Results

We successfully obtained a no-cause jury verdict in a 13-day wrongful death trial. The decedent, a 59-year-old man, was admitted to the emergency room on February 15, 2019, with complaints of abdominal pain, decreased appetite, and constipation, despite the use of laxatives. The patient did not complain of any nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea. He had a significant medical history including diabetes, hypertension, prior coronary artery stenting, morbid obesity (with past gastric bypass surgery), longstanding ventral hernia, and back pain. A CT scan revealed multiple hernias and a potential closed-loop bowel obstruction, leading to a surgery consultation. Our client, an emergency general surgeon, interpreted that the patient did not have a closed loop or any significant obstruction and recommended non-surgical management. The patient was approved to have clear liquids, and had a vomiting incident shortly after, but our client was not notified. The patient was returned to NPO status, and after improving overnight, he was returned to “clears” and additional medical and renal consults were ordered. Our client did not receive any communications from the residents/nurses of any changes in the patient’s condition. On February 18, 2019, two rapid responses were called due to increased heart rate and vomiting. It is believed that the vomiting resulted in aspiration, causing sepsis, ultimately leading to the patient’s death. During the trial, the plaintiff’s sole medical expert highlighted imaging on the wrong hernia, which called into question all of his opinions in the case. We made key objections related to the expert testimony, limiting what the allegations were, and preventing new allegations from being made. After approximately two and a half hours of deliberating, the jury returned a no-cause verdict. 

We received a unanimous defense verdict of behalf of our clients. The plaintiff was a seven-year-old girl who presented with a sacral aneurysmal bone cyst, an expansile, lytic lesion that destroyed sacral bone and was causing compression on her lower lumbar and sacral nerve roots. The plaintiff experienced the inability to control her bladder and bowel post-operatively, and had no sensation in her sex organs. The plaintiff’s experts alleged that the lower sacral nerve roots were transected by the defendants during the surgery, most likely by cinching them via a negligently placed suture circumferentially around the thecal sac. The defendants (and their experts) denied that such a suture was placed. They also contended that the nerves were not transected, but instead were further injured by the necessary manipulation involved in removing the tumor — a recognized and accepted potential complication of this type of surgery. After deliberation, the jury delivered a verdict in favor of our clients.

Christopher Block and Paul Lanza (both of Roseland) successfully obtained a defense verdict in a trucking accident in New Jersey. The plaintiff claimed that our client merged into her lane at the George Washington Bridge toll plaza causing her to sustain neck and back injuries for which she underwent two spinal surgeries. Our client testified that both of their lanes ended and, because they were required to merge, he had the right-of-way since the front of his truck was ahead of the front of her vehicle. Our accident reconstruction expert confirmed that our driver had the right-of-way and opined that plaintiff was the sole cause of the accident. We also disputed the causation of plaintiff’s alleged injuries based on the very limited property damage to her vehicle, as well as the fact that she had prior, similar injuries. After a little more than an hour of deliberations, the jury returned a verdict finding that our driver was not negligent. The trial team was assisted by associate attorney Haleigh Catalano and paralegal Kelly Dermody who provided critical support with motions in limine and trial management.

We secured a defense verdict on behalf of an oral surgeon in a medical malpractice matter. The plaintiff alleged that our client deviated from accepted standards of care when extracting four wisdom teeth resulting in permanent injury to the inferior alveolar nerve. The jury returned a unanimous verdict for the defense.

We obtained a directed verdict in a New Jersey Law Against Discrimination case filed against a national trucking company after two days of trial. The plaintiff was a laborer who assisted a truck driver making deliveries to a retail store. The driver admitted to making sexually explicit comments to the plaintiff. The plaintiff argued the comments were made due to his race (African American) and were protected under the LAD. Jillian and Len argued that the comments were offensive to anyone who heard them and had nothing to do with the plaintiff’s race. At trial, the judge agreed that the language used by the truck driver, however offensive it was, could not sustain a cause of action under the LAD as it was not based on a protected category as alleged by the plaintiff. The judge dismissed the case.

We obtained summary judgment for our clients, a school district and its board of education, in a construction injury case. The school district hired a paving contractor to install a drainage pipe and to perform paving work at a number of its schools. The paving contractor had to excavate a trench to install the pipe. The plaintiff, an employee of the paving contractor, was working in the trench installing the pipe when the trench collapsed around him, trapping him up to his head and requiring that he be extricated by first responders. According to the plaintiff, the trench collapse was affected by a condition of the property that caused water to enter and destabilize the trench. He alleged that the school district was liable because the existence of the water was a dangerous condition of the property and, as the property owner, the district was negligent in failing to properly supervise the work and provide for the safety of the workers. The school district’s superintendent had visited the site on the morning of the incident, observed mud in the trench, and said to the paving contractor that he should not let anyone work in the trench. In our summary judgment motion, we argued that the school district did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff because the contractor was, by contract, in charge of the means and methods of its work and was contractually obligated to provide for the safety of its work and its workers. The court granted summary judgment to the school district, agreeing that it did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff. 

