Results

We won a premises liability case involving allegations of negligent sidewalk design. The plaintiff, a quadriplegic who has been in a wheelchair since 1984, entered our client’s convenience store using the designated wheelchair ramp without issue. However, upon leaving the store, he inexplicably failed to use the same ramp and, instead, attempted to go directly over the curb, resulting in a fall and a fractured leg. During his deposition, the plaintiff admitted he successfully navigated the wheelchair ramp upon entering the store. He also acknowledged seeing and knowing the ramp was there but did not use it upon exiting, in addition to confirming there were no defects in the sidewalk or curb. He admitted that raised sidewalks in front of stores are common, particularly at gas stations, and conceded that nothing obstructed his view of the curb or ramp. At the hearing, we countered the plaintiff’s last-minute attempt to introduce new testimony claiming that he was discouraged from using the sidewalk due to merchandise being present and that the store should have used a color to distinguish the curb from the parking lot. The judge requested competing orders and ultimately agreed with our application of the law, granting our motion.   

We won a very hard-fought motion for summary judgment based on the plaintiff’s failure to prosecute in a matter that is now 10 years old. Suzanne won oral argument to dismiss the suit, based on the plaintiff’s failure to prosecute his case, by proving both actual prejudice to the client, a psychologist, and an inexcusable seven-year delay in any activity by the plaintiff. This medical malpractice claim was brought in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, and was related to a psychological evaluation conducted of the plaintiff’s three children, whom he physically and psychologically abused for years.   

We successfully obtained a motion for summary judgment, dismissing our client from a negligence case. We represented a car service which was acting as a rental agent for Avis Rent-A-Car. Our client had repeatedly rented vehicles to the defendant/third-party defendant (renter) in the case. At the time of each rental, the renter would produce a valid driver’s license that was run through a system to confirm its validity. Several days after renting a vehicle to the renter, the renter was involved in a high-speed chase with the Nassau County Police Department. While being pursued by the police, the renter t-boned the plaintiff’s vehicle at an intersection. The plaintiff underwent three surgical procedures involving bleeds to her liver and one procedure to her lung, as well as sustaining a traumatic brain injury, collapsed lung and fractured ribs. After the completion of depositions, we moved for summary judgment to dismiss our client from the litigation as our client was not the owner of the vehicle, nor was there any proof submitted that there was anything mechanically wrong with the vehicle rented to the third-party defendant. We further argued the plaintiffs failed to prove our client’s actions in renting the vehicle could be deemed as a matter of law to be the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.   

We obtained a defense verdict in a Bucks County medical malpractice case where we represented a leading orthopaedic surgeon. The plaintiff alleged failure to diagnose compartment syndrome in a 19-year-old who broke his ankle skateboarding. The case was transferred to us just two weeks before trial. 

We successfully secured summary judgment in a product liability case involving an “exploding” wine bottle. Our client was the distributor of the bottle and was brought into the case as a third-party defendant. The plaintiff testified that on Thanksgiving Day, she attempted to open the bottle with the handle of a wooden spoon when the bottle unexpectedly and suddenly exploded in her hands. The plaintiff brought a product liability claim, asserting defects with the design of the bottle in using unusually thin glass prone to breakage. As the plaintiff did not produce any liability expert reports, we were able to argue that expert testimony was necessary for the plaintiff to prove her case, as the subject matter was one involving special skills and training not common to the ordinary layperson.   

We obtained a medical malpractice defense verdict on behalf of a skilled nursing facility in the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court in Cleveland, Ohio. The children of an 82-year-old skilled nursing resident brought a lawsuit after their mother developed shingles and associated meningitis and passed away. They claimed the facility had inadequate infection control and failed to identify signs/symptoms of developing changes in their mother’s condition. The defense proved the facility offered the appropriate vaccinations that were required by the state of Ohio and that the standard of care did not require the facility offer or administer the Shingrix vaccine to its residents. They also proved the facility properly monitored the resident’s signs and symptoms; that she did not exhibit any classic signs or symptoms of shingles at the facility; and that the facility timely sent her to the ER for evaluation when her condition changed.  In closing arguments after a five-day trial, the plaintiffs asked the jury for $3 million. The jury deliberated for 75 minutes and returned with a defense verdict. 

We obtained a defense verdict in a Bucks County medical malpractice case where we represented a leading orthopaedic surgeon from a world-class orthopaedic institution. The plaintiff alleged failure to diagnose compartment syndrome in a 19-year-old who broke his ankle skateboarding. The case was transferred to us just two weeks before trial.

