Results

The plaintiff slipped in the lobby of a commercial building and claimed a serious and ongoing injury to her right shoulder. She alleged she fell due to a wet floor caused by the facilities management’s cleaning process and the lack of sufficient visible wet floor caution signs. The plaintiff underwent two surgeries, claimed ongoing pain and suffering, and sought $500,000 prior to trial.  We represented the building ownership and the facilities management company. Problematic for the defense was the lack of a surveillance video of the incident, photographs of the lobby contemporaneous to the incident, or an incident report. Despite this, we persuaded the jury to find for the defense by establishing a consistent and credible history of habitual practice in the placement of wet floor signs in highly visible areas across the lobby.  We also won the credibility battle through our well-prepared witnesses. Although faced with a sympathetic plaintiff with a substantiated history of medical treatment, our attorneys succeeded by presenting the case using “old school” personal injury defense tactics that were necessary due to the lack of video, photographs, and documentation. 

We obtained a defense verdict following a three-day jury trial in a slip-and-fall injury case in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County. The plaintiff slipped in the allegedly wet lobby of a commercial building and claimed a serious and ongoing injury to her right shoulder. Problematic for our case was the lack of a surveillance video of the incident, photographs of the lobby contemporaneous to the incident, or an incident report. Despite this, we persuaded the jury to find for the defense by establishing a consistent and credible history of habitual practice in the placement of wet floor signs across the lobby in highly visible areas. 

We successfully transferred two consolidated cases involving alleged falls by construction workers from Philadelphia to Cumberland County. Our clients were located in Lancaster County, and the only codefendant was located in Philadelphia County. We filed preliminary objections as to venue, arguing that the codefendant was a “phantom” defendant named to obtain venue in Philadelphia County. The court was convinced by our arguments. This ruling cuts against the current trend of giving broad deference to plaintiffs on venue issues.

We successfully defended an insurance carrier in a New Jersey no-fault arbitration matter. The claimant, a pain management provider, filed an arbitration demand in the amount of $125,218 in connection with a baseline urine toxicology screen and subsequent presumptive and confirmatory testing performed on a monthly basis to monitor a patient’s medication regimen. We successfully argued that the extensive testing was being performed without regard to the needs of the patient. After arguments were heard, the arbitrator issued an award in favor of our client, finding that the excessive testing was not medically necessary, saving our client more than $100,000.

We secured a summary judgment in a case in which the plaintiff slipped and fell on our client’s premises. An employee had clocked out and was in the process of gathering his personal belongings from the front-end counter when he allegedly created a dangerous condition by dropping his “personal jug” of iced tea on the floor, which the plaintiff slipped on. We argued that the retailer was not vicariously liable for the acts of the employee, who was “off the clock” at the time. The court held that “off duty employment” is a question of law since there was no genuine dispute of material facts as to whether the employee was “acting within the scope of his employment” at the time the alleged dangerous condition was created. A trial was set for April 2024, and the plaintiff’s last demand was $650,000 before summary judgment was granted.

We secured summary judgment and dismissal of nine claims brought by an individual employer against two former employees and their new place of employment. The plaintiff, who owned an insurance business and a tax preparation business, alleged claims of breach of contract, breach of the duty of loyalty, tortious interference, violations of the Pennsylvania Uniform Trade Secrets Act, and other related claims against two former employees, one at-will and one independent contractor, and their new employer. The plaintiff was imprisoned for violations of insurance fraud and barred from continued participation in the business of insurance. While imprisoned, one defendant, an at-will insurance underwriter employee, sent a letter to the business’s customers informing them that the plaintiff was no longer legally allowed to participate in the business of insurance. The plaintiff also alleged that the other defendant misappropriated trade secret information by taking a customer list with him to his new employer. We argued that the plaintiff lacked a trade secret interest over the customer list, and that all remaining claims should be dismissed because the statements made in the insurance employee’s letter were truthful. The trial judge agreed and dismissed all of the plaintiff’s claims against the three defendants, with prejudice.

We obtained summary judgment in a First Amendment retaliation claim where the plaintiff, an employee of the Borough, alleged that she was terminated by the president because of her affiliation with the minority of the supervisors. In granting summary judgment, the court found that the statements of one council member cannot constitute a policy of the council, unless she is delegated authority by the entire board. Summary judgment was entered in favor of the individual board member, as she did not have the authority to fire the plaintiff without approval from the majority of the board.

