Results

We secured a unanimous defense verdict in Philadelphia on behalf of a prominent orthopedic surgeon. The plaintiff alleged that the physician inappropriately touched her during a preoperative examination for bilateral hip surgery. Through meticulous cross-examination and persuasive argument, the defense team achieved a complete victory.

We secured a unanimous defense verdict in Philadelphia on behalf of a prominent orthopedic surgeon accused of inappropriate touching of a patient. The plaintiff alleged that the physician inappropriately touched her during a preoperative examination for bilateral hip surgery. Through meticulous cross-examination and persuasive argument, the defense team achieved a complete victory.

We prevailed in a bench trial in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas before the Honorable Joshua Roberts. This case involved a declaratory judgment action prosecuted on behalf of a major vehicle rental company and their insurer. Our client sought declaratory judgment based on an investigation which revealed material misrepresentations in association with the presentation of claims. Following trial, the court entered declaratory relief, voiding the applicable policy ab initio and terminating coverage.

We successfully defended the plaintiff’s appeal of a trial court decision sustaining preliminary objections on the grounds of improper venue. This case involved the death of a 19-year-old woman at a university who fell down an 11-story trash chute in an off-campus condominium building. In this mixed negligence and product liability case, we represented two of the multiple defendants, the condominium association and the building management company. The Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas found that venue was improper in Philadelphia County and ordered that the case be transferred to Centre County. The plaintiff appealed that decision, and the matter was briefed and argued in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. The Superior Court, in a precedential decision, affirmed the trial court’s decision and found that there was no abuse of discretion in sustaining the preliminary objections. In support of its decision, the Superior Court found that the plaintiff’s arguments were unsupported by Pennsylvania law. The Superior Court, in finding waiver of an issue, quoted directly from the brief prepared by Kim.

We obtained a dismissal in the middle of trial after cross-examining the plaintiff’s witnesses. This case involved a former NFL player and opera singer who contended they had permanent injuries after knee surgery and the failure to diagnose a pseudoaneurysm. Plaintiffs’ counsel agreed to dismiss our client prior to the end of their case, to prevent him from participating in the trial further, and decided to limit their recovery to the other defendants due to our successful cross-examination.

We received a defense verdict after a two-day arbitration hearing in a traumatic brain injury case. With an initial $5.25 million demand, the plaintiff alleged overmedication led to cardiac arrest and a traumatic brain injury resulting in permanent neurocognitive impairment. Through testimony from our providers and experts across internal medicine, pulmonology, toxicology, and neuropsychology, we demonstrated that the care met the standard, did not cause the arrest, and that any deficits could have been pre-existing.

We were successful on appeal of a child abuse determination levied against an Aveanna home health nurse. The three-day hearing was litigated before the PA Department of Human Services. As a result of the court’s order, the nurse’s record of child abuse is being expunged. The matter arose out of the alleged attack of a child-patient by a family dog during home nursing care. It was asserted that the nurse failed to properly supervise and protect the child, and failed to properly respond to the incident when it occurred. We established a lack of definitive proof that the nurse negligently left the child unsupervised. We also called into question the circumstances surrounding the alleged attack, including whether the dog had a known history of aggression, which led to credibility issues on the part of the family member witnesses. Medical experts also testified on the appellant’s behalf to address possible alternate explanations for the child’s injuries. Ultimately, we established that the prosecution failed to meet its burden of proof, highlighting multiple errors and inconsistencies relating to the investigation as well as the reporting processes. This is a significant outcome in a difficult jurisdiction with many problematic underlying facts (which led to the decision to not call the nurse to testify in her defense). 

We represented an orthopedic practice in a case involving a former NFL player and opera singer who alleged permanent injuries after knee surgery and the failure to diagnose a pseudoaneurysm. Our highly-effective cross-examination of the plaintiff's witnesses resulted in our client's dismissal before the close of the trial, with the plaintiff choosing to limit their recovery to the remaining defendants. 

We received a defense decision after a seven-day bench trial in a product liability action in which the exposure in the case exceeded $30 million. Our client designs, sells and services engineered equipment for the energy industry, including natural gas compression apparatuses for use in transmission pipeline systems. In 2015, the client sold the plaintiff two reciprocating compressor systems to replace outdated equipment at a station located near Downingtown, PA. The compressor systems were designed to inject oil into the gas stream for piston lubrication. This lubricating oil needed to be removed from the gas stream using filtration devices supplied by the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed weld debris contained within certain vessels of the compressors migrated downstream upon commissioning and compromised several gas filtration devices. The plaintiff further contended the damaged filtration devices permitted excess lubricating oil into the pipeline, which fouled multiple turbines owned by its downstream customer at a large natural gas-fired power plant, causing significant economic losses. The applicable contract between the plaintiff and our client contained a forum selection clause requiring litigation to take place in Lake County, Indiana. The plaintiff claimed commercial losses of $18 million, plus attorney fees (per contract) in the neighborhood of $4 million. The plaintiff also maintained it was entitled to pre-judgment interest. If successful in establishing liability, this sum would have added another $5 million to $7 million to the damage award, depending on the interest rate employed by the court. Therefore, the pure exposure in the case exceeded $30 million. In response to the plaintiff’s claims, we successfully established that the weld debris incident was a red herring and did not damage the filtration equipment. Material testing of debris from within the filtration devices revealed very little weld debris compared to pipe scale and other naturally occurring components. Through key expert testimony, we established that the plaintiff could not meet its burden of proof because the oil contamination events may have been caused by several factors directly attributable to the plaintiff’s lack of design engineering, inadequate equipment maintenance, equipment failure and inappropriate response to system alarms.

We received a defense verdict in a dental malpractice action before the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas. The plaintiff had a history of issues with his third molars (wisdom teeth) beginning in 2012. In 2013, he was referred to have one of them extracted by a prior dentist. In October 2015, the plaintiff presented to our client for a broken tooth. During the exam, our client advised him that he needed to have all four of his third molars removed. He even suggested it needed to be done at the next visit. However, the plaintiff did not schedule any further appointments. On January 10, 2017, the plaintiff presented with an infected third molar on the lower right. Our client suggested extracting both third molars on the right, as all of his third molars were broken down and sources of infection, but the plaintiff would only allow extraction of the lower tooth. The dentist extracted the tooth, gave a prescription of amoxicillin, and administered two loading doses to get the antibiotic to therapeutic levels more quickly. He also told the plaintiff to call if the swelling in his face did not improve or if it got worse. Over the next four days, his swelling got worse every day, but he did not call the dentist. Finally, on January 14, 2017, his swelling had progressed into his neck, and he called our client, who saw him and immediately sent him to the emergency department. He was admitted to the hospital for 40 days, was intubated, underwent 11 procedures, including multiple incision and drainage procedures, placement of a PEG tube, and a tracheostomy. The plaintiff’s experts agreed that a patient has responsibility for his own care, and failing to have his teeth extracted, or calling the doctor when the situation got worse, contributed to his injury. Although contributory negligence was on the verdict slip, the jury never got to the question as they found our client was not negligent.

We obtained a directed verdict in a New Jersey Law Against Discrimination case filed against a national trucking company after two days of trial. The plaintiff was a laborer who assisted a truck driver making deliveries to a retail store. The driver admitted to making sexually explicit comments to the plaintiff. The plaintiff argued the comments were made due to his race (African American) and were protected under the LAD. Jillian and Len argued that the comments were offensive to anyone who heard them and had nothing to do with the plaintiff’s race. At trial, the judge agreed that the language used by the truck driver, however offensive it was, could not sustain a cause of action under the LAD as it was not based on a protected category as alleged by the plaintiff. The judge dismissed the case.

