Results

We successfully defended a superintendent of a Pennsylvania School District. The elementary teacher plaintiff was disciplined following an investigation into allegations that she struck a student. The plaintiff raised claims against the superintendent for intentional infliction of emotional distress, loss of consortium, and violation of procedural due process. The defense argued that, as a superintendent, he was afforded high public official immunity and, therefore, the court dismissed the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. The court also dismissed the loss of consortium claim as it was a derivative claim of the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. The court further held that the plaintiff was not deprived of her procedural due process rights, as she was given the opportunity through the teacher's union to arbitrate a grievance over her suspension. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's complaint, with prejudice. 

We obtained a unanimous decision in the New Jersey Supreme Court reversing an order for a new trial. ​In this medical malpractice action, the defendant was a physician who allegedly committed malpractice when he prescribed a drug to a patient. According to the plaintiff's experts, she was not an appropriate candidate for the drug. The matter was tried by another law firm before a jury, which reached a defense verdict. However, on appeal to the Appellate Division, the court reversed and remanded for a new trial on the grounds that the defendant's change of testimony at trial, from what it had been in his deposition, prejudiced the plaintiff. The matter was then transferred to Marshall Dennehey for further appeal in the New Jersey Supreme Court. The Supreme Court unanimously agreed with the defense’s argument that the precedent which the Appellate Division had relied upon in ordering the new trial was distinguishable. Further, the fact that plaintiff's counsel failed to object to the changed testimony at trial was likely strategic and, therefore, did not prejudice the plaintiff sufficiently to compel the reversal. The court reversed and reinstated the jury verdict. 

We obtained a defense verdict in a legal malpractice case affirmed on appeal. Our client was an attorney who represented a plaintiff in a civil rights case against a New Jersey municipality. The underlying facts were complex, involving fraud claims against the municipality, and claims based on contract, inverse condemnation, civil rights and negligence. In the legal malpractice case, the jury found deviation but no proximate cause. In the legal malpractice case, the plaintiff sought recovery of the legal fees and punitive damages to which he claimed he was entitled in the underlying case, plus prevailing party counsel fees, which can be recovered in a legal malpractice case in New Jersey. We also successfully handled the appeal, which involved all of the issues from the underlying case and the malpractice trial. 

​The plaintiff was a high school junior who alleged he was physically abused by a special education teacher. He sued the teacher, the school district and several administrators, alleging violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New Jersey Civil Rights Act and the New Jersey Anti-Bullying Statute. After a long period of discovery and many depositions, the court granted our summary judgment motion. 

We were successful on a motion for summary judgment that was granted dismissing all claims against our client, an environmental compliance services and tank testing company, in a case where the plaintiff made an $8.75 million settlement demand. ​The plaintiffs, a minor mother and child, were at a gas station in Philadelphia when a vehicle inadvertently struck a fuel dispenser, knocking it over and causing a fire and explosion. The claims and cross-claims asserted against our client alleged it should have installed or advised the gas station owners to install a valve that would have prevented the fuel leakage that exacerbated the fire. We filed a summary judgment motion arguing that the claims and cross-claims asserted against our client went beyond the scope of the environmental compliance services it was hired to perform such that our client had no duty to either install or advise of installing different valves. The court granted our motion dismissing all claims and cross-claims against our client.

We obtained summary judgment in a legal malpractice action in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. The plaintiff, a Philadelphia police officer, was arrested after failing to appear in court following a hit-and-run car accident involving his motor vehicle. After proving that he was not the driver of the vehicle, the charges were dismissed. The plaintiff then sought damages from the township, police department and individual police officers for alleged violations of his civil rights. Our client, an attorney, represented the plaintiff in connection with responding to summary judgment and appealing the dismissal of his civil rights claims. When the dismissal of the plaintiff's claims was affirmed, he sued the attorney for alleged malpractice. We successfully argued on summary judgment that the plaintiff's claims were time-barred and failed as a matter of law because the plaintiff could not have prevailed in the underlying litigation. In fact, the plaintiff brought similar civil rights claims in three separate lawsuits, all of which failed. The court agreed, dismissing the legal malpractice claims as time-barred and further stating that, even if they were not barred by the Statute of Limitations, the plaintiff's claims failed as a matter of law because he cannot demonstrate that he would have prevailed but for something the attorney did or failed to do.

We obtained summary judgment in New York County in a case where the plaintiff, a construction laborer, was struck by a rolling dumpster and sustained severe crush injuries to his left foot and leg. The plaintiff, the dumpster company and the subcontractors alleged our general contractor client was responsible for overall site safety. After obtaining billing and work records for the project, the client confirmed that it did not have any involvement in the project, and we moved for summary judgment. After oral argument, the court granted our motion in its entirety and dismissed the case and all cross-claims.

We successfully defended a worldwide youth development organization in litigation surrounding an employee fall at work. ​The claimant allegedly fell after walking into an object that he claimed had a metal connector that struck his head, causing his glasses to fall off. He claimed temporary total disability. He was diagnosed with orthopedic, neurologic and neuro-ophthalmologic injuries, including but not limited to the neck, eyes, skull contusion, concussion and post-concussive syndrome. The employer captured the incident on video. Due to the questionable mechanism of injury, the defense convinced the workers’ compensation judge to travel to the employer's location to view the actual video of the incident. The employer presented multiple fact witnesses who corroborated the video and lack of disability. Based upon the video and the credible testimony of the fact witnesses, the judge found only a head contusion and no disability, and no liability for the claimant's extensive litigation costs.

We obtained a defense verdict in a three-day jury trial  in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas. ​The 81-year-old plaintiff, who was staying at her daughter's home, alleged that she slipped and fell on water in the basement of the rental property and injured her hip. The property was owned by our clients. The plaintiff's daughter and son-in-law claimed they repeatedly complained to our clients of leaks from the ceiling in the basement, without response. They were in the midst of eviction proceedings with our clients for failure to pay rent for several months when the fall occurred. Our clients denied any knowledge of the leaking problem alleged by the tenants, though they did admit that they were aware of leaks in other areas which they attempted to fix. The jury deliberated for 2 ½ hours, had two questions, and asked for the negligence charge to be read back to them. They then returned a finding of no negligence. There was a nuisance value settlement offer made prior to trial, which was rejected.

We successfully defended a Philadelphia-based law firm in litigation surrounding an alleged work injury with resultant post-concussion syndrome. ​The claimant tripped and fell at work, alleging that he struck his head during the fall. He donned sunglasses at the hearing and depositions, claiming his injury led to photophobia and post-concussion syndrome. During discovery, it was determined that the claimant had suffered and was treated for headache symptoms and memory loss prior to the alleged work injury. Surveillance revealed that the claimant did not use sunglasses when carrying out everyday activities. The claimant's medical expert admitted on cross-examination that he was unaware of the claimant's pre-existing medical condition and was not aware of the surveillance evidence when arriving at his opinions and conclusions. The workers’ compensation judge found that the claimant and the medical expert were not credible, leading to the successful resolution of the claim.

The defense prevailed on a motion to dismiss our real estate agency client. The plaintiff filed counts of fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, conspiracy, conversion, invasion of privacy-false light, breach of contract, and promissory estoppel against the agency regarding an allegedly fraudulent transfer of a private residence by the co-defendant seller of the property. We filed preliminary objections, arguing that the plaintiff's claims lacked sufficient specificity and that the plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The court dismissed all claims against our client. 

We obtained summary judgment in favor of our homeowner clients in a case involving an alleged “attack” by our client’s dog. ​As the plaintiff walked past the client's property on a public sidewalk, the dog ran out to the edge of the sidewalk barking loudly. The plaintiff became "startled" and stepped back, falling into the street and sustaining a seriously displaced left distal radius fracture that required open reduction and internal fixation. Upon review of the summary judgment motion, the court found no evidence that the dog was a "dangerous dog" or that the dog had ever left the confines of the insured's property. Interestingly, the court ruled that the dog's barking and charging the sidewalk did not represent a breach of duty by the homeowner to the public on the sidewalk under the applicable statutory and case law.

We received a defense verdict in a podiatric surgical malpractice arbitration. ​The plaintiff alleged that the defendant podiatrist negligently performed foot surgery, causing her foot deformities to worsen and resulting in shooting pain in her big toe, pain under her second and third toes, and imbalance. Her husband claimed loss of spousal consortium. The defense successfully argued that the surgery was performed reasonably and within the standard of care, and that the plaintiff developed known and accepted risks and complications of the surgery. 