We successfully defended an appeal of a trial court decision dismissing a defamation claim against a suburban mayor. The plaintiff, a former police officer, brought actions against a former city mayor and related defendants, asserting defamation, false light and related claims. The plaintiff alleged that statements made during a press conference disparaged him and violated a non-disparagement clause in his separation agreement. The court ruled the defamation and false light claims were correctly barred by the one-year statute of limitations under R.C. 2305.11(A) where the saving statute, R.C. 2305.19(A), permitted refiling in federal court, but did not toll limitations for subsequent state filings after the federal court dismissal. The appellate court also found the former mayor’s statements, regarding police leaders who allegedly retaliated against her, were deemed truthful and, thus, not defamatory or disparaging.   

We successfully argued and secured summary judgment in favor of a masonic organization, dismissing third-party claims for indemnity and common law contribution. At issue was a third-party complaint for contractual indemnity and common law contribution over an alleged trip and fall due to a structural condition with a rented property. The masonic organization rented the property for a single use event in support of the organization. The plaintiff claimed to be a guest and initiated suit against the commercial property owner, the third-party plaintiff. In support of the third-party complaint, a rental agreement was produced, which was not for the alleged date of loss. The third-party plaintiff argued the rental agreement disclaimed liability on the part of the property owner and turned the property over to the renter’s charge; therefore, the renter was required to inspect the property and warn its guests of dangerous conditions. The court granted summary judgment for the following reasons. First, the rental agreement could not support contractual indemnity because it was not Azurak compliant as there was no explicit language requiring indemnity. Second, the masonic organization’s duty as a short-term lessee did not require inspection prior to the event, nor was there sufficient factual evidence to overcome the masonic organization’s charitable immunity.   

We received a favorable decision from the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in a First Amendment case. The circuit court affirmed the District of New Jersey’s denial of a preliminary injunction in which the plaintiff claimed that federal and local officials violated her First Amendment rights through censorship and retaliation after she posted comments on Facebook. In a published decision, the Third Circuit agreed with our arguments that the plaintiff lacked standing since she could not demonstrate a substantial risk of future harm specific to our client, the former chief of police of North Hanover, NJ, as well as the other co-defendants.   

We successfully argued a motion for summary judgment on a major jury case where we represented a tenant shop owner. The plaintiff opposed our motion, alleging, inter alia, serious injuries to a shoulder and surgery. There were many moving pieces in this case, including indemnity issues, an alleged triple net lease and joinder after the statute of limitations. The plaintiff tripped and fell on a sidewalk that was under repair outside of our client’s store. We were joined by the original defendant, the landlord. We argued the plaintiff had no direct cause of action against us as we were joined after the statute of limitations; there was no evidence of record of our involvement as plaintiff did not visit our store; we were not responsible for the sidewalk repair; and the original defendant landlord was responsible for the sidewalk in question as the lease was ambiguous as to who was responsible for external repairs.   

We successfully defended a Montgomery County police department in the litigation of a claim petition. The claimant, a police officer, attended an out-of-state extended-stay educational conference. One evening after the conference activities ended, the claimant attended a “booze cruise” where she was imbibing with conference attendees. She continued to socialize and party back at the hotel. Later that night, she entered her hotel suite (which was shared with another female officer), shining her flashlight in order to change clothes. While changing, her roommate became perturbed over the ruckus. An argument between the two officers ignited and soon turned into full-fledged fisticuffs. The pugilists both were injured in the brawl. The claimant filed a claim petition, alleging physical injuries, post-concussive syndrome, mental injuries and total disability. We cross examined the claimant and developed an evidence record that supported she was not in the course and scope of employment at the time of injury. We presented medical witnesses to support that the claimant did not suffer from post-concussive syndrome or any disabling physical or mental injuries. The court found the claimant was not in the course and scope of employment, and the claim was barred by the personal animus defense.  

We secured a complete defense verdict in a first-of-its-kind workers’ compensation case, where the court concluded for the first time in Pennsylvania that carpal tunnel syndrome and cubital tunnel syndrome is not borne out through alleged repetitive trauma.  In a case of first impression in Pennsylvania, we successfully defended a Berks County mushroom canning facility from a claim petition alleging repetitive trauma injuries to the upper extremities. The claimant alleged that over time his duties as a machine operator caused nerve injuries to both upper extremities. We presented medical expert testimony supporting the existence of these nerve damage but challenged causation. In a modified Frye challenge to claimant’s medical expert opinions, we argued through expert testimony that the state of science and medicine overwhelmingly supports the fact that “repetitive trauma” is not a substantial contributing factor to the development of carpal tunnel and cubital tunnel syndromes. While the court allowed the claimant to present expert testimony to the contrary, it ultimately found our expert testimony opinions to outweigh the claimant’s expert testimony. The court concluded for the first time in Pennsylvania that carpal tunnel syndrome and cubital tunnel syndrome is not borne out through alleged repetitive trauma. This was a complete defense verdict.   