We secured dismissal of all claims, with prejudice, in a personal injury action on behalf of a nonprofit organization operating youth baseball leagues in New Jersey. The plaintiffs sought to hold our client liable under a negligence theory after their minor child was injured while participating in our client’s recreational baseball league. We moved for summary judgment, arguing that the league was a nonprofit organization entitled to protection under New Jersey’s Charitable Immunity Act, which shields nonprofits from ordinary negligence. In opposition, the plaintiffs attempted to avoid dismissal by challenging the league’s nonprofit status, claiming the minor’s age created an exception to the Act. Through targeted arguments and documents evidencing the league’s nonprofit status, the court agreed that the Charitable Immunity Act applied and that the plaintiffs failed to show gross negligence to overcome the Act’s protections. The court granted the league’s motion for summary judgment in its entirety and further agreed with our arguments that the volunteer coaches were independently shielded under New Jersey’s Volunteer-Coach Immunity. 

We were successful in having a motion for indemnification granted. Our client’s subcontractor did not secure workers’ compensation coverage as required by the statute. Therefore, our client—the contractor—became the statutory employer and accepted the claim as compensable, providing medical and indemnity benefits and reaching a settlement compromise with the injured worker. We filed a motion for indemnification, requesting that the subcontractor be ordered to reimburse our client for all monies paid on the claim. After an evidentiary hearing was held, where we presented evidence and called the vice president of claims to testify, the judge of compensation claims granted our motion.

We won dismissal of the plaintiff’s appeal of a defense verdict. Our client issued a professional liability insurance policy to the plaintiffs. When the plaintiffs were sued for legal malpractice, they notified our client of the suit and asked them to provide counsel to defend the matter. However, the plaintiffs never agreed to counsel proposed by our client. The plaintiffs then proceeded to mediation in the legal malpractice action and settled the matter without notifying our client. As a result, our client denied the plaintiffs’ request for indemnification. The plaintiffs then brought suit against our client for breach of contract and bad faith, alleging they wrongly denied indemnification and failed to provide counsel. The matter went to jury trial from April 8–11, 2024, where we successfully defended our client as the jury returned a defense verdict. The plaintiffs filed post-trial motions and then appealed the decision to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, arguing the trial court erred in allowing the jury to see a copy of the insurance contract during their deliberations. The Superior Court dismissed the appeal and found that the plaintiffs waived their argument by failing to cite relevant legal authority in their appellate brief. The Superior Court also stated in a footnote that, should the court have reached the issue on appeal, it would have found it meritless because the insurance contract was a central piece of evidence to which the plaintiffs did not object during trial.

We were granted summary judgment in a coverage matter. The plaintiff was seeking UM benefits for a policy he had on a car he owned for an accident that occurred when he was operating a motorcycle he owned, but did not insure. The court confirmed that the policy excluded underinsured motorist coverage for the plaintiff’s motorcycle. The issue was that the definition of “motor vehicle” for the other owned motor vehicle exclusion was not specifically provided in the policy. In the PIP coverage, the policy contained an exclusion for motorcycles because the definition said motor vehicles must have four wheels. The plaintiff argued that the same policy said a motorcycle was not a motor vehicle for PIP coverage, but was a motor vehicle for the other owned vehicle exclusion. This was an ambiguity in the policy that should be interpreted against the carrier. The plaintiff had significant injuries that far exceeded the value of the policy. The court upheld both exclusions and followed our argument that the PIP and UM portions of the policy are separate and distinct and that any definition in the PIP coverage did not necessarily apply to the UM coverage. 

We received summary judgment in the defendant’s favor in a nursing home malpractice case. The plaintiff claimed that the facility failed to prevent various conditions and injuries during the resident’s admission—such as UTI/sepsis, acute kidney injury/metabolic encephalopathy, dehydration and failure to thrive/weight loss, and skin breakdown. The plaintiff alleged these developments resulted in numerous damages, including, but not limited to, death. Our motion for summary judgment on behalf of the defendant sought dismissal on the grounds that the facility held immunity pursuant to the Pennsylvania Tort Claims Act. The plaintiff hotly disputed the issue. Ultimately, several rounds of briefing were required to achieve the ruling in the facility’s favor.

