Results

We successfully represented an insurance company before the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. The court agreed with our argument that the claimant needed to provide notice of his work-related injury to the defendant insurance company within 120 days of the occurrence of the injury due to his combined status as sole proprietor/owner and also the employee in this matter. The judges distinguished the facts of the case due to the fact that the claimant was a sole proprietor, owner and the only employee of his own business. The court agreed that allowing the claimant to pursue a claim, by claiming that he provided notice to himself immediately when the accident occurred, but did not bother to report the injury to the insurance company for over a year thereafter, would result in an absurdity and put the insurance company at a disadvantage in the investigation of the claim. The court also noted that the definition of “employer” in certain portions of the Act includes not only the actual employer as a business itself, but also the employer’s duly authorized agent or its insurer, if such insurer has assumed the employer’s liability. Since the claimant failed to provide notice to the insurance company within 120 days of his injury, the court held that the Claim Petition was barred. The Claim Petition was dismissed, and the claimant was not entitled to any benefits at all.

We won a decision from the First District Court of Appeals affirming the trial court’s decision to grant our client’s motion to enforce an oral settlement agreement. We defended a condominium owners association against a lawsuit filed by several unit owners. The parties went to mediation, during which their attorneys agreed on the settlement terms. However, several of the plaintiff unit owners refused to sign the written settlement agreement. We argued at the trial court that the oral agreement should be enforced because memorializing the agreement in writing was not a material term of the parties’ agreement, and that the parties did not intend for the settlement agreement to only be enforceable upon the execution of the writing. Further, all the material terms of the agreement had been agreed on. The First District Court agreed and upheld the decision in favor of the condominium owners’ association.

We obtained a jury defense verdict in Cumberland County, New Jersey. We defended a major propane company where it was claimed that they provided negligent service to a stove which allegedly caused a trailer fire. The plaintiffs lost everything in the fire, including their pets. They also sustained serious and permanent burn injuries. Total medical bills were in excess of $1.5 million, and there was a $227,000 Medicare lien. The plaintiffs’ demand was $5 million. In less than two hours, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defense.

We secured summary judgment in Monroe County, Pennsylvania, where the plaintiff filed suit claiming he contracted a fungal infection from staying at the defendant’s hotel. The plaintiff produced an expert microbiologist’s report, in addition to his treating physician’s records, in support of his claims. Summary judgment was sought on the grounds that the plaintiff’s expert was not competent enough to identify a specific fungus from photographs of the hotel room and the treating physician’s records were equivocal as to the cause of the plaintiff’s infection. Judge Arthur Zulick found the plaintiff’s microbiologist’s opinion speculative, as the microbiologist did not conduct an inspection of the hotel, obtain fungal samples or perform any lab testing. The judge further held that the plaintiff’s diagnoses of a fungal infection was not sufficiently supported by his treating doctor’s diagnoses. As a result, Judge Zulick entered judgment in favor of the defendant.

We obtained summary judgment after oral argument with Judge Anne Swern in Kings County Supreme Court in New York. This case involved a motor vehicle accident where the plaintiff was a backseat passenger in an Uber that rear-ended a vehicle owned and operated by our clients. We established that our clients were stopped for 10-15 seconds at a light when they were rear-ended by the Uber driver, who was precluded and could not submit any testimony in this matter. Further, by establishing that the plaintiff was asleep at the time, she could not offer any evidence of how the accident happened. 

We secured summary judgment in a New York case in which the plaintiff claimed that she slipped and fell on stairs in our client’s building. The plaintiff alleged that she slipped on a wet condition on the stairway landing in an inadequately illuminated stairway. The defendant submitted an affidavit of its expert, which stated that the lighting measurements taken in the stairway complied with code. The defendant also demonstrated that it did not create the condition by submitting an affidavit of the building’s porter, who stated that neither he nor any other porter mopped that morning. The affidavit further established that the defendant did not have notice of the alleged wet condition or defective lighting, as it did not receive any complaints about a hazardous condition on the floor at any time before the accident, and that he inspected the premises approximately two hours prior to the plaintiff’s incident and did not observe any defective condition. In light of this evidence, the plaintiff’s claim that the area was mopped by the defendant was speculative, as she was unable to present any facts sufficient to establish when the stairway was mopped or if the cause of the wet stairway was due to the defendant’s mopping the stairway.

