Results

Obtained a defense verdict on behalf of a supermarket in a premises liability case in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. The plaintiff claimed that she was injured when her hand was trapped in a deli case door that was closed by an inattentive employee. She claimed that in an attempt to free her hand from the deli case, she suffered an injury to her shoulder and her neck. MRI scans after the incident did show degenerative disc disease in her neck, as well as multiple herniated discs. Her treating orthopedic surgeon attributed the injuries to the incident in question and recommended a cervical fusion. Through investigation, we learned that the plaintiff had filed a lawsuit in New York as a result of a fall in 2007. We obtained a transcript of the plaintiff’s deposition from the prior lawsuit, which indicated that her treating physician in the New York case had recommended the same health care procedures that had been recommended after this incident. The jury did find the employee who closed the deli case door on the plaintiff’s hand to be negligent. The jury also found that the plaintiff was negligent in sticking her hand in the area of an open deli case and that the plaintiff’s negligence outweighed the defendant’s negligence, barring her recovery. 

We successfully defended a nationally renowned canning and food corporation headquartered in Pennsylvania. The claimant alleged that she sustained an injury to her upper extremities due to repetitive motion at work. She described her duties to include placing slices of cheese on sandwiches and hand-making pizza in an assembly line, which she alleged led to her injuries. The claimant’s medical expert testified that he was told the job duties involved working with jars of mushrooms, repetitively causing the claimant’s injuries. On cross examination, this expert was pinned down as to the mechanics of the claimant’s job duties. The defense then presented fact witness testimony confirming that the claimant did not use her upper extremities at all in performing job duties—contradicting the claimant’s testimony and the expert’s testimony. The Workers’ Compensation Judge concluded that the claimant did not use her upper extremities repetitively at work and dismissed the claim.

Marshall Dennehey's health care attorneys obtained a defense verdict on behalf of a midwife in a case involving alleged failure to properly manage and care for a patient’s labor and delivery, resulting in catastrophic injury to her child. Counsel for the minor-plaintiff argued that the pregnancy and labor were high risk. Therefore, it was below the standard of care to use intermittent auscultation (IA) during the second stage of labor. The plaintiff argued that the fetus suffered a catastrophic brain injury during the second stage of labor, resulting in cerebral palsy and daily intractable seizures. The child is six years of age, wheelchair bound, unable to speak or feed himself, and will require lifetime supervision and care. The defense argued that the patient’s pregnancy remained low risk; that IA was within the standard of care; a sentinel event did not occur during the second stage of labor; and that the child’s brain injury occurred in the days leading up to the hospital admission for labor. 

We obtained summary judgment in a putative class action lawsuit in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of a large insurer. The case dealt with a letter the insurance carrier would send to their insureds following a motor vehicle accident in which they advised their insureds that they would have a rental vehicle for five days. The named plaintiffs argued the letter misrepresented the policy language and they sued for breach of contract, bad faith, declaratory judgment and equitable relief. Per the insurer’s request, the court agreed to stay class action discovery so that the insurer could file a dispositive motion as to the named plaintiffs, which, if granted, would dispose of the entire putative class action case. In its motion for summary judgment, the insurer argued that the named plaintiffs could not meet their individual burdens of proof since it was undisputed they had a rental vehicle for 23 days and had returned the rental the same day they picked up their newly purchased vehicle. The court agreed and granted the insurer’s motion for summary judgment in its entirety and dismissed the action. The court reasoned, in part, that the named plaintiffs’ alleged damages were speculative and that issuance of the rental letter did not constitute a breach of the policy since the plaintiffs could not show that they were not afforded benefits to which they were entitled.

Our appellate attorneys were retained shortly before trial. While driving our client’s truck, an employee struck a car from behind that had stopped in the middle of the road after its hood flew open. The collision injured three members of a family and killed a six-year-old child. The Superior Court vacated the judgment and remanded for a new trial on the basis that the trial judge had improperly granted summary judgment to several vehicle repair shops, all of whom knew of but failed to repair the condition that made the car’s hood fly open.