Lela Eke received a Dismiss Without Prejudice for Lack of Prosecution, after filing a Motion to Dismiss in response to numerous discovery requests that remained unanswered. At the hearing, Petitioner’s counsel was unable to provide an explanation for the delay. We argued that keeping the case open to give them more time to respond to our discovery and Motion would be prejudicial against us, and the Court granted our Motion. Jessica Gordon received a dismissal for lack of prosecution in a case where the claim was denied with ongoing request for medical treatment, but there had been no report from the Petitioner to support the request and no demand was made in lieu of litigation. William Murphy successfully obtained an order for dismissal for a claim involving a workplace assault. In the case, the Petitioner alleged injuries to their neck, back, chest, and right hand following an assault at work. After the Petitioner missed multiple independent medical exams scheduled by the employer, we filed a motion to dismiss this claim for lack of prosecution. The judge of compensation granted the motion. Rachel Ramsay-Lowe was successful in defending a case where the Petitioner was not complying with discovery requests and did not appear for Respondent’s permanency evaluation. We filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution and the Court entered the dismissal Order. Kristy Salvitti was successful in obtaining an Order for Dismissal where the  Petitioner had filed a Reopener of a Clam Petition relative to a prior permanency award arguing that disability to his right shoulder, thoracic and lumbar spine had increased to permanent and total disability. If successful, Petitioner would receive lifetime related medical treatment and 450 weeks to life of his temporary total disability rate.  However, following oral argument that Petitioner failed to timely prosecute the claim, the Reopener Petitioner was dismissed.

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

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

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

We 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 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 were able to permanently close a matter involving a serious shoulder injury with a Section 20 resolution. In this case, the petitioner sustained significant injuries to her shoulder with an MRI showing tearing. The petitioner ultimately underwent two shoulder surgeries, and our own permanency expert found permanent disability of 7.5% partial total. Based upon wage statements we obtained, he asserted that any permanency award should be paid at a reduced rate—making the monetary award about $40,000 less than what would be paid at the full chart rate. When the judge attempted to have the parties settle for a higher percentage of disability—to make up for the lower rate—we indicated our intent to take the matter to trial. In order to avoid a trial, the judge indicated he would approve a Section 20 settlement. Thus, in an admitted claim involving serious injuries, two surgeries and our own doctor conceding permanency, we were able to close the matter out permanently with a Section 20 resolution.

Marshall Dennehey’s trial and appellate attorneys were successful in their representation of a national home improvement retail corporation’s tool and truck rental division. Handling the case at both the trial and appellate levels, the defense was successful in convincing the New Jersey appellate court to affirm the trial court’s decision on July 23, 2024. At the trial level, the judge granted our motion for a directed verdict and dismissed the case. The plaintiff had rented a flatbed truck in 2018 to move a cabinet he had just purchased. He alleged that a store employee gave him a set of ramps to use in the truck, but while doing so, they moved and he fell, sustaining serious and permanent injury to his back. The plaintiff alleged he later returned to the store and was told that he had been given the wrong ramps. The panel said that the record included no actual evidence that the ramp did not fit the truck beyond the employee’s saying it was the wrong ramp, or that the ramp slipped because it was incompatible with the truck. Even in his testimony, the panel said the plaintiff did not actually identify any physical cause for the ramp to move. “The dearth of evidence establishing the manner and cause of the slip or slide of the ramp rendered it impossible for the jury to make a reasoned determination as to whether defendant’s purported negligence proximately caused plaintiff’s fall and injuries,” the panel said. The court, therefore, affirmed the case on appeal. 

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 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 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 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 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 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 secured a directed verdict in a subacute rehab case in New Jersey. The plaintiffs claimed their father, who suffered from dysphagia, was negligently left unattended to choke and die in his room by the nursing staff while eating breakfast. At the close of plaintiff’s case, three motions for directed verdict were made. The court eventually agreed that the plaintiffs had not met their burden on causation with the expert testimony.