We obtained summary judgment in the Westmoreland County Court of Common Pleas in favor of our clients in a dispute over alleged excess water runoff. Our clients, a married couple, were sued by their neighbors for claims related to water runoff due to the installation of gutters and downspouts on a shed near the property line. We effectively argued for summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ injunction, trespass, nuisance and negligence claims, demonstrating that the plaintiffs lacked the necessary expert testimony to substantiate their case as required under Pennsylvania law. Additionally, the plaintiffs’ negligence claim was barred by the two-year statute of limitations, which had expired at least six years before the suit was filed.

We obtained a workers’ compensation defense verdict on behalf of an employer/carrier in a previously compensable claim by proving the claimant knowingly and intentionally made false, fraudulent, and misleading statements under oath during two depositions, and to two authorized treating providers, which were contradicted by surveillance and other evidence, ultimately barring the claimant from further benefits. The case involved multiple expert and fact witness testimony and presentation of multiple days of surveillance to the court.

We won summary judgment in a challenging dram shop liability case against a large restaurant chain where the demand was $1 million. The plaintiff alleged our client was responsible for overserving the co-defendant driver prior to the subject motor vehicle accident. The court agreed with our arguments that the plaintiff failed to establish a violation of the The New Jersey Dram Shop Act. The plaintiff failed to present an expert report until opposing our motion for summary judgment. The expert report, which was submitted as an exhibit to the plaintiff’s opposition brief, did not extrapolate the defendant’s BAC at the time he left the defendant’s establishment. There was also no eyewitness testimony on the issue. The court rejected the plaintiff’s arguments that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to support a jury’s conclusion that the co-defendant driver was visibly intoxicated at the time of service based on police observations at the scene of the accident and a (.17) BAC reading, which was administered approximately one hour and 30 minutes after leaving the restaurant. Distinguishing between prior case law and the subject circumstances, summary judgment was awarded based on the lack of either direct testimony or expert opinion as to the co-defendant’s state of intoxication at the time of service. 

We secured an Appellate Division decision affirming the trial court’s order dismissing a fraud and fraudulent concealment case filed against various attorneys and broker dealers. In its decision, the Appellate Division agreed with the trial court’s orders and opinions dismissing the case based on entire controversy, collateral estoppel and litigation privilege grounds. In this comprehensive decision, the Appellate Division held that the plaintiff’s claims were mirrored claims that had been fully litigated in a prior proceeding, where our clients either represented the litigants in the first case or were directly involved in the first case as defendants.

Our motion to dismiss was affirmed on appeal after the Ninth District Court of Appeals found that the plaintiff had sued a non sui juris entity by suing a county department in a personal injury suit. The plaintiff initially filed suit against the department, which was later dismissed without prejudice to allow more time to develop the plaintiff’s medical records. When he refiled his suit, he again named a county department as the defendant. We filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that a county department does not have the capacity to be sued. The plaintiff then filed a motion to amend the complaint and again named the county. In our motion to dismiss the amended complaint, we argued that the plaintiff was outside of the statute of limitations and that the change in defendant could not relate back to the originally filed suit. The plaintiff’s argument, that naming the department was merely a misnomer and that the amended complaint should relate back to the original filing, failed and the trial court dismissed the case. After oral argument, the appellate court affirmed the decision.

We obtained a defense verdict on behalf of an employer/carrier in a previously compensable claim. We were able to prove the claimant knowingly and intentionally made false, fraudulent, and misleading statements under oath during two depositions, and to two authorized treating providers, which were contradicted by surveillance and other evidence, ultimately barring the claimant from further benefits. The fraud/misrepresentation defense is an affirmative defense, and the burden was on the employer/carrier to prove same. The case involved multiple expert and fact witnesses and presentation of multiple days of surveillance to the court. 

We secured a defense verdict on behalf of a surgical oncologist in a binding high/low arbitration. The plaintiff alleged that the surgeon performed unnecessary surgery on a mass in her left arm, causing permanent scarring, continuous throbbing pain, and severe depression and anxiety. Two imaging studies were highly suspicious for malignancy, but the pathologic examination ultimately determined the mass to be benign and an allergic reaction to Lupron injections, which were given by the co-defendant gynecologist.

We won a defense verdict in a seven-day jury trial in the Philadelphia Common Pleas court. The case involved a defamation claim based on an article published in a local community newspaper. The defendants were the local Community Council and the two individuals who wrote and published the article. According to the plaintiff, the article named him and implied he wrote an anonymous letter that threatened legal action, which was seen as contrary to the community’s interest. The demand had been $1.75 million, and the plaintiff was offered $50,000. After deliberating, the jury returned a verdict for the defendants.