Following oral argument heard en banc, the Delaware Supreme Court issued an opinion upholding the application of the Continuing Storm Doctrine, resulting in the affirmation of the lower court’s decision to grant summary judgment to our client. 

We obtained a defense verdict in a jury trial in Pennsylvania. The defendant was walking her Labrador Retriever, along with her five-year-old cousin. She entrusted the leash to her cousin, who promptly lost grip on the leash, allowing the dog to escape. The dog ran in the direction of the plaintiff and his Shih Tzu, with the defendant in pursuit. The plaintiff claimed that the Labrador Retriever jumped on his chest, knocking him to the ground and causing compression fractures in his lumbar spine. The injuries were confirmed by the defense IME. The defendant, on the other hand, claimed that she was able to regain control of the retriever before any contact with the plaintiff, and she testified that the plaintiff lost his balance and fell after becoming entangled in his own dog’s leash. The defense argued that the plaintiff’s injuries were the result of his failure to maintain control over his own dog, not because of negligence on the part of the defendant. The jury accepted the defendant’s version of the event and found in her favor.  

We obtained a defense verdict after a three-day trial in Philadelphia County in favor of a regional automobile franchise. The plaintiffs purchased a used 2011 Chevrolet Cruze from the defendant. They then claimed that their vehicle was purchased with the undisclosed fact that it had been involved in a flood. They asserted claims under the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law that the vehicle’s prior history was not identified and the vehicle was sold having mud, rust and dirt all over the car. The defense proved, through witness and expert testimony, that the plaintiffs drove the vehicle through high water and mud after purchase, causing the vehicle’s damage. 

The plaintiff suffered a perforated uterus following an ambulatory IUD removal surgery that was performed by our Ob/Gyn client. The following day, the plaintiff was readmitted with worsening symptoms and underwent surgery to repair the perforation. The plaintiff alleged that our client was negligent in failing to timely and properly manage the uterine perforation and that the delayed treatment resulted in the plaintiff requiring two open surgeries and ultimately a hysterectomy. With $4.4 million at stake, the jury returned a complete defense verdict.  

We obtained a dismissal in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey in an extremely complex, multi-party legal malpractice action. The action arose out of two estate litigations filed in state court in which our client was the attorney for the decedent and the temporary administrator. The plaintiff, the nephew of the decedent, filed a breach of fiduciary duty claim against our client in the U.S. District Court. The probate cases went against the nephew. The accountings were all approved over the nephew’s exceptions, in which he did allege that our client breached a fiduciary duty in handling the estate administration in failing to preserve documents, failing to locate the will, selling assets in contravention of his fiduciary role, failing to investigate property in the Bahamas, failing to preserve assets, and obtaining orders from the probate judges through fraud and deception. In its lengthy opinion, the District Court granted the defense’s motion to dismiss all claims against our client.

We obtained summary judgment on behalf of an insurance agency and insurance agent in a fraud action. Venued in Cincinnati, the case involved a dispute over the agent’s alleged failure to procure insurance coverage for a residence that sustained extensive, uncovered fire damage. The client had assisted the two homeowners in procuring insurance coverage for their residential properties with the Ohio Fair Plan Underwriting Association, an entity created by the Ohio legislature to provide insurance for property that is not insurable in the normal insurance market. After completing an inspection of the property, Ohio Fair Plan issued a notice that the carrier was cancelling the homeowners’ insurance contract. Ohio Fair Plan also issued a refund check to the homeowners. Sometime thereafter, a fire occurred at the homeowners’ residence. It was later conclusively determined that the homeowners did not have coverage with Ohio Fair Plan for the loss as a result of the cancellation of the contract. The homeowners alleged that they never received the cancellation notice or the refund check from Ohio Fair Plan or their insurance agent. The homeowners filed suit against the insurance agent and his agency, alleging claims of fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment as a result of the homeowners’ purported failure to receive the notice or check prior to the time of the fire, which the homeowners alleged would have enabled them to procure alternative coverage. The defense moved for summary judgment, arguing that the fraudulent misrepresentation claim lacked merit because the insurance agent never misrepresented any fact relating to the homeowners’ insurance coverage and never concealed any material fact from the homeowners. The court agreed and granted summary judgment.