We obtained a summary judgment on behalf of our architectural client against one of the top construction/design defect law firms in New Jersey. After three separate argument appearances, the court granted summary judgment, holding that the plaintiff’s expert’s report failed to substantively establish a deviation from the architectural standard of care.

We secured a unanimous defense verdict in a three-week medical malpractice trial involving an allegedly botched total knee replacement. Through the testimony of our client and an expert, we were able to establish that all accepted standards of care were met. The jury deliberated for three days before returning its unanimous verdict.

The New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal our defense team obtained in a New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD) perceived disability claim, alleging COVID-19 to be a disability under this statute. This employment discrimination claim involved a matter of first impression in New Jersey and established that COVID-19 infection, without more, does not constitute a disability under the NJLAD. A former employee filed suit, asserting perceived disability discrimination under the NJLAD. The plaintiff alleged he was wrongfully terminated based upon his employer’s perception that he had COVID-19. We filed a motion to dismiss in lieu of an answer, asserting the complaint did not set forth a cause of action as COVID-19 is not a recognized disability under the NJLAD. The court granted our motion and agreed that COVID-19 is not a disability under the NJLAD and, therefore, could not be the predicate for a perceived discrimination case. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, finding the plaintiff’s COVID-19-perceived disability claim failed to plead a viable cause of action under the NJLAD.  

We obtained a defense verdict in a one-week trial in Hudson County, New Jersey, in a case where the plaintiff alleged the defendant insurance producer failed to alert the plaintiff of a policy renewal coming up and then failed to advise him that the policy had lapsed, and he had no insurance.  The plaintiff claimed the defendant breached a contract to provide the plaintiff with notices by email and that the defendant breached a duty of care in a claim for professional negligence. Due to the breadth of the insurance policy at issue, the claim against the defendant was for $500,000. At trial, the plaintiff relied upon his testimony that he did not receive the notices or any calls from the defendants regarding the lapse. We argued and established that any potential breach of contract or breach of a professional duty of care was not the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s damages because he failed to take any steps to either calendar or diary his insurance renewal deadlines and also failed historically to timely renew his insurance policies in the eight years preceding this loss. After an hour and fourteen minutes of deliberation, the jury agreed with the defense and found that the plaintiff could not establish a proximate cause between the alleged breach of a duty of care and plaintiff’s damages.   

Claims were brought against the state police organization and eight individual defendants (current and retired members of the state police). The plaintiff, a female State Trooper, alleged she was retaliated against for raising complaints about how male members of the State Police were treating other female employees and that her supervisors failed to take appropriate actions once her initial complaints were raised. She alleged she was denied promotion and transferred against her wishes in retaliation for making these complaints. The ruling was especially satisfying as the court had ruled on a prior summary judgment motion that a fact issue existed, and we had to convince the new motion judge not to follow the “Law of the Case” Doctrine and to decide the case based on the record presented in this motion. 

We prevailed on a motion for summary judgment in favor of a project manager in a serious bicycle accident lawsuit. The plaintiff was thrown off his bike after striking a significant pothole in front of a building where our client performed work several years earlier. We successfully argued that the plaintiff’s alleged attempts to connect our client with the existence of the pothole were far too attenuated to be of any assistance to a jury. Following oral argument the judge agreed and granted summary judgment.

We successfully excluded the cervical spine from an established workers’ compensation claim. The claimant injured his lumbar spine and alleged he passed out while at home from the lumbar spine pain, causing a neck injury. We presented hospital records revealing no injury to the cervical spine and that the claimant did not seek any medical treatment to the cervical spine until seven months after this alleged incident.

Our client represented a plaintiff in a personal injury action. The personal injury plaintiff had signed a lien letter, agreeing to repay her physical therapist from the proceeds of the personal injury claim. After the case settled, our client reimbursed the physical therapist for less than the amount billed by the therapist, who filed the ethics complaint. We successfully argued that our client was representing the best interests of his client, who claimed the bills were excessive. By doing so, the attorney increased the recovery for his client.

We successfully represented an attorney who was sued by a former client after representing that client in a personal injury action. The plaintiff alleged the attorney failed to file suit within the time allowed by the Statute of Limitations. We argued in our summary judgment motion that the attorney sent two letters to the plaintiff, advising that the attorney would not file suit and further informing the plaintiff when the Statute of Limitations would expire. The plaintiff, who filed suit four years later, argued that he did not receive the letters and the attorney was obligated to do more than send letters. We successfully argued that the plaintiff failed to overcome the presumption that a letter, correctly addressed, was received. The Appellate Division affirmed, adopting our argument that the plaintiff could not overcome the presumption by simply claiming he did not receive the letters.