We obtained a defense verdict for a tow truck company in an “open and obvious” case in Nassau County, NY. We represented a tow truck company that was called to a plaintiff’s workplace to tow a broken-down minibus for scrapping. Our client attached a tow rope to the bus and began operating the winch but was asked to stop so the mirrors could be removed. The plaintiff removed the passenger-side mirror and, instead of walking around the bus, walked between the tow truck and the bus, tripping over the tow rope and breaking his hip. We prepared a motion for a directed verdict based on precedent from a previous Nassau County case, involving a plaintiff who tripped over a tow rope, where the judge ruled the condition was open and obvious, with no duty to warn. However, the trial judge in this case denied the motion. We then requested a curative charge instructing the jury that the defendant had no duty to warn of an open and obvious condition. While the trial judge declined to charge the jury, she permitted us to make the argument ourselves during summation. During summation, we argued the condition was open and obvious and there was no duty to warn and asked the jury to dismiss the case. The jury deliberated for just 15 minutes before returning a verdict for the defendant.   

We obtained summary judgment in favor of our client on the plaintiff’s general contractor’s contractual indemnity and defense claims. The general contractor claimed it was owed defense and indemnity under its subcontract with our client. In a prior proceeding, the court entered judgment in favor of the owner against the general contractor for breach of contract and breach of warranty but rejected the owner’s claims of negligence and violation of the Florida Building Code. The court agreed with our arguments that the general contractor was estopped from bringing its contractual defense and indemnity claims against the subcontractor because there was a prior judicial determination that neither the general contractor nor our client was negligent, and the general contractor’s liability was based on its breach of contract and warranties. The court further agreed that the general contractor could not show that the subcontractor was negligent, where it had taken the position that there was no negligence in the construction and it did not present any affirmative evidence to support a claim of negligence on the part of the subcontractor.   

We received a defense verdict on behalf of an anesthesiologist after a six-day trial in Philadelphia. The plaintiffs had contended the anesthesiologist failed to deal with internal bleeding and blood pressure issues and failed to communicate with the surgeon during a Cesarean section and in the Post Anesthesia Care Unit (PACU), leading to the plaintiff almost bleeding out and causing the loss of her uterus during an emergency hysterectomy. The matter involved seriously conflicting experts and was a well-tried case by all parties. Fortunately, the jury was receptive to the defense arguments that, in fact, the doctor not only complied with the standard of care but exceeded it.   

We obtained summary judgment in a Section 1983 substantive due process claim involving a Philadelphia police officer. The officer had taken a photo of the plaintiff’s son after he attempted suicide by jumping off a bridge, and the photo was later circulated on social media. The plaintiff alleged that circulation of the photo violated her substantive due process privacy rights, and she also asserted a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. One week before trial began, the Honorable Mark Kearney, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, held, although the plaintiff possessed a viable privacy right, that right was not clearly established at the time of the incident; therefore, the court granted qualified immunity to the officer. Additionally, the court held the plaintiff failed to present competent expert opinion evidence establishing her emotional distress and, therefore, dismissed the state tort claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.   

We secured a unanimous defense verdict in a high-exposure birth injury case, successfully proving that our client’s obstetric care met accepted standards despite claims of negligence and lasting injury. The plaintiff, the mother, alleged the obstetrician defendant was negligent in failing to identify her baby as large for gestational age in the prenatal period, in failing to proceed with a cesarean section during the labor, and in negligently performing a forceps delivery. The plaintiff alleged, as a result of her injuries from the delivery, she suffered pelvic organ prolapse, incontinence, and ongoing pain and suffering. The plaintiff underwent two subsequent gynecologic surgeries and alleged, as result of her ongoing pain, she would never be able to return to work for the remainder of her life. Through the testimony of our client and experts, we were able to establish the care provided by the obstetrician was within accepted standards of care and the decision to proceed with the delivery as performed was the safest option for the mother and baby. The jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of our client.   