Defense verdict after a four-day jury trial in northeastern Pennsylvania on behalf of a registered investment advisor and a securities broker dealer who were sued by their former client for investment losses in alternative investments.

We secured the dismissal of a declaratory judgment action filed in federal court against a large insurer. This case arose from a motor vehicle accident that occurred in 2015. The plaintiff averred that she had sustained injuries in excess of the tortfeasor’s bodily injury liability limits and sought stacked underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits. While the plaintiff had admittedly signed a rejection of UIM coverage form and a rejection of UIM coverage stacked limits form, she argued that her insurer had altered the statutorily required forms by adding additional language. The plaintiff filed a declaratory judgment complaint against her insurer. We filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on behalf of the defendant, which was granted by the federal court. The court reasoned that the UIM rejection form “specifically complied” with the applicable requirements of Pennsylvania’s Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law because the additional language, contained on the same page as the statutorily required rejection language, was “inconsequential.”

We successfully defended a national home décor manufacturer in the litigation of a review petition, which sought to add a cervical disc herniation and surgery to the nature of injury accepted in the case. The litigation had wide ramifications since the same claimant had attempted to reinstate workers’ compensation benefits based on an accepted shoulder/arm injury a year earlier and failed. As a result, the claimant traveled to Florida and underwent cervical disc surgery, claiming it was part of the same work-related injury. The defense proffered medical evidence to support the fact that the surgery and disc herniation were not caused by the work injury and that the medical bills and disability associated with the surgery were, likewise, not work-related.

We successfully defended an eastern regional can corporation in the litigation of a brain injury case. The claimant was struck in the lower extremities by a form of sheet metal which caused him to become unconscious. Nearly three years later, the claimant filed a petition alleging that he sustained a brain injury with post-concussion syndrome and cervical disc herniations as a result of the incident. The defense presented fact witness testimony from the scene of the accident which directly contradicted the claimant’s version of the facts. Moreover, the defense emphasized the weaknesses in the claimant’s medical expert’s opinions on cross examination as to causation. The Workers’ Compensation Judge found the claimant did not sustain a brain injury, post-concussion syndrome or cervical disc herniations related to employment.  

We successfully defended a national car company in a case involving the defense of a termination petition, the claimant’s petition for review of the utilization review determination, the claimant’s petition to review compensation benefit off-set, and a petition for penalties. The case involved a 2013 injury involving low back sprain/strain and an aggravation of degenerative disc disease with radiculopathy and facet arthropathy. The defense expert, a board certified orthopedic surgeon, reviewed all of the claimant’s pre- and post-injury medical records and diagnostic study films. The claimant admitted that he had increases of pain with activities not associated with work (long drives out of state, shoveling snow, housework) which he had failed to report to the IME physician or his own treating doctor. The Workers’ Compensation Judge ordered the termination of all the claimant’s benefits. The judge also dismissed the claimant’s petition to review the URO, finding the treating physician’s treatment no longer reasonable and necessary. Finally, the claimant’s penalty petition was dismissed.  

We successfully defended a fatal claim petition filed by the widow of a coal miner who had been awarded benefits for totally disabling coal workers’ pneumoconiosis in 1984. Despite the fact the miner had been collecting temporary total disability benefits from 1984 until the time of his death in 2016, we were able to present credible and persuasive medical evidence to the Workers’ Compensation Judge that coal workers’ pneumoconiosis was not a substantial contributing factor to the miner’s death. The fatal claim petition was denied.  

The plaintiff alleged to have suffered a fall in a hospital bathroom three days post-operatively that reinjured his surgically repaired knees. The nurses denied the patient fell to the ground and testified, consistent with their charting, that the patient lost his balance in the bathroom and sat on a commode. There was a significant economic damage claim in that the plaintiff was a young restaurant owner who suffered two distinct orthopedic injuries that required multiple surgeries and additional future care. The jury returned a defense verdict 50 minutes after deliberations began, finding that the nurses were not negligent.