We successfully argued that a settlement agreement, based upon a binding and enforceable agreement reached via email between the parties, is enforced. The claimant had given her attorney authority to settle, but subsequently changed her mind. Based upon case law, there was unequivocal authority to settle and it was too late for the claimant to negate the agreement previously reached. The judge of compensation claims agreed and upheld the settlement. In another matter, we filed a motion to enforce a settlement agreement reached by the parties at mediation, which the judge of compensation claims granted. Despite attending mediation, reaching an agreement and having a mediation report drafted, the claimant did not sign the agreement. He then terminated the services of his attorney and retained new counsel. At the hearing held before the judge, Linda called the claimant’s former attorney as a witness and also conducted a direct examination of the claimant. Ultimately, the judge found that the claimant had agreed to settle and changed his mind later. Therefore, the settlement agreement was enforced.

We successfully defended an appeal in a complex series of legal malpractice actions arising out of an $11 million investment in an illegal venture in Brazil. In the initial trial, the plaintiff’s economic loss expert had offered a net opinion in connection with what plaintiff would have earned from the illegal venture in Brazil. We established the plaintiff’s knowledge of that illegality, which had been demonstrated in the previous legal malpractice action. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s expert report was barred in the first legal malpractice action, the doctrine of collateral estoppel applied, and the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s order, which barred the expert report in the second legal malpractice action. In addition, the court found that profits derived from the illegal venture are worthless and cannot form the basis for a claim.

We successfully defended a chiropractor with a directed verdict on informed consent and a no cause, 7-0, on standard of care. The plaintiff claimed the defendant was negligent in failing to obtain an MRI before adjusting the lumbar spine with a differential diagnosis, which included a herniated or bulging disc.

We were granted a motion for summary judgment in a slip-and-fall case before a court in Queens County, New York. The plaintiff argued that she fell down the stairs located inside employer’s store. As she could not sue her employer, she instead sued the landlord. We successfully argued that our client was an out-of-possession landlord that held no liability to the plaintiff. Further, she successfully argued that our client was not contracted to maintain the premises.

We obtained summary judgment, dismissal and an award of attorneys’ fees for a condominium association. Judgment was entered in favor of our client against the plaintiff in an earlier action that sought unpaid assessments. In order to sell its property, the plaintiff sent the association a check in the amount of recorded liens. The association returned the check, demanding the full payoff amount, and claimed a statutory lien for all amounts owed. The plaintiff paid the full amount and then filed its complaint, seeking a declaration from the court that the association should have satisfied a lien for the recorded amount even though additional amounts were owed under a statutory lien. The court found that the statutory liens which applied to the property created both in rem and in personam liability and, therefore, the association had no legal obligation to mark the lien as satisfied until it was fully paid. The court awarded our client’s attorneys’ fees for the plaintiff’s failure to appeal the lower court’s decision awarding the initial judgment and attorneys’ fees and, instead, bringing an additional action, which resulted in further delay and expenditure of additional sums by the association.

We won a summary judgment motion in a failure to diagnose breast cancer case on behalf of an imaging company. The plaintiff had four mammograms over a four year period, all of which read as negative for abnormalities by four radiologists. At the end of the fourth year, the plaintiff was hospitalized as a result of a fall, during which she was diagnosed with Stage IV metastatic breast cancer. In the resulting lawsuit, our client was named for theories of corporate and vicarious liability. After complex discovery, the motion for summary judgment was finally granted, with prejudice, for our client.

