Results

We won summary judgment in Franklin County, Ohio, for a large supermarket chain in a slip-and-fall case. The plaintiff alleged he slipped and fell in the parking lot on ice that remained more than two days after the most recent snow fall and after the lot had been plowed and salted by a co-defendant. The plaintiff’s expert opined that no amount of remaining snow or ice is acceptable and that the standard of care according to the Ohio Building Code requires complete removal in order to maintain a “slip-resistant” surface. However, in Ohio, a premises owner is not liable for natural accumulations of snow and ice because persons are expected to appreciate the danger. The plaintiff’s expert did not opine as to what the defendants should have done, other than to completely remove the snow and ice. The court struck the plaintiff’s expert’s untested opinion as being unhelpful to a jury and found that the Ohio Building Code did not apply to the plaintiff’s pleadings without a claim for negligence per se. In disregarding the expert opinions, the court also found that the remaining snow and ice was “natural,” even though there had been attempted removal.

We successfully defended a claim for failure to diagnose infectious endocarditis after a periodontal procedure. The plaintiff, who was 56 at the time, was diagnosed with streptococcal endocarditis after undergoing periodontal surgery with our client. As a result, he required an aortic valve replacement and claimed he had to sell his business as he could no longer work. It was asserted at trial that our client, the periodontist who performed the surgery, and the co-defendant dentist failed to recognize signs and symptoms of potential infectious endocarditis in post-op interactions with the plaintiff. The claim also alleged that had the plaintiff been diagnosed sooner, he would not have required open heart surgery and could have successfully been treated with antibiotics only. We argued that the appropriate standard of care was followed and that the plaintiff’s damages were unrelated to the care and treatment provided by their client.

We received a unanimous defense verdict on behalf of an orthopedic and physical therapy practice in a case where the plaintiff’s demand was $5 million. The jury deliberated for approximately six hours and had to decide whether the injuries sustained by the plaintiff  (detached retina, macular hole and other related eye injuries resulting in five surgeries in two years) were related to any negligence by his clients. We were able to prove, through aggressive cross-examination, that the injuries were not related to any negligence on the part of the practice, even though they occurred while the patient was being monitored and treated in physical therapy. 

We secured a decision granting our motion to dismiss an attorney malpractice matter in Orange County, NY. The plaintiff and daughter of the co-defendants sued her parents and our client for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty denominated as promissory estoppel, and constructive trust and sought damages of $800,000. The co-defendants allegedly purchased a property for the plaintiff to live and work in and agreed to deed the property to the plaintiff once she paid the mortgage in full. Our client created a family trust naming the plaintiff as trustee, in which the property would be transferred to the plaintiff following the death of both parents. However, following a family dispute, the co-defendants replaced the plaintiff as trustee with our client. Upon the request of the co-defendants and in accordance with the terms of the trust, our client transferred the house to another beneficiary. We filed a motion to dismiss on all counts which the court granted in full.

We won summary judgment on nine-year-old supermarket slip and fall case. The plaintiff claimed that she tripped and fell on the corner of a pallet/box of watermelons in the defendant's produce section in Newburgh, New York, where customers first walk in. The plaintiff admitted she did not see the pallet or its corner and was not looking where she was walking. After her fall, she underwent multiple surgeries, including cervical fusion. Her attorney’s demand was $4 million. The defense motion argued that the watermelon pallet was a temporary merchandise display which was open and obvious to all to be seen with common sense. Indeed, customers walked by the pallet display before and after the plaintiff’s accident at a rate of dozens per day. The store put the watermelons out in this manner as part of its display policy because the melons are delivered in cartons on pallets that cannot be taken apart. The plaintiff argued in opposition that the pallet was a hazardous defect the store created and had notice of. The plaintiff submitted an expert engineer, who claimed the display violated American Society of Testing Materials’ (ASTM) designation F1637-10 regarding safe walkway surfaces. We submitted a rebuttal engineer, who demonstrated the ASTM standard asserted by the plaintiff applied to permanent structures—like floors and buildings—not the temporary pallet, and that the standard did not exist on the day of the accident. In granting summary judgment, the court concluded that while a landowner must act reasonably in maintaining its property in a reasonably safe condition, it is not an insurer of ordinary obstacles that are readily apparent as a matter of common sense and visibility.