Several police cadets were not allowed to take the state licensing exam after the municipality learned that those cadets had been cheating to complete academy requirements. The cadets were referred for disciplinary charges and then terminated. They brought suit, alleging due process violations for allegedly holding sham post-disciplinary hearings, predetermining termination, and not allowing them access to the evidence against them. Select plaintiffs also alleged racial discrimination. The plaintiffs' entire suit was dismissed on summary judgment when the Northern District of Ohio found that the plaintiffs had not completed their probationary period and, thus, did not have a property interest in their employment with the municipality. The court further found that the municipality's decision to terminate the employees for failure to take the state test was a reasonable decision and did not violate their substantive due process rights. Finally, the plaintiffs were unable to present any evidence to support a racial discrimination claim.

We obtained summary judgment in favor of a town and several of its police officers in an excessive force and malicious prosecution case in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The plaintiff and his family were in Bloomsburg the night before his daughter’s graduation when he got into a fist fight with a bar owner. The owner suffered significant injuries and the plaintiff fled the scene. He was spotted a short time later by one of the defendant officers, pursued and arrested. The plaintiff was charged with disorderly conduct, harassment, simple assault and aggravated assault. Following the criminal trial, the plaintiff was found not guilty. He then sued our clients—the town and several officers—for excessive force and malicious prosecution. The plaintiff’s wife also sued, alleging loss of consortium and emotional distress. The wife’s claims were dismissed via a motion to dismiss. Following the close of discovery, motions for summary judgment were filed on behalf of our clients. The court granted our motions, finding the existence of probable cause as a defense to claims for malicious prosecution and wrongful arrest. The court also found that the arresting officer acted reasonably during the pursuit and detention of the plaintiff.

We obtained summary judgment on behalf of a rock climbing center. ​The plaintiff, a certified climber, was injured when she fell from a 25-foot rock-climbing wall at our client's facility. After reaching the summit of the wall, she pushed off to begin repelling down, only to realize that she forgot to connect to the auto-belay system. She fell to the ground and fractured both ankles and underwent open reduction internal fixation surgery. She had previously visited the client's facility approximately 35 times and had executed a liability waiver on each occasion, including the date of the accident. We moved for summary judgment to dismiss her complaint based upon the fact that the liability waiver was enforceable. The plaintiff argued that the liability waiver was only enforceable as to her claims of ordinary negligence, and that the issue of whether the defendant was grossly negligent was a triable issue of fact. However, we successfully argued that no reasonable jury could find that the client was grossly negligent based on the client's testimony of the safety procedures, protocols and equipment in place at the rock-climbing center. Accordingly, the court granted our motion for summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiff's complaint, in its entirety, against our client.

Defense award in a binding FINRA arbitration in Boca Raton, Florida on behalf of a broker-dealer. ​The broker-dealer was sued in arbitration by two retired broker claimants who sought $5 million in past and future benefits, under a retirement program that paid override fees to retired brokers on books of business they had developed decades ago.

We obtained dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint and all cross claims against our client, a commercial plumbing contractor, on a motion for summary judgment in a construction defect case. ​The case involved claims by a homeowners association for property damage and replacement costs allegedly in excess of $6 million as a result of construction defects in the design and installation of plumbing, water collection, drainage, grading, and other water runoff and drainage systems. In addition to our client, the named defendants were the project architects, the general contractor, various plumbing, electric, concrete and grading trades, and the water and electric utilities, all of whom asserted cross claims. We were granted summary judgment on grounds that the plaintiff’s breach of contract claim failed due to lack of privity and proof that the plaintiff was not a third-party beneficiary of our subcontract. All claims and cross claims for negligent installation/breach of warranty were dismissed upon proof that our client’s work was performed in accord with project specs and in accord with the applicable building code, and that none of its work contributed to any drainage issues or resulting property damage.

