Results

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.  

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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. 

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. 

Obtained a defense verdict in a medical malpractice case in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. ​The plaintiff alleged to be permanently disabled and in a wheelchair, requiring home health care for the rest of her life, as a result of an Emergency Room physician’s failure to timely diagnose and treat a viral infection involving the 7th and 8th cranial nerves (Ramsay Hunt Syndrome). We represented the ER physician, his employer (who staffed the ER) and the hospital. Plaintiff’s counsel submitted a $4 million life care plan to the jury for consideration, and the final settlement demand was $2 million. The jury agreed with the defense’s position that the doctor did not deviate from the standard of care. Because of this, no liability could be found against our client, nor any of the other defendants.

Obtained a dismissal on a directed verdict in a FINRA arbitration in New York. The defense represented a broker-dealer in a dispute with its former customer regarding the unauthorized use of her account information. The claimant was a customer of one of the broker-dealer’s New York branches, where her ex-husband also worked as a broker.

Obtained a defense verdict in a legal malpractice case in Florida. Our clients, two board-certified construction lawyers, had unsuccessfully defended the plaintiff, a real estate developer for a project in West Palm Beach, Florida, in a lawsuit brought by the general contractor that ended with an adverse jury verdict of over $1 million. In the underlying lawsuit, the two lawyers pursued a litigation strategy that, upon reflection, had little chance of success. The lawyers never communicated to their client the prospect of an adverse result, at least not in writing. During the underlying trial, the judge made critical comments concerning the attorneys' preparation and made several adverse rulings, including dismissing a third-party complaint against one party, stating that the lawyer had sued the wrong party, and another ruling excluding their primary expert because the expert's opinions were not properly disclosed during discovery. Our defense focused on the theme that the legal advice and strategy the attorneys provided to their client was based on inaccurate information supplied by the client; that the client deliberately withheld critical information; that their developer was the one in control of the underlying litigation strategy; and that his own actions and trial testimony undermined his case, not the actions of his attorneys. The trial lasted 14 days; the plaintiff's case took ten and one-half days to present three live witnesses; and there were over 500 exhibits admitted into evidence. The defense case was presented in two and one-half days with testimony from four live witnesses, including the plaintiff's attorney from the underlying trial. The jury deliberated for less than one and one-half hours before returning a defense verdict on all counts.

Obtained a directed verdict on behalf of a broker-dealer and a broker in a FINRA arbitration in New York. The claimant, a sophisticated and wealthy owner of a broker-dealer, alleged that he was being charged an unreasonable mark-up on municipal bond sales. The claimant further alleged that he was the victim of elder abuse. 

Secured a discontinuance for a multi-national auto financing company in a Chancery Division action in New Jersey arising out of claims by a potential franchisee against a dealership, the vehicle manufacturer, the financing company and a potential third-party buyer. The plaintiff's claims sought over $30 million in damages stemming from alleged violations of the New Jersey Franchise Act, breach of contract claims, tortuous interference allegations and a companion declaratory judgment action. The case involved the exchange of over half a million documents and extensive ESI discovery concerning sensitive consumer credit evaluations, personal net worth summaries, proprietary franchise statements, environmental impact studies, internal board meeting minutes, cell phone records, emails and due diligence materials, all subject to an order of confidentiality. The discontinuance was instrumental in clearing the path for the client to secure a key financing agreement with a new franchisor in a multi-million dollar dealer purchase. The settlement with the potential franchisee did not involve any contribution by the client.

Successfully represented a law firm in having a legal malpractice case dismissed in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.  The case involved an attorney of the law firm who had failed to respond to a motion for summary judgment in a slip and fall case.  After the case was dismissed, suit was brought against our client along with the individual attorney.  The plaintiff, well coached in the legal standard, testified that she clearly fell on hills and ridges and that if a response had been filed to the motion for summary judgment in Philadelphia Common Pleas Court, it would have been denied.  During the course of the investigation, it was discovered that photographs the plaintiff allegedly took the day of the incident did not match up with the weather conditions on record.  (The plaintiff had emailed the original photographs, which she claimed she took that day, to our client at the time they were representing her.) An investigation of the weather reports and metadata related to the photographs revealed that the photographs were actually taken much later in the week, after a significant snowfall had occurred. Presented with this evidence, counsel for the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit.

Attorneys obtained an order of dismissal with prejudice on a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on behalf of an accounting firm. Plaintiffs filed a Certificate of Merit indicating that "expert testimony is unnecessary" for prosecution of its claims. The attorneys' argued that plaintiffs could not present expert testimony on the standard of care or causation and, since the averments of the complaint taken as a whole implicated matters requiring expert testimony, plaintiffs' entire case must fail. The judge agreed and dismissed the entirety of plaintiffs' claims.

Attorneys obtained dismissal of a professional liability claim against defendant, a private, non-profit which provides a variety of health care services. Part of the services provided include mental health screening, which is furnished by certified screeners employed by the defendant. Several days after defendant conducted an initial assessment of an inmate at the county jail, the inmate committed suicide. His relatives, as Plaintiff, filed a complaint against defendant, as well as others, alleging negligence in failing to make proper recommendations and/or assessments with regard to plaintiff's mental status. Defense attorneys filed a Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to produce an Affidavit of Merit within the time permitted required and, therefore, failed to establish any breach of the applicable standard of care.

Attorneys successfully defended an accountant and his firm in a malpractice case. Plaintiff filed a malpractice counterclaim to a collection action commenced by the accounting firm, and 25 days later plaintiff filed a separate action for malpractice against the accounting firm and the individual accountant. Defense attorneys filed praecipes for non-pros for failure to timely file a Certificate of Merit as to both actions. Attorneys convinced the Court that both the negligence and the breach of contract claims alleged deviation from a professional standard and therefore both counts should be dismissed.

We successfully argued that a plaintiff’s claims against a local police department were precluded by law. First, we pointed out that our client was not an entity that could be sued. Second, we emphasized that the statute of limitations applied to bar the plaintiff’s claims. Finally, we contended our client was immune from liability pursuant to R.C. § 2744.01, even if it could be sued. The plaintiff attempted to argue his case for excessive use of force, malicious prosecution and emotional distress for being arrested after he was fired from his place of employment. The judge ultimately granted our motion and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims.