our motion in its entirety.

In this employment law lawsuit, the plaintiff was a former employee who filed suit against our non-profit agency client, asserting claims of gender discrimination in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination and retaliation in violation of the New Jersey Workers’ Compensation Act. This matter involved a long and contested period of discovery, including extensive discovery demands, complex e-discovery and extensive motion practice. During the course of discovery, we were successful in obtaining a motion for reconsideration concerning the production of e-discovery data and other documentation lacking in relevance and proportionality to the matter. We thereafter filed a motion for summary judgment as to both counts in the plaintiff’s complaint, arguing that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie claim of discrimination on the basis of gender, as the plaintiff failed to present any evidence demonstrating discrimination or mistreatment on the basis of gender. We further argued that the plaintiff failed to establish a claim of retaliation under the New Jersey Workers’ Compensation Act because the plaintiff failed to establish any nexus between the termination and the filing of a workers’ compensation claim. Our motion for summary judgment was granted in its entirety, with the court finding that the plaintiff was terminated for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons.

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

The claimant slipped and fell at work, injuring his head and neck. The carrier accepted a contusion injury. The claimant alleged multiple additional injuries including cognitive maladies, memory loss, speech problems, vision convergence, photophobia, cranial nerve injuries and balance issues. The claimant testified while wearing sunglasses due to his alleged photophobia condition. Thirteen hours of surveillance video disputed the claimant’s alleged symptoms (including his need for sunglasses). Prior health records revealed the claimant to be treating for all of his alleged cognitive problems before the work incident ever took place. The claimant’s first treating neurologist records supported the claimant’s symptoms to be non-anatomical. The carrier’s IME physician found the claimant to have suffered non-disabling contusion injuries which resolved. The judge found in favor of the employer and carrier, ruling that the claimant’s injuries were limited to contusions and had fully resolved. The claimant appealed the case to the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board, arguing the judge capriciously disregarded the evidence. The Board held that the claimant’s appeal was a veiled collateral attack on the workers’ compensation judge’s credibility determinations and affirmed the judge. At issue were potential life-time indemnity benefit payments and over $1 million of medical expenses.

​Our client was the roofing contractor on a project in Philadelphia. The plaintiff was an employee of a subcontractor of our client. The plaintiff was injured when he fell through a skylight cutout in the roof. He fell approximately 15 feet and sustained injuries, including a broken hip (requiring ORIF) and fractured vertebra. The plaintiff was hospitalized for one month. The last settlement demand was $2.5 million. We moved for summary judgment based upon arguments that our client, the roofing contractor who did not occupy the site nor control the work, breached no duty of care to the plaintiff. The court granted summary judgment.

The verdict came within 30 minutes of deliberation in a five-day Bradford County PA fire-loss subrogation trial. Social distancing protocols were in place: all participants had their temperatures taken before entering the courthouse; jury selection took place at a local school auditorium; everyone in the courtroom was required to wear masks or face shields; and the jurors were spread out to the gallery section of the courtroom instead of the jury box. Witnesses could appear via Zoom. Two witnesses were flawlessly broadcasted to the courtroom with help from the firm’s Allentown and Mount Laurel offices.

​The claimant worked as a coal miner for approximately nine years in underground mining. The administrative law judge denied benefits, finding the claimant had failed to establish that he suffered from a totally disabling respiratory condition. The claimant appealed. The denial of benefits was affirmed on appeal. The Benefits Review Board dismissed the claimant’s arguments that he had additional coal mine employment that would have entitled him to a presumption that his total disability was related to his coal mine employment. The BRB noted that the claimant had failed to prove a total respiratory disability and, therefore, the presumption would not apply irrespective of the number of years of coal mine employment that he proved.

We obtained an order of Dismissal in favor of a municipality in connection with a lawsuit filed by a worker. ​The worker sustained catastrophic injuries as a result of a mishap on the job which caused him to fall from the roof of a condominium project under construction. This was a multi-party action in which our client, the municipality, issued the permits but failed to carry out the inspections. Notwithstanding, we were able to demonstrate immunity under the New Jersey Tort Claims Act, and the court entered the order of dismissal.