We defended an insurance agency and agent in the Twelfth Appellate District of Ohio. The plaintiffs contacted the insurance agent to obtain insurance for two residential properties. The agent obtained the requisite information for the insurance applications from the plaintiffs, including their primary mailing address, a post office box address. The agent advised them that their only insurance option was through the Ohio Fair Plan (OFP), as neither property had been insured in the prior three years. The plaintiffs gave the agent a check for the premium. The agent explained that the OFP would inspect both properties prior to issuing coverage and that coverage would be cancelled if any required repairs were not made. The OFP sent a notice of cancellation to the post office box listed on the insurance application. It also sent a refund check to the agent. The plaintiffs claimed that they never received the notice of cancellation or the refund check. They sued OFP, the agent and insurance agency. After written briefs and oral argument, the court of appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of the agent and agency on the grounds that there was no evidence that the agent represented to the plaintiffs that the property had insurance coverage prior to a fire at one of the properties. Further, although the plaintiffs claimed that they never received notice of cancellation, the insurance application indicated that they would be informed directly from the insurer whether or not coverage was going to be provided. Therefore, the agent was not required to inform the plaintiffs of the cancellation. The court also held that the plaintiffs failed to present any evidence the agent fraudulently concealed the refund check from them, even if they did not receive the check.

We successfully defended a Northeastern Pennsylvania manufacturing and supply company in an appeal involving high medical and indemnity exposure. ​The claimant suffered a shoulder strain while lifting at work. She returned to the job only to allege a recurrence of her shoulder disability shortly thereafter. She filed a reinstatement petition that was denied when the Workers’ Compensation Judge accepted our argument that the recurrence was due to a non-work-related motor vehicle accident. Thereafter, the claimant traveled to Florida and underwent cervical disc surgery. Nearly a year after the surgery, she filed a petition, alleging that the cervical disc herniation was caused by the original work injury and the neck surgery and resultant disability were work related. The judge found the cervical disc herniation was not caused, aggravated, accelerated or worsened by the work injury and the surgery was not payable. The claimant then filed an appeal to the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board, arguing that the judge disregarded substantial evidence of causation. The Board heard oral argument and ruled that the judge's ruling is free of error.

We successfully defended a Philadelphia-based university in an action by a local medical provider for submissions of compound cream medication. The provider submitted the medication to the carrier via three medical specialists from the same medical group. The first doctor submitted an expensive bill for the compound cream to the carrier for payment. A second doctor from the same office submitted another expensive bill for the same compound cream, allegedly based on an exam that took place on the same day as the first doctor’s exam. Then a physician’s assistant submitted an expensive bill for the same compound medication, allegedly arising out of an exam she had with the claimant on the same day as the first two doctors. The carrier refused payment of the bills and filed a Utilization Review Request against all three providers. The UR requests came back in the carrier’s favor, and the providers’ attorney filed a review petition to challenge the UR determinations. We defended the review by establishing that the providers illegally billed the carrier for exams that allegedly took place on the same day, resulting in the same medication being prescribed and submitted for payment three separate times by three separate practitioners. The judge found the medical providers not to be credible and upheld the UR determination in its entirety.

We obtained summary judgment in favor of a borough, its police chief, a detective, a lieutenant and a school resource officer in a civil rights lawsuit. ​The plaintiff, a local high school teacher, alleged that no probable cause existed to charge him with witness intimidation, arising from an alleged incident involving a female student who was a victim of institutional sexual assault by another teacher. In its opinion granting summary judgment, the court determined that the Affidavit of Probable Cause, which was the basis for charges against the plaintiff, was supported by the evidence at the time the affidavit was prepared. The court also held that, because no violation of Section 1983 existed, all claims against the individuals and the municipality must be dismissed. Finally, the court ruled that the individual defendants enjoyed qualified immunity because no constitutional violation existed.

On the eve of trial, we obtained summary judgment for our attorney-client, dismissing a complex legal malpractice case in which damages were sought in connection with the underlying land transaction. ​This case included allegations that our client had multiple conflicts. The plaintiffs’ claim for damages included an allegation of $8 million in lost profits due to our client advising the plaintiffs to sell out of this business deal early, while another client of the attorney made $40 million in this deal! We were successful in obtaining dismissal by demonstrating that the plaintiffs’ experts could not prove their lost profit claim due to New Jersey’s New Business Rule and due to the fact that they could not prove any out-of-pocket damages in this case.