We obtained a defense verdict in a Title VII/Section 1983 sexual harassment case. This claim was filed against a City in Pennsylvania and was heard in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The plaintiff alleged that she was subjected to a hostile work environment by a City official, and that the City failed to take appropriate remedial measures. The jury concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove that she was sexually harassed after deliberating for just over an hour.

We secured summary judgment on behalf of a custom-home builder in a breach of contract case. The plaintiffs contracted with our client to build their dream home, but, due to the plaintiffs’ change of scope and the increase of costs and services, an attempt was made to modify the parties’ contract. The plaintiff objected and submitted the dispute to the parties’ chosen arbitrator for a binding decision. The arbitrator fully sided with the builder; however, the plaintiffs moved before the Superior Court of New Jersey to have the arbitration award vacated. Once vacated, we proceeded in the civil action and convinced the court that there were no triable issues of fact to support the plaintiffs' breach of contract action.

We obtained summary judgment on behalf of an obstetrician in a medical malpractice action. The plaintiff alleged that our client did not obtain the requisite informed consent from the plaintiff to undergo a trial of labor after having two prior cesarean section deliveries (TOLAC x2). The court found that the plaintiff’s lack of informed consent claim was without foundation as she had an awareness of the risks of TOLAC x2. Rather, the court found that her claim was premised on the assertion that the physician performing the TOLAC x2 failed to convert the TOLAC to a C-section quickly enough when complications arose. The court held that our client had no obligation to discuss the risk that the doctor in the delivery room may wait too long to pivot to a C-section, which was the actual cause of the plaintiff’s alleged harm.

We successfully resolved a wrongful death case involving a 14-year-old boy who fell from an Orlando attraction, navigating a concurrent criminal investigation, state review, and intense media scrutiny on behalf of the ride's owner/operator.

We secured a directed verdict in favor of our client in a high-exposure and high-risk defamation lawsuit. We were called to try the case on behalf of the CEO of a local chapter of a well-known national non-profit after the plaintiff was permitted to amend the complaint to seek punitive damages from the CEO personally. When we received the case, the trial was set to begin in four weeks. We secured a brief continuance and built a client-specific defense focused on the CEO while working with a team of other firms representing other defendants, including the non-profit organization which had formerly represented all of the defendants jointly.  Background: The plaintiff was a volunteer at a camp. A decision was made to separate him from the camp and the organization. The plaintiff alleged that the CEO personally defamed him by alerting other volunteers and committees of the decision. He demanded an eight-figure sum prior to trial.  After a six-day trial and several hours of argument at the close of the plaintiff’s case, the court granted our motion for directed verdict, ruling that the evidence presented confirmed that the communications by the CEO were covered by a qualified privilege and that, based on cross examination of the plaintiff and his witnesses, the defense established that there was no malicious conduct by the CEO.  The case had been pending since 2020, and in fewer than 100 days, we became familiar with the factual and legal details to bring home a win for the client.   

We received a defense verdict in a contentious long-term care case that included a unique spoliation issue, allegations of cover-up regarding the cause of death and a “no show” plaintiff. A longtime nursing home resident, who was suffering from “end-stage dementia,” died nine days after suffering head trauma following a fall. The plaintiff was the resident’s son who was not his mother’s guardian. The plaintiff contacted a lawyer who delivered the body across Pennsylvania to a forensic pathologist for a private autopsy. No notice was provided to the nursing home administration of the impending autopsy, despite the fact that the lawyer had sued the long-term facility several times in the past. The corpse was cremated shortly after the autopsy without an opportunity for the defense to examine the body. The defense did not learn about the private autopsy until years later, when the report was provided in discovery. A motion for sanctions for spoliation was filed by the defense, which was followed by depositions of the funeral home staff and a hearing involving the forensic pathologist and the attending physician. Although the spoliation motion was denied, the court held that the defense could question the forensic pathologist on the cremation, destroyed specimens and failure to produce the autopsy photographs at trial. On the eve of trial, the judge proctored an agreement between the parties to arbitrate the case “on expert reports only.” At arbitration, plaintiff’s counsel continued to pursue a conspiracy theory about “the true cause of death” along with standard negligence criticisms about fall prevention. The plaintiff was cross-examined on a prior crimen falsi conviction and an Orphans’ Court petition initiated by the local Area Agency on Aging, wherein the deceased resident complained that she was afraid of her son, which was relevant to his “loss of society and companionship” claim. Not surprisingly, the plaintiff denied every allegation of the Orphans’ Court petition, which detracted his appearance and credibility. 

