Results

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.

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 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.

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.

We won summary judgment for a former suburban mayor after seven years of litigation. As background, in 2016, our client was arrested for domestic violence, but the criminal case was ultimately dismissed for lack of evidence and sealed. In 2017, after the police chief and lieutenant left their positions, the City found documents regarding the sealed charges against the mayor in their offices. This spurred an internal investigation into the police investigation into the mayor, which found that there were significant deficiencies in the criminal investigation. The outside prosecutor found that, although there was probable cause for an arrest, there likely was not enough evidence for a conviction. As a result of the ongoing mayoral campaign at that time, the criminal charges and internal investigation were the subject of several public records requests. On the eve of releasing those public records, the City held a press conference announcing that the former police chief’s and lieutenant’s investigation into our client was improper and possibly criminal. After the press conference, the police chief and lieutenant sued the mayor, the acting police chief, and the City for defamation and related claims. 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.

We successfully secured a dismissal in the Superior Court of New Jersey on personal jurisdiction grounds. This was a multi-count complaint brought by a New Jersey-based medical laboratory against our client, an Arizona company which provides both medical services and health insurance to Arizona residents. The plaintiff argued that our client was amenable to suit in this state, however, we were able to establish that, not only was such an assertion untrue, but also that any claims sent by the plaintiff to our client for testing services would have been processed in Arizona and that our client did not have any contacts—much less the constitutionally mandated minimum contacts—necessary for personal jurisdiction in New Jersey. As a result, the court dismissed the action with prejudice in New Jersey.

We successfully obtained an order to move a sexual assault case to Chester County, Pennsylvania. At first, the venue appeared prima fascia good for Philadelphia until our attorneys more closely investigated and found the one defendant holding the case in the city was never served and could not be found. 

We secured summary judgment in a general liability case involving a dog bite. The plaintiff alleged a laceration to the face from a dog bite. The dog was owned by a co-defendant, not by our client, the landlord of the property where the bite occurred. There were no issues of material fact or proof to support a theory of liability under strict or ordinary negligence, and no behavioral signs of aggression were observed by the plaintiff or the property owner’s son who hosted the party where the plaintiff was bitten. We argued that the elements under both theories could not be met, and the judge agreed, granting summary judgment.

We successfully prosecuted a termination petition involving a low back injury for a delivery truck service company. Our expert opined that the MRI failed to reveal any acute or post traumatic findings, that the claimant only sustained a soft tissue lumbar sprain/contusion and the exam revealed no objective findings. The workers’ compensation judge found our expert’s opinions were well-supported and terminated all liability.

We obtained summary judgment in a Sunshine Act case in the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas. The plaintiff alleged that the school district violated the law by temporarily requiring school board meeting attendees to show photo identification to gain entry without holding a public vote prior to implementation of the measure. The court determined that this security measure did not constitute a policy requiring a public vote and that the plaintiff was not prevented from attending school board meetings because he possessed a valid driver’s license and chose not to produce it.

We secured summary judgment for our client, a tow truck company, in three consolidated cases venued in Essex County Superior Court arising out of a fatal motor vehicle accident caused by an illegal left-hand turn by a tow truck driver. The plaintiffs alleged that our client was liable under a theory of respondeat superior as the tow truck driver’s employer. The plaintiffs further alleged that our client negligently hired, trained, supervised and entrusted the vehicle to the driver. However, we established that our client sold the subject tow truck to a co-defendant tow truck company two weeks before the accident. The court found that the co-defendant’s deposition testimony did not suffice to create a genuine issue of material fact and granted our motion, dismissing all claims against our client.

We secured a jury defense verdict in a general liability lawsuit brought against our client, a Pennsylvania moving equipment rental company. The plaintiffs were in their car at a McDonald's drive-thru in Delaware when their vehicle was struck by an unattached trailer that had blown from an adjacent parking lot during a storm. The trailer was blown from the parking lot of the adjacent gas station which rented trailers to the public as part of a dealership agreement with a Delaware moving equipment rental company that had the same parent corporation as the client. After the accident, the gas station employee provided the plaintiff with an old business card for an employee of the Delaware equipment rental company, but which identified the employee as an agent of the Pennsylvania moving equipment company. The plaintiffs contended that the business card established agency, and we argued that an old business card was not enough to establish agency and that the testimony of the parties directly contradicted the wording on the business card. The plaintiffs claimed to have suffered neck and back injuries, and one contended she would have future medical expenses in excess of $100,000. The first question on the verdict slip asked the jury to state whether the Delaware company employee was also an employee and/or agent of the Pennsylvania moving truck rental company at the time of the accident and the jury answered "No." That eliminated the need for the jury to answer any further questions, and a defense verdict was rendered.

We won a decision from the Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division, which affirmed an order for summary judgment in a complex multi-party legal malpractice action. This case involved financial ventures that led to two legal malpractice actions. The dismissal was affirmed, with the Appellate Division agreeing with the trial judge that the plaintiff’s expert reports were net opinions and inadmissible.

We obtained a “no cause” verdict in an employment discrimination case for a New Jersey state university. The plaintiff, seeking back pay, front pay, emotional distress, attorney fees, punitive damages and costs, alleged she was terminated from her position as director of the university’s performing arts center due to her age, gender and/or in retaliation for reporting internal complaints of age/gender discrimination. We successfully argued that the plaintiff was not terminated for discriminatory/retaliatory reasons but, instead, was terminated as a result of mandatory COVID-19 closures necessitated by Executive Orders. 

We secured a victory in a case involving an Article 75 petition seeking to vacate a master arbitration award. Following oral arguments, the court unanimously affirmed the lower court’s decision as neither the lower arbitration award nor the master arbitration award were neither irrational nor contained errors of law or fact.