We successfully defended a claim where a large cable provider (owner) hired a contractor to complete work at an out-of-state location, and various parts of the job were subcontracted to several different companies, one of which did not have New York workers’ compensation insurance coverage. The contested issues were whether the Board has subject matter jurisdiction over this claim, what company employed the claimant, and whether the claimant was a covered employee. We argued that the claimant was not an employee/special employee of the cable provider and emphasized that an owner who contracts with an independent contractor for construction on his own property is not a contractor within the meaning of Section 56 of the Workmen's Compensation Law in New York. A special employer assumes and exercises “exclusive control” over a general employee; a determination on the issue of special employment may be made as a matter of law. However, if there are issues of fact concerning a surrender of control by a general employer and an assumption of control by a special employer, a determination on the issue of special employment will hinge upon a consideration of not only control but also factors such as the special employer's right to hire or discharge such an employee, the payment of wages and ownership of tools utilized on the job, all the while recognizing that ordinarily no one factor is determinative. There was no evidence on the record to support that an employee-employer relationship existed between our client and the claimant. With regard to subject matter jurisdiction, we argued that New York did not have sufficient contacts with the circumstances surrounding this claim. The only contact between this claim and the state of New York was the claimant’s home address. The court agreed with our arguments and dismissed our client from the claim.

We secured a dismissal with prejudice in a product liability case in Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs, who were involved, but not responsible, for a drunk driving accident, claimed that the beverage manufacturer was liable to them because the product had more alcohol than other alcoholic beverages and was improperly marketed to minors. Our team successfully argued several points, including that Pennsylvania does not recognize such a product liability cause of action because the dangers of drinking alcohol and driving are obvious, and the manufacturer has no duty to warn potential users of such dangers.

We successfully defended and submitted post-hearing arguments and secured dismissal of a New York no-fault arbitration matter. The applicant, a major medical provider, filed an arbitration matter in the amount of $361,601.62, claiming our client owed it for the claimant’s unpaid medical bills following a major motor vehicle accident. The claimant had been involved in the motor vehicle accident and sought payment for medical treatment for a series of treatments rendered while hospitalized, post-accident. Counsel for the medical provider argued that the medical billing was never properly nor timely denied, therefore, payment of the claims was overdue. However, we successfully argued at the arbitration hearing that the applicant’s client failed to provide the requisite statutorily required medical assignment-of-benefits form, assigning the hospital the right to sue on behalf of the injured party. After arguments were heard, the arbitrator ordered post-hearing submissions to be filed by both sides. After researching, drafting and filing a post-hearing submission, the arbitrator ruled in our client’s favor, thereby dismissing the matter based on the applicant’s total failure to submit the requisite form, saving our client hundreds of thousands of dollars.

We secured summary judgment on behalf of a school district in Fayette County, Pennsylvania. The plaintiff alleged he sustained a concussion as a result of a fall from a loading dock when making a delivery to a middle school in the school district. He argued that the loading dock was dangerous due to inappropriate depth, causing boxes on his hand truck to strike a wall, thus pushing him off of the loading dock. The court concluded that, because of the plaintiff’s prior uneventful encounters with the loading dock, the plaintiff was aware of the intricacies of the loading dock. Additionally, the court concluded that the plaintiff was an experienced delivery driver who, as indicated, was in the best position to perceive whether conditions were dangerous or not, and was, thus, in the best position to take appropriate precautions for his safety. Therefore, the court held that the defendants had no duty to warn or otherwise act to protect the plaintiff.

We won a complex legal malpractice trial in Burlington County, New Jersey. The case arose out of underlying breach of employment cases where the plaintiff claimed his employer shorted him on amounts due for his salary and an electrical property. Based on the net opinions of the plaintiff’s expert, the court dismissed the legal malpractice claims during trial, and the jury awarded our client fees and costs, with interest.

We successfully defended a Claim Petition on behalf of a national trucking company where the claimant alleged a disabling aggravation of a pre-existing cervical condition from a fall at work. Our thorough review of the medical records and the presentation of the evidence convinced the judge that the claimant did not meet his burden of proof on causation. While providing the requisite direct testimony, on cross examination, the claimant’s expert admitted when he first saw the claimant one month after the work incident, the claimant had a head droop from cervical fusion surgery five months before the date of injury, and said that surgery “unrelated” to the work injury would be needed to correct it. This was inconsistent with the expert’s direct examination testimony, which was that the work incident had caused the head droop. Further, with the employer’s expert, who reviewed the testimony of the claimant’s expert and reviewed all medical records pre- and post-incident, we were able to establish that the opinion of the claimant’s expert was flawed, pointing out that the claimant’s expert failed to perform a side-by-side comparison of pre-injury diagnostic studies to post-injury studies, which would indicate whether the head droop was a slow progression from the prior surgery or due to a traumatic incident. The Judge found that the claimant’s expert failed to adequately explain what he saw in the studies completed after the work incident that supported his theory on causation.