We received a defense verdict for an emergency room physician in a medical malpractice case after a six-day trial. The plaintiffs alleged the physician failed to diagnose and treat a transient ischemic attack in the emergency department and that this failure caused the plaintiff’s ischemic stroke 48 hours later. Following an hour and a half of deliberations, the jury found the emergency room physician did not violate the standard of care.   

We successfully defended against two review petitions in a case in which the client had accepted the claim as a right shoulder injury. As the claimant was lowering a trailer to a hitch, the trailer fell a few inches, causing the hand crank to spin and jerk the claimant’s shoulder. The claimant filed a review petition seeking to expand the description of injury to include orthopedic injuries (described as a cervical herniation at C6-7, a protrusion at T2-3, and multilevel disc bulges between C2-C6, cervical radiculopathy, lumbar strain/sprain, right frozen shoulder, right brachial plexopathy) and psychiatric injuries (described as somatic symptom disorder with predominant pain and adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depression). The claimant’s second review petition sought to increase his average weekly wage to include an expectant rate based on his communications with his dispatcher about potentially working more hours in the future. We argued the claimant did not seek treatment for the additional injuries until months after the work injury. With regard to the psychiatric injuries, we argued the claimant’s expert did not have a full understanding of the claimant’s past and did not discuss his prior substance abuse issues, familial/marital issues, or how he had dealt with prior workers’ compensation injuries. Furthermore, through cross examination, the claimant conceded he did not really understand what psychiatric treatment he was receiving. The workers’ compensation judge found the employer’s orthopedic and psychiatric experts more credible and persuasive than the claimant’s; therefore, the judge did not expand the injury to include the cervical, lumbar and psychiatric diagnoses. Additionally, the judge found there was no evidence to support a higher average weekly wage and compensation rate as the claimant’s wages reflected what he actually earned.   

We received a decision denying a claim petition that alleged the claimant suffered a work-related cervical injury on June 29, 2023. The claimant testified that he felt a snap but did not feel the pain right away and continued to work until July 17, 2023. He then went to the emergency room and subsequently had surgery on July 20, 2023. During cross-examination, the claimant agreed he only suffered a cervical injury, not a low back injury. He further noted he had a prior low back injury on October 19, 2022, for which he filled out an accident report and was sent to a doctor and received treatment. However, the claimant first reported the June 29, 2023, injury on September 1, 2023, and at that time could not recall a specific event that occurred on June 29, 2023. However, he did confirm he heard a snap in his back when the injury did occur. The claimant also agreed he worked full duty, without reporting the incident, until July 17, 2023. Dr. Martinez, the claimant’s expert, testified the claimant was a partial quadriplegic in the upper and lower extremities. Dr. Henderson, our expert, found no evidence of a work-related injury on June 29, 2023, and that the claimant’s symptoms are consistent with cervical stenosis with myelopathy, which is a degenerative condition. The workers’ compensation judge found the claimant to be not credible to the extent he testified he suffered a work-related injury on June 29, 2023, or any disability related to it. He noted his demeanor during the hearing was not credible and his testimony was called into question based upon the employer’s policy that you must immediately report injuries, as he had in the past. The judge also noted that subsequent treatment notes indicate the injury or condition pre-dated the June 29, 2023, work injury date.   

We received a unanimous defense verdict for their client in a high-exposure birth injury case. ​The plaintiff, the mother, alleged the obstetrician defendant was negligent in failing to identify her baby as large for gestational age in the prenatal period, in failing to proceed with a cesarean section during the labor, and in negligently performing a forceps delivery. The plaintiff alleged, as a result of her injuries from the delivery, she suffered pelvic organ prolapse, incontinence, and ongoing pain and suffering. The plaintiff underwent two subsequent gynecologic surgeries and alleged, as result of her ongoing pain, she would never be able to return to work for the remainder of her life. Through the testimony of our client and experts, we were able to establish the care provided by the obstetrician was within accepted standards of care and the decision to proceed with the delivery as performed was the safest option for the mother and baby. The jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of our client.

We received a defense verdict for an emergency room physician in a medical malpractice case after a six-day trial. The plaintiffs alleged that the physician failed to diagnose and treat a transient ischemic attack in the emergency department and that this failure caused the plaintiff’s ischemic stroke 48 hours later. The plaintiff at the time was 44 years old. Following an hour and a half of deliberations, the jury found that the emergency room physician did not violate the standard of care.

We successfully defended the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) in a wrongful death and survival case in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas. The case involved the death of a pedestrian, Vincent Boykin, struck by a SEPTA bus, with the plaintiff, his father, disputing the Philadelphia Medical Examiner’s suicide ruling. The defense presented a forensic psychiatrist’s testimony confirming Mr. Boykin’s high suicide risk. Although SEPTA was found 40% negligent, the decedent’s 60% negligence barred recovery of damages.   