We obtained summary judgment in a general liability case in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The plaintiff was an employee of a recently-renovated resort when a solid wooden panel fell down and struck her in the head, causing serious injuries. The plaintiff alleged improper design, manufacture, and installation of the panel against a number of the defendant contractors and subcontractors. It was unclear as to which defendant actually installed the panel. However, there was testimony that the panel had fallen down after the renovations were completed and that the resort’s maintenance employees had possibly re-installed the panel before it fell the second time, striking the plaintiff. There was no evidence of record that our client had any role in the design of the panel. The judge granted summary judgment as to our client only on a case where the plaintiff will be putting over $2 million on the board at trial. 

We argued successfully before the Pennsylvania Superior Court on behalf of a commercial real estate developer. The case involved a probation officer who fell and badly injured himself during a blizzard. The demand was in excess of $4 million. In its decision that reaffirms the “Hills and Ridges Doctrine,” the court reiterated our argument that, in essence, our client had no duty to remove snow and ice while it was still snowing. The court went further and held that no landowner has a duty to “pre-treat” their premises, and there is no duty to salt or place sand on parking lots during a storm or IMMEDATELY thereafter. It also reaffirmed that oral contracts for snow and ice removal are valid. 

In this complex lawsuit, the plaintiff suffered traumatic injury when the steering column of his tractor trailer became unyoked, rendering it uncontrollable and causing it to crash. The manufacturer is a Delaware LLC headquartered in North Carolina, but it manufactured the truck at its plant in Virginia. The plaintiff, a Pennsylvania citizen, crashed while driving it in Texas. The suit was filed in Philadelphia, as the LLC’s sole corporate parent is a Pennsylvania corporation. Based upon that, the plaintiff argued that the LLC should be deemed a citizen of Pennsylvania. The trial court sustained our preliminary objections due to lack of jurisdiction. We briefed and argued the appeal the plaintiff filed with the Superior Court, which affirmed on the basis that, despite its Pennsylvania parent, the LLC itself is not “at home” in Pennsylvania because it is formed and headquartered elsewhere. Therefore, there is no general personal jurisdiction over it.

We obtained summary judgment on behalf of a wellhead manufacturer in a product liability matter pending in Western Pennsylvania. The plaintiff drill operator alleged a wellhead was defectively designed, causing oil and gas to escape during operation, which led to a fire at the well site. The plaintiff asserted economic losses in excess of $1.4 million. We successfully argued that the plaintiff failed to elicit sufficient expert opinion to support the defect claim and also spoliated evidence in discarding the subject wellhead.

Obtained summary judgment on behalf of an owner and tenant where plaintiff alleged violation of Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6) and 200 when he fell off a ladder at the premises. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants violated these Labor Law sections in failing to provide him with a secure ladder and adequate safety devices while he was working on the alarm system at the premises. Defendants contended that the activity that the plaintiff was performing constituted maintenance and not repair of the alarm system and therefore was not an activity covered under the Labor Law. Defendants further contended that the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of the accident by taking and using a ladder from the premises without the permission of the owner or tenant instead of using a ladder from the service truck that he brought to the premises Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment under Labor Law §240(1) was denied and the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing all Labor Law and common law claims was granted.  

Obtained summary judgment in Nassau County, New York on behalf of an insurance broker in a negligence and breach of contract action. Our client allegedly failed to procure proper insurance coverage, resulting in uninsured Superstorm Sandy-related losses claimed to be in excess of  $2.3 million.  The court granted summary judgment and dismissal of the complaint, finding that the plaintiffs were unable to support its claims without non-hearsay evidence.

Successfully prosecuted a modification/suspension petition on behalf of a large financial institution nearly 12 years after the claimant’s injury. ​The claimant sustained injuries to her left shoulder and cervical spine in October of 2005. Since that time, she had two cervical spine surgeries and two shoulder surgeries. The defense established that the claimant was able to return to work in a sedentary-duty capacity, working from home in a telemarketing position, thus modifying her total disability benefits to partial disability. The Workers’ Compensation Judge was particularly persuaded by the factual testimony demonstrating that the actual job duties were no more than what she had to do in her normal activities of daily living.