We achieved a unanimous defense verdict in a hotly contested wrongful death case. The lawsuit included allegations of failure to do a workup and diagnose lung cancer. The plaintiffs claimed the patient’s symptoms were related to a Pancoast tumor that was undiagnosed, resulting in his death. We were able to establish with the jury the superiority of the defense experts by comparison. We also successfully explained there can be concurrent diseases and there was an objective reason for each and every one of the patient’s symptoms.

After an eight-day trial, we secured a directed verdict on behalf of his client, an orthopedic surgeon, who allegedly breached the standard of care as it relates to his performance of a reverse right shoulder replacement. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish that the surgery performed by the orthopedic surgeon was unnecessary, as alleged.

We secured a decision denying a claimant wage loss benefits for an accepted work injury. The claimant sustained a left wrist contusion and extensor carpi ulnaris (ECU) peri-tendonitis injury when a 50-pound lid crushed his left arm in the course and scope of his employment. The claimant alleged that as a result of the injury, he was unable to perform light-duty work as a system operator. Through medical evidence, we were able to establish that the claimant had medical issues unrelated to the accepted work injury that were the cause of his inability to work. The workers’ compensation judge found our expert testimony more credible than that of the claimant’s medical expert. Wage loss benefits were denied, resulting in a successful outcome for the defendant/employer.

We successfully defended on appeal the trial court’s grant of compulsory nonsuit in a legal malpractice action following the trial court’s rulings on various motions in limine. The trial court granted our clients’ motions in limine to preclude the plaintiff from introducing into evidence that its attorney sued the wrong parties, that its attorney obtained an uncollectable judgment, and that the plaintiff would have prevailed in a lawsuit against other parties. Following the motion in limine rulings, trial counsel moved for nonsuit—arguing the plaintiff could not carry its burden of proof without the precluded evidence. On appeal, the plaintiff argued the trial court’s evidentiary rulings violated the law of the case set forth in the Superior Court’s decision reversing the trial court’s order sustaining our clients’ preliminary objections and dismissing the amended complaint, and that the trial court erred in granting the motions in limine. The Superior Court rejected both arguments and affirmed the trial court’s denial of the plaintiff’s motion to remove compulsory nonsuit. 

We obtained a reversal in the Pennsylvania Superior Court of the trial court’s denial of preliminary objections to venue. We successfully moved in the trial court for certification of the ruling pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 311(b) so that an immediate appeal from the interlocutory ruling could be taken, and we subsequently prevailed on appeal. The litigation arose from a helicopter accident that occurred in Afghanistan. Both plaintiffs, husband and wife, resided in Arizona. Our client is a Delaware corporation located in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, that refurbished the helicopter. The codefendant corporation leased the helicopter to the plaintiff-husband’s employer, which was organized and principally operates in Montana. The plaintiffs’ primary focus in seeking to establish venue was on our client and, in particular, on the fact that it purchased two fabric interiors from a Philadelphia vendor. The Superior Court determined that the business dealings of our client did not constitute actual business conducted in Philadelphia County. It stressed that “doing business with a Philadelphia County company does not amount to doing business in Philadelphia County if the obtained goods, services, or personnel are utilized elsewhere to further the defendant’s business activities.” As to the codefendant, the Superior Court concluded the limited venue evidence pointed to a separate but related corporate entity, and that the evidence failed to show the co-defendant regularly conducts business in Philadelphia County. Because there was no evidence to support the imputation of a separate entity’s contacts with Philadelphia on the co-defendant, venue as to the co-defendant was also improper.

We won a defense verdict in a complex New Jersey medical malpractice trial, defeating claims that surgical negligence caused severe complications, after undermining the plaintiff’s case through expert cross-examination and strong defense testimony. We obtained a defense verdict in a complex medical malpractice case after a two-week jury trial in New Jersey. The elderly plaintiff claimed his posterior lumbar laminectomy for decompression was negligently performed. It was alleged that care failures in the performance of surgery caused a loss of bowel and bladder control that ultimately required an irreversible colostomy and placement of a suprapubic catheter, as well as subsequent infections requiring extended medical intervention and rehabilitative care. The plaintiffs also made a claim for lack of informed consent for an alleged failure of the physician to inform the plaintiff regarding the risks of the subject surgery, which was thrown out by the court at trial. The defense was successful in obtaining favorable admissions from the plaintiff’s expert during cross-examination, and the strength of the defense’s standard of care expert testimony was convincing to the jury, resulting in a defense verdict. 