We obtained a defense verdict in a case involving medical and property damages. While riding a bicycle through a shopping center parking lot, the plaintiff collided with our client, who was driving a vehicle, at an intersection that did not have stop signs. The plaintiff alleged that our client was responsible for his medical damages, as well as property damage to his bike and clothing. At the hearing, we obtained testimony from the plaintiff that his medical bills had been full covered by his health insurance, and that he could not demonstrate that the alleged property damage stemmed from the incident at hand. The judge agreed and granted a defense verdict.

We successfully defended a claim on behalf of our client where the answer was late without a reasonable excuse. However, we persuaded the workers’ compensation judge that the claim petition was not well-pled as to the main allegation. We further convinced the judge that the claimant did not meet his burden of proof on causation.

We secured a positive outcome for our client in a construction site-related personal injury case in New Jersey. After a month of trial, we successfully placed the entirety of the plaintiff’s $4.2 million jury verdict against the remaining co-defendant. We also succeeded in placing all of our client’s costs and attorney’s fees on the co-defendant. In total, the judgment against the co-defendant was in excess of $7 million.

In our successful appeal to the Commonwealth Court, the workers’ compensation judge had awarded a closed period of benefits and then terminated all benefits, despite the employer’s late answer. The judge found that the description of injury was not well-pled and, therefore, not deemed admitted. The Appeal Board reversed the judge on the full termination of benefits, saying that, since our IME physician did not acknowledge a work-related psychiatric injury, his testimony was in conflict with the admitted injury due to the late answer. They reversed the judge and ordered reinstatement of temporary total disability benefits. The Commonwealth Court found in our favor and reversed. The court held that the judge was correct that the injury was not well-pled and that we were not deemed to have admitted a psychiatric injury. Therefore, they reinstated the judge’s decision which terminated benefits.

We successfully defeated the claimant’s appeal on a hotly-debated issue surrounding course and scope of employment in a case involving a motor vehicle accident during a paid lunch hour, which resulted in extreme medical treatment costs. We were able to convince the underlying court that the claimant was not in the course and scope of employment at the time of injury due to her deviation to run personal errands. The claimant appealed alleging the fact that, as her lunch hour is paid, she was certainly in the course and scope of employment and the underlying court erred. The Appeal Board affirmed the underlying court’s judgment, and claimant’s appeal was dismissed.

Justin Johnson and Lynne Nahmani (New Jersey) secured a directed verdict in a subacute rehab case. At the close of plaintiff’s case, three motions for directed verdict were made. The court agreed that the plaintiffs had not met their burden on causation with the expert testimony. Paul Laughlin (Pennsylvania) received a defense verdict in a case involving a patient with septic arthritis of the hip who was admitted to the hospital under strict fall precautions. Nurses downgraded the patient to standard fall precautions, and he fell and sustained a periprosthetic femur fracture. The fracture was surgically repaired, and he had a revision of his hip replacement. The patient subsequently developed complications in the form of recurrent infection and ultimately lost his leg. Leslie Jenny and Tracey McGurk (Ohio) received a defense verdict in a long-term care fall case. Joseph Hoynoski (Pennsylvania) tried a case with T. Kevin FitzPatrick, the former Director of our Heath Care Department, sitting second chair and received a defense verdict on behalf of an emergency room physician, hospital physician group and hospital. Brett Shear (Pennsylvania) received a directed verdict on behalf of his physician client. The plaintiff claimed that, during an excision of a submandibular mass, an excessive amount of hemoclips were placed deep into the mylohyoid muscle penetrating the lingual nerve. It was alleged that the physician failed to refer the patient to an ENT specialist when the plaintiff's surgical wounds were not healing and continuing to get worse over time. Ryan Gannon and associate Heather LaBombardi (New Jersey) earned a unanimous defense verdict in a three-week medical malpractice trial where they were able to establish that the proper steps were taken by their client during an orthopedic surgery, and the client met accepted standards of care. Kate Kramer and associate Gabor Ovari (Pennsylvania) handled a case that resulted in the plaintiff receiving less than the original offer.  Joan Orsini Ford (Pennsylvania) secured three successful defense verdicts for her clients. Adam Fulginiti (Pennsylvania), working with senior counsel William Banton, successfully defended a long-term care facility in a nursing home malpractice matter involving claims of vicarious and corporate liability After leveraging the case into binding arbitration, they obtained a complete defense verdict of "no negligence" on behalf of the facility and its corporate affiliates. Adam also obtained a defense verdict, working with associate Tara Fung, in Delaware County on behalf of an extended care facility. The plaintiff alleged negligence regarding the development and progression of wounds that the plaintiff’s decedent developed throughout her treatment at various medical facilities. The evidence presented to the jury supported the argument that the decedent’s wound development occurred prior to her arrival at the insured’s facility, and that while at the facility, the wounds were properly treated. Victoria Crawshaw Scanlon (Pennsylvania) obtained a medical malpractice arbitration defense award. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant radiologist misread a head CT scan. Victoria successfully argued that, prospectively, the head CT showed what appeared to be a normal anatomical variant. It was only in retrospect, with the benefit of additional more sensitive imaging studies, that one was able to determine that the abnormality was not a normal anatomical variant. Associate Gabor Ovari (Pennsylvania) received a defense verdict at arbitration in a case where the plaintiff alleged that the defendants were negligent in performing tooth polishing. The plaintiff alleged that an injury to their tongue was caused by the negligent use of a handheld polisher.