We obtained a defense verdict on behalf of a hospital and two Emergency Department physicians after a six-day jury trial in a complex and extremely emotional case involving the death of 7-year-old child. Allegations of negligence surrounded the failure to admit and perform a urine drug screen on an 18-year-old who presented high on synthetic marijuana or K2. We argued that the doctors appropriately performed numerous exams, tested and monitored the patient until he achieved clinical sobriety. The patient was discharged, then 22 hours later smoked more K2 and within two hours strangled his 7-year-old sister to death.

We obtained a defense verdict on behalf of one of the Philadelphia region’s largest hospitals and two of its Emergency Department physicians after a six-day jury trial in a complex and extremely emotional case involving the death of 7-year-old child. Allegations of negligence surrounded the failure to admit and perform a urine drug screen on an 18-year-old who presented high on synthetic marijuana or K2. We argued that the doctors appropriately performed numerous exams, tested and monitored the patient until he achieved clinical sobriety. The patient was discharged, then 22 hours later smoked more K2 and within two hours strangled his 7-year-old sister to death. 

We had our clients dismissed via sanctions imposed. On Jan. 6, 2011, Charles Sample was arrested by officers of the Philadelphia Police Department’s Narcotics Field Unit. The plaintiff alleged the officers seized $40,000 in cash from his vehicle, falsified a search warrant affidavit, disregarded proper procedures and withheld exculpatory evidence, leading to drug charges. The plaintiff entered a guilty plea for probation to avoid a lengthy prison sentence. On Jan. 6, 2017, the court granted the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial based on after-discovered evidence, and the charges were nolle prossed. The plaintiff filed his initial complaint on Jan. 4, 2019, alleging federal civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law claims. Due to related litigation involving the Narcotics Field Unit, the case was placed in suspense on March 10, 2020, and restored to the active docket on Nov. 15, 2023. On April 4, 2024, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, asserting six causes of action: § 1983 claims for fabrication of evidence, suppression of evidence, malicious prosecution, civil rights conspiracy, municipal liability (against the City of Philadelphia), and state law claims for false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution and conversion. On Aug. 5, 2025, Judge Gerald J. Pappert of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed the plaintiff’s claims against the individual police officer defendants under FRCP Rule 37(b) for failure to comply with discovery orders, with prejudice. Applying the Poulis factors, the court found the plaintiff personally responsible for nearly two years of non-communication with his counsel, which prejudiced the police officers by delaying trial preparation and demonstrated a history of dilatoriness without reasonable excuse. Lesser sanctions were deemed ineffective due to the plaintiff’s prolonged unresponsiveness, and the merits of his claims could not be evaluated, rendering this factor neutral. The City’s motion to join the police officers’ sanctions motion was denied, as they did not move to compel discovery or demonstrate the plaintiff’s violation of a related court order. 

We obtained a defense verdict in two consolidated matters in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania following a five-day trial before Judge Gallagher. The first plaintiff alleged he was terminated in retaliation for filing a lawsuit and that he was subjected to racial discrimination during his employment. The second plaintiff alleged he was terminated in retaliation for supporting the wage and hour claims of the first plaintiff. After deliberating for approximately two hours, the jury answered “no” on the five theories asserted by the plaintiffs.

We secured an arbitration win, slashing a $83,000 claim to $625. The applicant, a major medical provider, filed an arbitration matter in the total amount of $83,625, alleging our client owed it for the claimant’s unpaid medical bills following a major motor vehicle accident. The claimant had been involved in the motor vehicle accident and sought payment for a series of medical treatments rendered post-accident. Counsel for the medical provider argued that the medical billing was never properly paid, therefore, payment of the claims was overdue. However, we successfully argued at the arbitration hearing that the applicant’s demand amount was greatly over exaggerated and that the amount in dispute must be limited to the appropriate fee schedule limit of $625.82. After arguments were heard, the arbitrator ruled in our client’s favor.