We received a defense verdict in a high/low arbitration. We represented a surgeon in a case in which the plaintiff alleged a delay in the performance of an appendectomy for a perforated appendix. The plaintiff went on to require a prolonged hospitalization and two subsequent surgeries. We successfully argued that the delay in the performance of the surgery did not result in any of the plaintiff’s alleged injuries.  

We obtained summary judgment on behalf of two school districts in a matter brought by various plaintiffs against the Career and Technology Center of Lackawanna County (CTC) and four of its sending school districts. The plaintiffs had asserted claims under Title IX, the 14th Amendment, and Section 8542(b)(9) of the Pennsylvania Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act based on their sexual abuse by an automotive technology instructor at CTC. While permitting some claims to proceed against CTC, the court dismissed all claims against the sending school districts on the grounds that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that any individual at any of the defendant-school districts had actual knowledge of the automotive technology instructor’s conduct, and the instructor was not an employee, independent contractor or ostensible agent of any school district by virtue of his employment by CTC.

We successfully defended a Philadelphia-based university in litigation surrounding a penalty petition filed by the claimant. The penalty alleged that the university unilaterally suspended indemnity benefits on an open and accepted work injury claim. We presented complex evidence from the insurer that Pennsylvania’s Workers' Compensation Automation and Integration System (WCAIS) electronic system has internal problems which result in unwanted and unrequested claim documents being issued when simple data changes are made to an open claim. We were able to prove that the carrier properly suspended the claim in the system and any and all updated “acceptance” documents filed by the WCAIS system were on the basis of a faulty data system. The penalty petition was dismissed in its entirety.

We secured a decision denying the claimant wage loss benefits for an accepted work injury. The claimant sustained a left wrist contusion and extensor carpi ulnaris peri-tendonitis injury when a 50-pound lid crushed his left arm in the course and scope of his employment. The claimant alleged that, as a result of the injury, he was unable to perform light-duty work as a system operator. Through medical evidence, we were able to establish that the claimant had non-work-related medical issues unrelated to the accepted work injury that caused him to be out of work. Wage loss benefits were denied, resulting in a successful outcome for the defendant.

The plaintiff spent the afternoon at our client’s restaurant/bar before driving ten minutes to his local Country Club to continue celebrating his birthday. Ninety minutes after he arrived at the Club, he fell down the stairs and suffered a severe brain injury. His Blood Alcohol Content was roughly three times the legal limit. The plaintiff had previously worked as a high-end custom wood finisher but is now unable to see color, among having other deficits, and he is alleged to be fully disabled.  After more than 20 depositions, and despite varying reports as to what the plaintiff had to drink at our client’s establishment, we were able to argue that he showed no signs of visible intoxication prior to the last service of alcohol by our client. Our motion was strenuously opposed by the Country Club, who argued there was testimony that the plaintiff appeared intoxicated upon his arrival at the Club. The court agreed with our argument that this was insufficient evidence for a jury to find that our client served alcohol to a visibly intoxicated plaintiff, and, as such, all claims against our client were dismissed and summary judgment was granted.

We recently obtained a “no cause” verdict in an employment case in the Superior Court of New Jersey. The plaintiff, an employee of a New Jersey State entity, asserted violations of the Contentious Employee Protection Act (CEPA). According to the plaintiff, after reporting purported deficiencies with an environmental permit, he was subject to a retaliatory and hostile work environment. We successfully argued that the plaintiff did not articulate a violation of law or public policy, nor did he prove that the various employment actions he received created a hostile work environment or were even caused by the alleged whistleblowing.

We successfully obtained dismissal of claims brought derivatively and directly by a corporation, including aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty and tortious interference with contract. The claims were brought against our client, an out of state attorney who previously represented the corporation and its former director. The Court granted the attorney’s Motion to Dismiss, concluding that the plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege facts that would confer personal jurisdiction over the attorney under a conspiracy theory.