We obtained summary judgment on behalf of a university in a slip and fall case. The plaintiff, a university student, slipped and fell during an active winter storm as she was walking from one campus building to another. Discovery showed that the plaintiff received an emergency alert from the university warning of potentially icy conditions prior to exiting the building and that freezing rain was still falling as the plaintiff was walking. We argued, and the court agreed, that the university owed no duty to the plaintiff to protect against general slippery conditions or to pretreat sidewalks prior to, during or immediately after the storm.

We received a unanimous decision from the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. This decision both limits the use of offensive collateral estoppel in disciplinary matters and establishes that the standard of proof for disciplinary matters in Pennsylvania is clear and convincing evidence. The Office of Disciplinary Counsel had sought to utilize non-mutual offensive collateral estoppel to preclude the respondent from disputing fact determinations by a bankruptcy judge when she sanctioned the respondent and his client. The Supreme Court determined that the burden of proof for the judge in issuing sanctions was something less than clear and convincing evidence and, therefore, collateral estoppel did not apply. In making its decision, the Supreme Court noted that the previously expressed standard of “preponderance of clear and satisfactory evidence” was confusing and archaic but is the functional equivalent of “clear and convincing.” 

We secured a jury verdict in a breach of contract/statutory bad faith action that arose under a legal malpractice policy issued to a law firm by our insurance company client. The plaintiffs settled a malpractice claim set forth against them without our client’s knowledge or consent. The insurance company then denied coverage for that claim, and the plaintiffs filed suit. Because the case included a bad faith claim, if the plaintiffs prevailed on both counts, the damages could have been seven figures or more. We took the case to trial before Judge Patrick in Philadelphia County. The jury returned a verdict on the breach of contract claim, finding that the plaintiffs failed to establish their damages by a preponderance of the evidence. The judge then dismissed the statutory bad faith claim.

We achieved dismissal of a breach of contract and professional malpractice claim against a professional engineering firm that provided construction monitoring services for a lender. When the project went south (for a multitude of reasons unrelated to the engineer's services), the project developer, who had obtained an assignment of rights from the lender, sought to hold the engineer responsible for project cost overruns. After a seven-day bench trial and testimony from nine witnesses, the court dismissed the complaint in its entirety. In dismissing the breach of contract claim, the court held that the plaintiff failed to establish any breach of contract by the engineer, finding that the reports prepared by the engineer during the course of the project complied with its contractual obligations, with the terms of the contract being clear and unambiguous. This included a contract provision which stated that the engineer was not responsible for the malfeasance of others, including the general contractor, or the errors and/or omissions of the project architect. The court further found that, even had the plaintiff proven that there was a breach of contract by the engineer, the plaintiff still failed to prove that the lender sustained any actual damages. In dismissing the professional malpractice cause of action, the court found that the expert testimony by the plaintiff was insufficient to establish a prima facie case. Specifically, the trial testimony on the plaintiff's direct case failed to establish any deviation from the accepted standards of practice in the services the engineer provided as the lender's representative.

We obtained a hard fought defense verdict in a contentious case involving a total fire loss at a duplex owned by a single mother. The investigation revealed that the named insured did not reside in the home and, instead, rented the two units. The claim denial included application misrepresentations and issues related to the fact that the insured property did not meet the policy’s definition of a “residence premises.” Ultimately, the court decided that the property did meet the “residence premises” definition. We were left to try the case based on material misrepresentations and tasked with convincing the jury that a single mother, who paid her premium and suffered an accidental and total fire loss, should be precluded from recovery. The jury disregarded the sympathetic plaintiff, believed the insured lied during the investigation and applied New Jersey insurance law on material misrepresentations as instructed by the court. The plaintiff had turned down $150K prior to trial.

We obtained a defense award on a six-week FINRA hearing where our client, a General Agent, faced an alleged defamation/conversion/wrongful termination claim. The claimants contended that our client not only wrongfully discharged them after discovering their involvement in a bank-owned life insurance transaction, but also converted their trails and commissions, and defamed them on their U-5 form published through FINRA BrokerCheck. Damages totaling $15 million and punitive damages were sought by the three claimants. While the panel awarded $8 million in damages against the firm they were affiliated with, we obtained a defense award on all counts and dismissal of all claims for punitive damages on behalf of our General Agent client.