We successfully defended a multinational food corporation in a workers’ compensation case. We filed a suspension petition based upon the claimant’s employment prior to being taken out of work. The claimant filed a reinstatement petition for a right carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) claim and a claim petition for the left CTS claim. The claimant also filed UR petitions related to her treatment with Dr. Mercado and Dr. Patel. Prior to the decision, we accepted left-sided CTS as work related. The issue to be decided by the workers’ compensation judge was whether the claimant was entitled to a reinstatement of benefits because the job required her to work in a cold environment. In the decision, the judge noted that when the claimant was working she did not have to touch the cold meat which was on a conveyor belt. She also wore gloves and cold weather clothing while performing the position. The judge noted that Dr. Martinez did not know the temperature of the claimant’s hands with gloves on nor did he know the temperature of the plant. He also noted that Dr. Martinez testified that if the claimant’s hand temperature with gloves on was between 70-80 degrees, that should be acceptable. The judge noted that the employer’s witness testified to an experiment measuring hand temperature with gloves on: her hand temperature with the glove on was initially 87 degrees and after roughly 3 hours on the floor, it was 75 degrees. Dr. Talsania testified that cold temperature does not affect CTS. The judge found the claimant’s testimony and Dr. Martinez’s testimony not credible. The judge found the employer’s witness and Dr. Talsania credible in all respects. She also found the UR reports credible concerning the claimant’s treatment. The judge suspended the claimant’s benefits effective May 23, 2024, finding she was capable of performing the quality monitor position in the cold environment. 

We obtained a defendants’ verdict in New York Civil Court where we represented an appliance company and their employee, who was accused of stealing a Rolex watch. The client’s employee installed a light fixture in the plaintiff’s residence. After the installer left the residence, the 85-year-old plaintiff could not locate his $31,000 Rolex watch. He filed a claim with his homeowner’s carrier and received $500 because the watch was not scheduled. He also filed a police report. He then retained counsel and commenced suit against the defendants for conversion, breach of contract and negligent hiring. During dispositions of both the plaintiff and his wife, we elicited testimony that neither had any proof that the defendants stole his Rolex watch. He further elicited that no criminal charges were ever brought against the employee. We filed for summary judgment, denying the allegations, and included affidavits from the employee and the owner of the appliance company in which it was indicated that there were no prior complaints regarding the company and/or the installer. The motion was denied. At the trial conducted in June 2025, Chris again elicited testimony from the plaintiff that he had no proof that the installer stole his Rolex watch, nor did the plaintiff provide any proof that the installer’s employer engaged in negligent hiring, as there were no prior complaints regarding this employee. At the close of the plaintiff’s case, we again moved for a directed verdict, arguing that the plaintiff had not established his claim for damages or proven the allegations in the complaint. The motion was denied. Rather than hearing oral summations, the court directed the parties to submit written summations. In our written summation, we outlined dismissal of the case, arguing that any finding against the defendants for theft would be tantamount to accusing them of stealing when neither the police nor the district attorney found any probable cause to criminally charge them. The court dismissed the case in its entirety. 

We won a defense verdict on a penalty petition filed by the claimant against a mushroom company. In the penalty petition, the claimant alleged that Supreme Court precedent allows the finding of a penalty when a carrier does not immediately issue an award check after a decision on the merits. The check was issued 19 days after the decision (and within the 30-day time period commonly accepted in the business for payment of awards). The claimant argued that payment should have been made within one day of the award. The case turned on legal precedent concerning the efficacy of statements made in dicta versus common sense practice. The case held implications for procedure on payments of awards in Pennsylvania. After hearing oral argument, the court held that the employer’s argument was more logical and supported by the preponderance of the case law. 

We won a defense verdict on a claim petition filed by the claimant, a police officer for the township. The claimant was called to the scene of an active shooter barricaded in his home. The officer was placed in a strategic position outside the home with weapon drawn. The standoff lasted many hours, but was resolved peacefully when SWAT arrived. The claimant finished his shift and went home. The next morning he awoke with headaches, nausea, double vision and dizziness. Ultimately, he was diagnosed with mini-stroke, nerve palsy and resultant diplopia—he was disabled from working. He filed a claim petition and presented a neurologist to support a work injury. This doctor’s deposition was riddled with objections since the neurologist tried to read into the record (and at times misread into the record) the diagnoses of a neuro-ophthalmologist. The neurologist then tried to argue that the claimant’s condition was a psychological injury in origin. The employer presented the opinions of a board certified neuro-ophthalmologist, who opined that the claimant has no work-related injury. The court found the employer’s evidence to be more believable, and the claim petition was dismissed.