We successfully obtained dismissal of wrongful use of civil proceedings claims brought against our clients, two attorneys who were alleged to have wrongfully prosecuted a professional negligence claim against the plaintiff, a real estate agent. The plaintiff would not accept any settlement that was less than policy limits. After five years of litigation, the Court granted the attorney defendants’ summary judgment motion, concluding that the plaintiff failed to adduce facts that would reflect that the attorneys prosecuted the underlying action in a grossly negligent manner, or without probable cause. The Court also held that the plaintiff was unable to demonstrate that the underlying lawsuit was prosecuted for an improper purpose.

We obtained a defense verdict after a week-long jury trial in the Chester County Court of Common Pleas in a medical malpractice case. The plaintiff alleged she sustained a bowel perforation injury in the course of a robotic-laparoscopic hysterectomy. During the course of the procedure, a general surgeon was called in to evaluate the bowels for injuries. There were no injuries found, so the procedure was completed, and the patient was discharged the following day. Two days later, the patient returned in critically ill condition, and a bowel perforation in the sigmoid colon was identified. The plaintiff alleged the health care providers negligently failed to detect the injury during the hysterectomy. After the trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of all defendants.

We obtained dismissal of wrongful use of civil proceedings claims brought against our clients, two attorneys who were alleged to have wrongfully prosecuted a professional negligence claim against the plaintiff, a real estate agent. The plaintiff would not accept any settlement that was less than policy limits. After five years of litigation, the court granted our summary judgment motion, concluding that the plaintiff failed to adduce facts that would reflect that the attorneys prosecuted the underlying action in a grossly negligent manner, or without probable cause. 

We won a motion for summary judgment in a slip and fall case in Pennsylvania. The plaintiff suffered a hip fracture when he fell on the defendant’s sidewalk while delivering a food order. At the time of the accident, there was an active freezing rain and sleet storm, and generally slippery conditions prevailed. We filed a motion for summary judgment based on the “hills and ridges” doctrine. The plaintiff argued that the doctrine was inapplicable due to human intervention that allegedly altered the natural accumulation. The defendant had applied rock salt to the sidewalk approximately 45 minutes prior to the accident. In granting our motion for summary judgment, the court found there was no evidence that the application of rock salt created a dangerous condition or increased the natural hazards of the existing ice.

In a case where we represented a child care center, a federal district judge from the Western District of Pennsylvania granted our motion to dismiss with prejudice. The plaintiffs were nine minority employees who were involuntarily furloughed in the fall of 2020. They filed suit, alleging their employment was terminated in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Family Medical Leave Act, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, the Wage Payment and Collection Law, and Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act. The court agreed with the arguments made by the center, finding that the plaintiffs’ class claims were not timely exhausted. The court disagreed with the plaintiffs’ arguments that their charges gave notice of their putative class claims because each charge only focused on the individual complainant’s alleged personal disparate treatment. The court also found that the plaintiffs were not entitled to equitable tolling as they did not exercise reasonable diligence in obtaining essential information bearing on their claim. Accordingly, the court dismissed the entire complaint with prejudice, finding no need to address the other bases for dismissal or the center’s request to strike the class action allegations. 

We obtained a defense verdict after a bench trial in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, which found the plaintiff did not meet the definition of an insured entitled to underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage. The case arose out of a motor vehicle accident in which the plaintiff was a back seat passenger in a vehicle that was struck by the tortfeasor. After settling his bodily injury claim with the tortfeasor and with the underlying UIM carrier that insured the vehicle he was a passenger in, the plaintiff submitted a UIM claim seeking UIM benefits under his alleged sister’s UIM policy with our client. There was no dispute the plaintiff was living with his “sister” at the time of the accident. Therefore, the only issue was whether the plaintiff could show he was an insured and entitled to coverage by proving he was related to his “sister” by blood, adoption or marriage to meet the definition of a “family member” under the policy. She testified during discovery and at trial that she is not related to the plaintiff by blood, adoption or marriage. As a result of this testimony, the judge found the plaintiff failed to meet his burden of proof and entered a defense verdict for our client. 

We successfully defended a Pennsylvania-based industrial linear actuator supplier on appeal before the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board. The claimant appealed a termination order which found her to be fully recovered from work injuries to her low back and multiple other body parts. The claimant alleged on appeal that factors considered by the underlying workers’ compensation judge supporting the full recovery opinion (including a post-injury new slip and fall) were not supported by the evidence record. To the contrary, we successfully argued on appeal that the workers’ compensation judge’s decision was based on cross examination of the claimant’s own medical expert wherein he gleaned a history from the claimant of subsequent injuries that were never disputed by the claimant in follow-up testimony. The Appeal Board held that the judge can only decide cases based on evidence before the court, and the Board would not overturn the judge based on new allegations of the claimant.