Obtained summary judgment for a licensed clinical social worker in a negligence, defamation, fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress case. ​The plaintiff (the father, a police officer and president of the local school board) brought these claims after the social worker informed the Family Court of the children's allegations of physical and emotional abuse by the plaintiff, which were revealed to her during the minor children's therapy sessions. In granting summary judgment, the court found that the social worker's correspondence with the Family Court was immune from liability pursuant to the litigation privilege, irrespective of the fact that the court had not specifically sought her opinions and that she did not testify in the Family Court litigation. New Jersey recognizes immunity for all statements made in the course of litigation, regardless of their form, intent or truthfulness. The court also concluded that the plaintiff's claims for negligence and defamation were partially barred by the statute of limitations.

The claimant was a very credible employee who was seriously injured while on a horseback riding excursion at a Continuing Medical Education seminar. While attendance at the seminar was part of the claimant's job, the case evidence focused on whether the horseback riding extracted the claimant from the course and scope of employment. The defense presented fact witnesses from the university who testified that activities undertaken by the claimant outside of the scheduled CME classes (despite fostering camaraderie among the participants) were not within the claimant's course and scope of employment. The Workers’ Compensation Judge accepted our arguments, and the claim petition was denied and dismissed.

Obtained a defense verdict on behalf of a primary care physician. ​The plaintiff alleged the physician failed to order a blood test that would have detected a rare blood disorder called TTP. Five days after seeing our client, the decedent’s condition rapidly declined, and two days later, he died. Prior to trial, the plaintiff’s demand was almost $1 million. The defense was multifaceted. First, our client directed the decedent to the hospital where a blood test would have been performed, but the decedent refused. Furthermore, the decedent refused outpatient testing, which would have included a blood test. Our client tried to comply with the standard of care but was prevented from doing so because of the decedent’s choices. Second, We contended that the decedent did not die from TTP but, rather, from a related blood disorder called DIC, which is only caused by another underlying pathology, which, in this case, was suspected to be lung cancer. 

Successfully defended a Pennsylvania real estate broker who represented the seller in a residential real estate transaction. ​The homeowner-plaintiffs claimed that the seller and our client failed to disclose certain material defects in the property prior to closing. The plaintiffs’ complaint consisted of claims against our client for negligent misrepresentation and alleged violations of Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practice and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL) and Real Estate Sellers Disclosure Law (RESDL). In preliminary objections, the defense argued that the plaintiffs’ claims should fail as a matter of law because the complaint did not allege that our client had actual knowledge of any material defects or that our client made any misrepresentations concerning the property. The plaintiffs’ UTPCPL claim was premised primarily upon the Seller’s Property Disclosure Statement, which the court agreed did not apply to our client as our client did not prepare or sign the document, and because our client was not identified in the document as a source of any information about the property. The court dismissed the RESDL claim on similar grounds and held that the Disclosure Statement failed to identify any misrepresentation made by our client. Furthermore, the court emphasized the clear language in the RESDL, which provides that a seller’s agent shall not be liable for any violation of the RESDL unless the agent had actual knowledge of a material defect. 

Secured summary judgment in federal court in a bad faith case against a large insurer. ​The case arose from a pedestrian-motor vehicle accident that occurred in 2008 and dealt with the insurer’s handling of the plaintiff’s UIM claim following that accident. The plaintiff was run over by a rollback truck that was being repossessed on behalf of the owner. Because there were conflicting versions of events regarding how the accident occurred, the case went to arbitration on the issue of liability. The arbitrators found that the plaintiff was 33 1/3% causally negligent for his injuries, and the UIM claim later settled. The plaintiff then pursued a statutory bad faith claim, contending the insurer had delayed its investigation of the UIM claim without a reasonable basis and had unreasonably refused to pay the plaintiff UIM benefits. At the close of discovery, the insurer filed a motion for summary judgment, which was granted by the court, and the case was dismissed in its entirety.