We successfully prosecuted a termination petition involving a 65-year-old, 35+ year employee of a renowned international automobile corporation who sustained a left knee injury on June 19, 2023. We secured medical records supporting a significant pre-existing history—with a prior left knee replacement and treatment leading up to June 1, 2023—establishing that the only work injury sustained was a left knee contusion. Further, the opinions of the defense medical expert, a board-certified orthopedic surgeon with a sub-specialty in the treatment of the knees, were found competent and credible, thus supporting a full recovery based upon his comprehensive physical examination and his review of records and diagnostic studies. The workers’ compensation judge further found the employer had a reasonable basis to contest all issues and denied attorney’s fees. Such a decision will result in a substantial recoupment of indemnity and benefits payments made throughout the course of the litigation via a Supersedeas Fund Reimbursement recovery.

We obtained dismissal of our insurance broker client on Motion for Summary Judgment in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, Pennsylvania, on the basis of no duty breached, and lack of causation. Claimants asserted a professional negligence theory for allegedly allowing a commercial insurance policy to lapse, failing to notify the policyholder claimant of the lapse or cancellation, and allowing a subsequent gap in coverage to exist after the policy cancelled, when an underlying loss occurred. However, after completed discovery depositions and expert discovery, we successfully moved for summary judgment, arguing the policy cancelled because of the policyholder’s own failure to comply with premium audit requirements, rather than any liability or breach of standard of care by the insurance broker.

We won summary judgment in a motor vehicle case before the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County, Pennsylvania. The plaintiff was in the course and scope of her employment at the time of the vehicle collision. She filed a workers’ compensation claim, and the workers’ compensation judge ultimately determined that her alleged injuries were not related to the motor vehicle accident. The plaintiff appealed that decision to the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board, which affirmed. In her civil action against the driver and owners of the other vehicle, we asserted that the decision of the workers’ compensation judge acted as collateral estoppel with regard to all claims, thus barring recovery by the plaintiff against our client. The plaintiff argued that the right to a jury trial, as guaranteed under the Pennsylvania Constitution, precluded application of collateral estoppel. The trial court disagreed, finding ample case law to support the application of collateral estoppel in such circumstances, and granted our motion for summary judgment.

We successfully convinced the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania to affirm the Court of Common Pleas of Wayne County’s grant of our preliminary objections and dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint in mandamus. In its complaint in mandamus to the Court of Common Pleas, the plaintiff argued that our client’s letter denying its plan and application for the development of solar panels was insufficient under the Municipalities Planning Code, thus entitling it to a deemed approval of its plan. We had successfully filed preliminary objections to the complaint on the grounds that the Township’s letter, which identified the plan’s defects with specific reference to provisions of the Municipal Planning Code that had not been satisfied, was sufficient under Section 508 of the Municipal Planning Code. This section requires that, when a municipality denies an application for approval of a development plan, “the decision shall specify the defects found in the application and describe the requirements which have not been met and shall, in each case, cite to the provisions of the statute or ordinance relied upon.” 53 P.S. Section 10508(2). The plaintiff appealed the decision, and we attended oral argument before the Commonwealth Court, following which the court affirmed the decision of the lower court on the same grounds.

We convinced the Commonwealth Court to affirm the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board in favor of our client, the employer, which upheld the workers’ compensation judge’s denial of a claim petition. By memorandum opinion, the court found that the judge’s credibility findings were neither contradictory nor arbitrary and capricious, and the decision was reasoned. The court agreed with the employer that the defense experts’ opinions constituted substantial evidence, also noting that the Social Security Administration’s findings of disability were irrelevant to the issue of work-relatedness. The court concluded that the claimant failed to sustain her burden of proving a work-related injury, and since the causal connection between her “lingering symptoms and her work duties” was not obvious, she was required to present unequivocal medical evidence establishing that connection, which she failed to do.