We were successful at the trial and appellate levels in a high-profile legal malpractice action. The Appellate Division’s decision came after a decade of litigation in various courts stemming from a judgment a multinational conglomerate obtained against the plaintiff and his partners in which litigation ensued over debt collection. The plaintiffs alleged the attorneys committed fraud and misrepresentation that led to the plaintiffs’ damages, which they claimed were well in excess of $10 million. We argued that the assignment agreement actually reduced the amount owed to the corporation and asked the court to dismiss the case, arguing that our client was protected by legal privilege, the statute of limitations had passed, and it had no legal duty to the plaintiff. The trial court agreed to dismiss the case, finding that the plaintiff’s claims were not supported by evidence. On appeal, the court upheld the decision, rejecting the plaintiff’s arguments. The Appellate Division found that our clients owed no duty to the plaintiff-debtors as non-clients since the attorneys’ alleged misrepresentations were made during adversarial litigation and, thus, were not intended to induce reasonable reliance by a specific non-client. This decision is extremely important to the trial bar and provides attorneys with a level of protection and immunity in connection with statements and arguments they make as adversaries in litigation.

We obtained orders for dismissal, with prejudice, where four New Jersey medical providers alleged they were entitled to additional monies for medical treatment provided in New Jersey to a New York resident. The underlying accident involved a laborer who resided in New York, worked in New York and sustained the injuries in New York. Four medical providers filed medical provider claims against the employer in New Jersey, seeking more than $800,000 from the employer for treatment rendered in relation to this accident. We filed motions to dismiss these claims for lack of jurisdiction, asserting there were insufficient contacts with the state of New Jersey to establish jurisdiction. The judge of compensation ruled in favor of the employer, dismissing the four medical providers’ applications with prejudice.  

We secured dismissal of a $10 million legal malpractice case at both the trial and appellate levels, with courts finding plaintiffs failed to provide necessary evidence or meet procedural requirements. The plaintiffs, a group of entities created for the estate planning of a now deceased married couple, appealed the trial court’s decision to deny their request to extend the time for discovery and to dismiss their claims against several defendants, including lawyers and law firms. The plaintiffs accused these defendants of negligence, breach of trust, misuse of funds, and legal malpractice related to a previous settlement and the handling of family business matters. The court found that the plaintiffs did not provide the necessary evidence or expert testimony to support their legal malpractice claims. The appeals court reviewed the trial court’s actions and found no mistake in how the court handled the case. The appeals court affirmed the trial court’s ruling, emphasizing that the plaintiffs’ inability to meet court requirements and present strong claims warranted the dismissal of their case.

We prevailed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in a precedential decision upholding application of a household vehicle exclusion. A fifteen-year-old was seriously injured while riding an uninsured dirt bike on private property. After recovering the bodily injury limit of the tortfeasor’s policy, he also recovered UIM benefits under the two household policies. However, the other household policy underwritten by the same carrier contained a household vehicle exclusion, which excluded UIM benefits under the facts of the accident, so coverage was denied. The carrier then filed a declaratory judgment action in the Eastern District Court of Pennsylvania, but lost because the District Court concluded that the household vehicle exclusion acted as an impermissible de facto waiver of stacking as a result of the carrier paying UIM benefits under the other household policy. On appeal, a unanimous panel of the Third Circuit vacated the District Court’s Order, holding in a precedential opinion that the household vehicle exclusion was valid and enforceable because the dirt bike involved in the underlying accident was uninsured.   

We achieved dismissal of a suit against a school district by way of preliminary objections. The Dauphin County case involved allegations that the district deprived the plaintiffs of certain educational rights, premised on procedural due process violations, negligence and subornation of perjury. Preliminary objections were filed to the plaintiffs’ original complaint on both procedural and substantive grounds. Following the filing of an amended complaint and additional preliminary objections on similar grounds, argument was held. As a result, the court agreed with the defendant and dismissed the plaintiffs’ amended complaint with prejudice.