We achieved summary judgment for our client, a commercial plumber, in the Cape May County Superior Court. The plaintiff alleged water leakage in the parking garage of a beach resort hotel resulted from defective plumbing work by the defendant. Specifically, the plaintiff argued that improper connections between the plumber’s pipes and the drainage system caused the leaks. The defense motion for summary judgment demonstrated that the defendant’s scope of work was limited to garage plumbing, performed according to specifications and unrelated to the waterproofing membrane or drainage system design flaws identified as the cause of the leaks. The court granted summary judgment, holding that the defendant owed no duty to the plaintiff beyond the limited scope of their work and dismissed all claims. The court denied the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration.   

We successfully defended a tow truck company in an "open and obvious" case in Nassau County, NY. The company had been called to tow a broken-down minibus from the plaintiff’s workplace. While removing the bus, the plaintiff walked between the tow truck and the bus, tripped over the tow rope, and broke his hip. The defense relied on precedent from a similar Nassau County case where a judge ruled that a tow rope was an open and obvious condition, with no duty to warn. Although the trial judge denied his motion for a directed verdict, she allowed him to argue to the jury that the defendant had no duty to warn. Plaintiff’s counsel did not object. In summation, we emphasized that the condition was open and obvious and urged dismissal. The jury deliberated for just 15 minutes before returning a verdict for the defendant.

Obtained a defense verdict for our client, a global automobile manufacturer, in a contract dispute in Bucks County, PA. In 2021, amid the COVID-19 pandemic, the plaintiff purchased a new vehicle for $37,000. Seven months later, the car was involved in a crash caused by the plaintiff's daughter. Repairs for collision damage, which are not covered under the vehicle’s express written warranty, were delayed due to global supply chain disruptions caused by the pandemic. Despite the automobile manufacturer’s efforts to locate, obtain, and expedite delivery of repair parts to the collision repair shop, it took seven months to fully complete the repairs. The plaintiff alleged that the manufacturer violated the implied warranty of merchantability under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and breached the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, citing the repair delays as the basis for the claims. Ultimately, the court returned a defense verdict, rejecting the plaintiff’s claims.

We obtained a summary judgment dismissal on behalf of our client, a law firm, that was sued by its former clients for legal malpractice. The plaintiffs, seven affiliated companies and their owners in the business of developing property, had been sued by their bank for defaulting on multiple lines of credit. The bank filed several lawsuits against the property developers, claiming approximately $7 million in damages, plus attorneys’ fees, which were recoverable pursuant to the terms of the promissory notes. The property developers retained our client to defend the lawsuits, arguing the amounts claimed to be owed to the bank were significantly overstated. Our client vigorously defended the bank’s underlying lawsuits. Ultimately, the property developers settled the bank’s lawsuits for the entire amount owed, plus interest and the bank’s legal fees. The developers argued that its attorneys should have advised them to settle the bank’s claims after the lawsuits were commenced and that, had they done so, they would not have had to pay the bank’s legal fees ($825,000), our client’s legal fees ($485,000), expert witness fees ($335,000) or the additional interest on the loan. The property developers also claimed that not settling with the bank earlier caused them lost business opportunities valued at nearly $1 million. The plaintiffs’ legal malpractice claims were dismissed because their expert witness, a Maryland attorney with no business litigation experience, was not qualified to serve as an expert and because their damages claims were speculative.   

We obtained a defense verdict on behalf of a public transportation system in a Wrongful Death and Survival case in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas. The case involved the death of a  pedestrian, struck by a bus, with the plaintiff, his father, disputing the Philadelphia Medical Examiner's suicide ruling. The defense presented a forensic psychiatrist's testimony confirming the deceased’s high suicide risk. Although the transportation system was found 40% negligent, the decedent's 60% negligence barred recovery of damages. The claim was further limited by statutory caps applicable to Commonwealth entities.

We won summary judgment before the Honorable Anthony Verwey in Chester County, PA. The plaintiff filed suit for breach of contract and violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (PAUTPCPL) against the defendants over the installation of an allegedly defective storm water remediation system. Summary judgment was sought on the grounds that the plaintiff could not prove damages without an expert. The court entered judgment in favor of the defendants, finding the plaintiff’s breach of contract claim could not proceed without expert support and the PAUTPCPL claims failed for lack of demonstrated damages.