The claimant injured her right wrist in 2016 while working as a teacher for the State. Her injury eventually developed into complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) involving multiple extremities. From 2017 to 2021, the State paid for 23 ketamine infusion treatments to treat the claimant’s CRPS. The treatment was rendered by an out-of-state provider. In 2019, the State contracted with a new bill-review company that paid substantially lower amounts than was previously paid for the same treatment. The claimant filed a petition that alleged these lower payments were insufficient and inconsistent with Delaware law. The Industrial Accident Board determined that the payments made by the State were correct under the Delaware Workers’ Compensation Act’s health care payment system and Fee Schedule. The Superior Court affirmed the decision. The claimant appealed to the Delaware Supreme Court, arguing that the Board failed to correctly apply the Act and Fee Schedule regulations, as interpreted in the Superior Court opinion Delaware Veterans Home v. Dixon. Specifically, the claimant alleged that the Board failed to assess the adequacy of medical billing codes by referring to resources from the American Medical Association or the National Correct Coding Institute. The Supreme Court rejected this argument. The claimant bore the burden of proving whether the billing codes used by the provider for the ketamine infusion treatments were insufficient or inaccurate. The resources cited by the claimant were, indeed, referenced in the Fee Schedule administrative regulations, but no evidence was presented by the claimant at the Board hearing. It was neither the employer’s nor the Board’s responsibility to present that evidence. Therefore, there was no legal error. The court further advised that the Act’s Oversight Panel is the proper forum to determine whether specific billing codes provide reasonable compensation for particular treatment, which was a secondary argument advanced by the claimant. The decisions were affirmed.

We defended a school district in a special education matter involving a high school student identified with a specific learning disability and ADHD. The student sought out a peer during the school day, went into the peer’s classroom and physically attacked her, punching and kicking her several times. After the incident, the student’s Individualized Education Program team determined the conduct was not a manifestation of the student’s disabilities. The student and her parent disagreed with this determination and requested an expedited due process hearing. At the hearing, the parent argued that the student’s conduct was a result of trauma she had experienced from a previous fight she had with her peer and that the student’s decision to fight the other student was on impulse and attributable to her ADHD condition. We presented testimony from the dean of students that she had talked to the student earlier in the school day, and during the conversation, the student expressed to the dean that she wanted to fight her peer to “squash the beef” they had between them. With this, we argued the student’s behavior was not impulsive, and her decision to attack the student was premediated and thought out. The hearing officer agreed and found the school district was correct in concluding the student’s conduct was not a manifestation of her disabilities. The hearing officer permitted the school district to seek further discipline of the student, including expulsion.

We obtained a defense verdict following a compulsory arbitration in a motor vehicle pileup. The plaintiff alleged that while she was stopped in traffic, the co-defendant’s vehicle rear ended her, pushing her into the vehicle in front of her. To the contrary, the co-defendant contended that our client caused the entire accident by being the first to rear-end his vehicle, pushing him into the plaintiff’s vehicle just once. Despite the conflicting testimony, we convinced the arbitration panel that, although our client was involved in the accident, the plaintiff testified the first strike she felt from the co-defendant’s vehicle was harder, and that the impact caused by her client’s vehicle was minimal due to the lack of damage to her vehicle. The arbitration panel assigned no liability to our client.

Jillian won summary judgment in favor of her client, a former suburban mayor, after seven years of protracted litigation, arising out of alleged defamation.  In 2016, Jillian’s client was arrested for domestic violence.  Although the criminal case was ultimately dismissed, the charge significantly tarnished her personal life and career and she lost re-election.  In 2017, the police chief and a lieutenant that led the investigation into the criminal charge left their positions, allegedly forced out by the mayor.  Documents regarding the sealed criminal charges were found in both offices, which spurred an internal investigation and review by an outside prosecutor.  The internal investigation found that there were significant deficiencies in the criminal investigation and found that the officers likely obstructed justice as a result of these deficiencies.  The outside prosecutor found that, although there was probable cause for an arrest, there likely was not enough evidence for a conviction.  Because of the ongoing election, the criminal charges and internal investigation were the subject of several public records requests by the local police union as well as council members. On the eve of releasing the investigation as a public record, the acting chief of police, allegedly at the behest of the mayor, gave a press conference in which he announced the results of the investigation and the possible related criminal charges.  The acting chief of police stated that the press conference was necessary because of the political situation – likely referring to the mayor’s reelection campaign.  The court dismissed the action at summary judgment on both procedural grounds and on the merits finding that none of the comments made in the press conference were false or disparaging.