We obtained a defense jury verdict in a legal malpractice action arising from two wrongful termination trials. This matter included the two trials, an appeal, in addition to involving aspects of intellectual property law. There we numerous evidence issues as a result of the two underlying trials. However, we were successful on pretrial hearing in limiting plaintiff’s proofs and in barring significant damages claims asserted by the plaintiff’s expert. The jury rejected these claims and awarded all of our client’s fees, with interest and costs.

We were affirmed the granting of summary judgment in favor of our client in a high-speed police pursuit case. The plaintiff was severely injured after a brief police pursuit involving the driver, who died as a result of the pursuit. The plaintiff then sued the local municipality for negligence, arguing that the officers caused the wreck by turning a traffic stop into a high-speed chase. Following discovery, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the Township, finding that the so-called vehicle exception to municipal liability found in the Pennsylvania Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act did not apply. The trial court reasoned that pursuant to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s holding in Sellers v. The Township of Abington, 106 A. 3d 679 (Pa. 2014), the defendants did not owe the plaintiff a duty of care because his existence or connection to the driver were unknown to the officers at the time of the pursuit. The Commonwealth Court issued an opinion affirming the trial court and held that the exception to the exception for vehicle liability involving high-speed police pursuits did not apply because the plaintiff was unable to establish the threshold requirement that the defendants owed him a duty of care.

We won a trial for a cable company where the claimant was injured while working at one of the company’s sites. The claimant was hired by one of the subcontractors of our client to complete work at their facilities. We successfully argued that the claimant is not an employee or special employee of our client. The court agreed and dismissed our client from this claim. 

We won a defense verdict for a financial advisor in a FINRA arbitration over claims of unauthorized trading and breach of fiduciary duty. Defense award in a binding FINRA arbitration in Columbus, Ohio on behalf of a financial advisor. The Claimant alleged unauthorized trading and breach of fiduciary duty in connection with individual stock trades. The Claimant further alleged breach of fiduciary duty in relation to the financial advisor’s recommendation that the account be changed from a commission based to an advisory fee-based account.

We obtained a dismissal with prejudice in an action based on an alleged violation of contract, constitutional challenge of a Florida statute, and enforcement of a third-party settlement agreement. We represented an international nonprofit private membership organization in an action by a former member for violation of his membership in said organization. The plaintiff attempted to use a settlement agreement from a prior case to show that he was in compliance with the organization’s membership requirements. He also argued that the requirement to be a member of an underlying organization was unconstitutional because of an antiquated Florida law. We argued that a settlement agreement could not be enforced against a third party with no connection to a settlement agreement, in addition to pointing out the plaintiff’s failure to follow procedural requirements. Agreeing with our arguments, the judge ruled from the bench after oral arguments, dismissing the case with prejudice for failure to state a breach of contract and failure to state a cause of action under the Declaratory Judgment Act.