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

Our appellate attorneys succeeded in convincing the Pennsylvania Superior Court to vacate a $40.2 million medical malpractice verdict and remand for a new trial. ​In its unanimous, precedential decision, the Superior Court ruled that the trial court had erroneously allowed plaintiffs’ counsel to utilize hearsay medical literature as substantive evidence. The case involved a spinal cord birth injury and was tried in Delaware County.

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

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

We obtained a no cause verdict following a one day non-jury trial (conducted virtually) in the Law Division of Hudson County for our client, a national trucking company. The plaintiff alleged the truck swerved into his lane causing property damage. The defense successfully argued that the plaintiff’s identification of the trailer as belonging to our client was not dispositive on the issue of the identification of the company responsible for operation of the truck which was pulling the trailer at the time of the accident. The judge further found the police report was not admissible on the identification of the operator of the vehicle and also that regardless of identification, the plaintiff failed to establish the operator was negligent.

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

Obtained a dismissal at trial in Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County. ​The plaintiff, an acupuncture facility, alleged wrongful denial of personal injury protection/no-fault benefits relating to acupuncture services rendered to its assignee, a claimant who sought benefits under the defendant-carrier’s policy. The trial judge granted dismissal of the complaint on the basis of the carrier’s defense, that payments were issued in accordance with the applicable fee schedule and, therefore, nothing further was owed to the plaintiff.

We obtained summary judgment in Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County. ​The plaintiff commenced an action seeking reimbursement of PIP benefits under the defendant-carrier's policy for anesthesia rendered to the claimant during a surgical procedure. After establishing that the claimant failed to appear at multiple, duly-scheduled independent medical examinations—a condition precedent to coverage—the complaint was dismissed.

We successfully defended a workers’ compensation case that was transferred from the insurance carrier’s staff counsel after litigation and motion practice. ​After a settlement offer in excess of $16 million was rejected, the case went to trial. At trial, we were able to prove that an uninsured subcontractor was hired by the general contractor, who was the actual employer of the injured worker. Under New Jersey Law, this means that the general contractor is responsible for the workers' compensation benefits for the petitioner. The case was dismissed with prejudice, and the general contractor was also ordered to reimburse the carrier approximately $2.8 million that they had paid out, based upon a previous order to provide medical and temporary benefits to the petitioner.

Marshall Dennehey successfully obtained summary judgment, dismissing all claims against our client in a marine construction New York Labor Law case in the Supreme Court in Rockland County. ​The case involved bodily injuries sustained to an employee of our client, a sub-subcontractor at the site of the new Mario Cuomo Bridge. The property owner, general contractor and the subcontractor each cross-claimed and/or third-partied our client into the case, all seeking contractual and common law indemnity and contribution pursuant to the terms and conditions of the various contracts. We argued, and the court agreed, that since there was no finding of negligence against our client in causing the injuries sustained to the plaintiff, the indemnification clauses were not implicated. The court found there was no evidence demonstrating that our client caused, in whole or in part, the injuries the plaintiff sustained. The plaintiff and general contractor filed motions to reargue, which were denied.

The plaintiff’s wife reported to police that the plaintiff tried to kill her by firing a shotgun at her while she slept. Following a thorough investigation and witness interviews, police arrested the plaintiff and charged him with attempted murder. The next day, the wife recanted her story and told police that she was the one who fired a shotgun in the couple’s home in an effort to frame her husband for attempted murder. Police immediately had the plaintiff released from prison. The wife was later charged with, and pleaded guilty to, making false statements to authorities. Thereafter, the plaintiff sued the police department and arresting officer, claiming the defendants falsely arrested and imprisoned him and maliciously prosecuted him without probable cause in violation of his 4th and 14th Amendment rights. Following discovery, a motion for summary judgment was filed on behalf of the defendants. The court found that the undisputed facts of record clearly showed the existence of probable cause at the time of arrest, and summary judgment was granted in favor of the defendants.

​The petitioner filed a motion for additional medical and temporary disability benefits, essentially alleging she was permanently and totally disabled from prior compensable shoulder and leg injuries. After a three-day trial and extensive briefing, the judge dismissed the motion. He determined that, despite the compensable injuries, the petitioner had plateaued medically and was not entitled to any further benefits.