The case involved a woman with significant cardiac problems who suffered cardiac arrest and death. Her estate alleged that our clients, a medical resident and an intern, improperly administered certain pharmaceuticals, leading to her death. The plaintiff originally named two physicians as experts, a cardiologist who was offered to testify to the standard of care, and a physician board certified in occupational medicine, medical toxicology and emergency medicine, who was initially named to give testimony on causation. Before deposition, the expert cardiologist withdrew, and the plaintiff did not obtain the services of another expert, choosing instead to attempt to proceed with the other expert providing both standard of care and causation testimony. The Appellate Division affirmed the decision of the trial court which dismissed the case, finding that because the expert did not devote the majority of his professional time in the year prior to the decedent’s death in a clinical practice that encompassed the medical condition or procedure at issue, he was not qualified under New Jersey law to offer standard of care testimony. As such, the dismissal of the complaint was affirmed.

We obtained summary judgment in favor of our insurance company client. The plaintiff sought UIM coverage from our client as a resident relative of the client’s named insured. The plaintiff was a named insured on another policy which provided UM/UIM coverage. The court granted our motion for summary judgment based upon an exclusion in the client’s policy that excluded UIM coverage for any family member if that family member is a named insured on another policy providing UM/UIM motorists coverage. The court found this exclusion to be clear and unambiguous and to reasonably inform the plaintiff that he was not entitled to UIM coverage under the policy. The court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the exclusion was vague, ambiguous and unenforceable.

We successfully defended a petition for permanent total disability benefits, supplemental benefits and penalties, interest, costs and attorneys fees. The judge entered a Final Compensation Order, finding the claimant was not permanently and totally disabled despite a substantial, but not exhaustive, job search. The judge found the claimant’s job search was not sufficient or reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances, including her physical impairment, age, employment history, training, education, motivation, work experience, work record, and diligence to establish entitlement to permanent and total disability benefits. The judge held the testimony of the employer/carrier’s vocational experts was persuasive in his decision to deny PTD benefits, finding the claimant was employable with the assistance of vocational counseling.

The order involved multiple petitions filed by a pro se claimant for compensability of contact dermatitis and concrete burns allegedly sustained while working. The judge ruled in favor of the employer on all petitions, finding compensability was previously resolved and the ongoing issues were moot. The judge denied and dismissed, with prejudice, claims for temporary total and temporary partial disability benefits, authorization of medical care, and all corresponding penalties and interest. Most significantly, the judge granted the employer's defense of medical non-compliance from March 21, 2017, present and found that the claimant required no further treatment for his work-related injury. The employer can recover taxable costs against the claimant pursuant to Florida Statute 440.34 as the prevailing party on all petitions.

Successfully defended a petition for permanent total disability benefits, supplemental benefits and penalties, interest, costs and attorneys fees. The judge entered a Final Compensation Order, finding the claimant was not permanently and totally disabled despite a substantial, but not exhaustive, job search. The judge found the claimant’s job search was not sufficient or reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances, including her physical impairment, age, employment history, training, education, motivation, work experience, work record, and diligence to establish entitlement to permanent and total disability benefits. The judge held the testimony of the employer/carrier’s vocational experts were persuasive in his decision to deny permenant total disability benefits, finding the claimant was employable with the assistance of vocational counseling.    

We were granted partial summary judgment in a Labor Law case venued in the New York Supreme Court, Bronx County. The plaintiff was installing new floors in a large residential building in Manhattan that was owned by our client. The project involved a large-scale renovation of a penthouse and several lower levels. During the renovation, the plaintiff fell through an opening in the floor and sustained injuries to his knee and back. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment under New York Labor Law Section 240(1). We cross-moved for summary judgment, seeking a dismissal of all claims. Our expert concluded that the plaintiff could have avoided the accident and that proper safety equipment was provided. The court denied the plaintiff’s motion and granted our motion in part by dismissing the plaintiff’s Labor Law Section 200 claim and numerous 241(6) industrial code violations.

We prevailed on an appeal before the Appellate Division, Second Department, NYC, reversing a lower court order that denied summary judgment to our client, the owner of a movie theater. The plaintiff was a patron at the movie theater, where he got into a fight with another patron over a parking spot. The plaintiff sued the theater for negligent security. The defense was able to show that there was no notice to the theater because the incident was sudden and unexpected, based on the short duration of the altercation, and the lack of similar prior incidents at the theater. The appellate court granted summary judgment to the theater.