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

We obtained a defense verdict after a one-week trial in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The case involved alleged race, gender and/or “intersectional” (race and gender) discrimination claims by two women against a Philadelphia area school district.

We successfully obtained a defense verdict on behalf of a dentist in a dental malpractice action in Luzerne County. ​The plaintiff asserted causes of action for negligence and lack of informed consent. Regarding negligence, the plaintiff alleged the dentist used excessive force in extracting a lower third molar, thereby causing a fracture of the mandible and alleged permanent paresthesia. In response, the defense admitted that the mandible was fractured during the extraction, but offered expert testimony that the fracture was an extremely rare complication and was not caused by negligence. The defense argued there was no evidence of the use of excessive force, such as TMJ disorders or dislocation, lacerations or broken adjacent teeth. As for informed consent, the plaintiff argued the dentist did not obtain informed consent because he did not discuss the risk of fracture. The dentist testified that he discussed the possibility of permanent numbness as a risk, but he admitted that fracture was a risk of the extraction and that he did not discuss this risk because the chances of it occurring were astronomically low. The plaintiff’s and the defendant’s experts both agreed that the chances of a fracture occurring were less than 0.0009%. The jury returned a defense verdict on all causes of action in less than one hour.

Marshall Dennehey successfully argued pre-trial motions to dismiss in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Camden County in a matter involving a $10 million tortious interference and defamation case filed on behalf of investors against an attorney and bank counsel arising out of a multi-million dollar loan for a commercial land transaction. The allegations against the attorney included slander and a claim for tortious interference, with prospective economic advantage for a contract that the plaintiff entered into with the investor. With regard to slander, we argued that the established case law in New Jersey holds that the subject pejorative was simply name calling and did not rise to the level of actionable defamation or slander in New Jersey. The court agreed and dismissed the defamation claims. Additionally, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s tortious interference claim, rejected the plaintiff’s claims of willful misconduct of the bank’s attorney and found that the plaintiff’s damages claims, although supported by expert reports, were speculative. The court agreed with the defense argument that the plaintiff’s claims for lost profits were barred by New Jersey’s New Business Rule. Under the New Business Rule, prospective profits of a new business are considered too remote and speculative to meet the legal standard to recover damages. As a result, the court entered a dismissal of the entire case.

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

We obtained a per curiam affirmance in the Fourth District Court of Appeal in a suit against a campground/RV park. The suit alleged that the campground negligently maintained the campsite and failed to keep the electrical up to code, forcing an RV owner to abandon her RV at the site. The campground countersued for writ of distress to remove the unsightly vehicle from the campsite. The trial court entered judgment on the pleadings and declined to amend the complaint, finding an amendment would be futile. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s entry of final judgment in favor of the campground on the main claim as well as the counterclaim. The court also conditionally granted the campground’s motion for appellate attorney's fees and remanded the case to the trial court to rule on the validity of the unaccepted proposal for settlement.

​The homeowners claimed the homeowners association’s response to their request to mediate the dispute violated the applicable mediation statutes. They sued the association for declaratory and injunctive relief. The circuit court, sitting in its appellate capacity, had affirmed the final judgment in favor of the association and awarded it appellate attorney’s fees and costs. The homeowners then filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the Fifth District Court of Appeal, alleging the circuit court deprived them of due process and committed an error of law that resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The Fifth District Court of Appeal denied the petition and awarded the association its appellate attorney’s fees. This prompted the homeowners to dismiss another pending appeal and resolve all claims for attorney’s fees in favor of the association without further litigation.

Marshall Dennehey was successful in the New Jersey Appellate Division, which affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint under New Jersey’s Charitable Immunity Act. The defendant operated a shelter for battered women, their dependent children and the homeless. The plaintiff and her child were residents at the shelter and beneficiaries of its charitable goals when the plaintiff slipped and fell on ice on the shelter’s property. She argued that she was not a beneficiary of the charity because she did administrative tasks and volunteered in the charity’s thrift store. However, the trial court and Appellate Division rejected those arguments, holding that the plaintiff’s presence on the defendant’s property was due to her being a resident beneficiary of the charity, not as a result of any volunteer work she may have performed for the defendant. Thus, because her volunteer activities were incidental to her residency at the shelter, the Charitable Immunity Act applied and the dismissal of the complaint was affirmed.