Results

We received a defense verdict after a two-day arbitration hearing in a traumatic brain injury case. With an initial $5.25 million demand, the plaintiff alleged overmedication led to cardiac arrest and a traumatic brain injury resulting in permanent neurocognitive impairment. Through testimony from our providers and experts across internal medicine, pulmonology, toxicology, and neuropsychology, we demonstrated that the care met the standard, did not cause the arrest, and that any deficits could have been pre-existing.

We successfully defended a multinational food corporation in a workers’ compensation case. We filed a suspension petition based upon the claimant’s employment prior to being taken out of work. The claimant filed a reinstatement petition for a right carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) claim and a claim petition for the left CTS claim. The claimant also filed UR petitions related to her treatment with Dr. Mercado and Dr. Patel. Prior to the decision, we accepted left-sided CTS as work related. The issue to be decided by the workers’ compensation judge was whether the claimant was entitled to a reinstatement of benefits because the job required her to work in a cold environment. In the decision, the judge noted that when the claimant was working she did not have to touch the cold meat which was on a conveyor belt. She also wore gloves and cold weather clothing while performing the position. The judge noted that Dr. Martinez did not know the temperature of the claimant’s hands with gloves on nor did he know the temperature of the plant. He also noted that Dr. Martinez testified that if the claimant’s hand temperature with gloves on was between 70-80 degrees, that should be acceptable. The judge noted that the employer’s witness testified to an experiment measuring hand temperature with gloves on: her hand temperature with the glove on was initially 87 degrees and after roughly 3 hours on the floor, it was 75 degrees. Dr. Talsania testified that cold temperature does not affect CTS. The judge found the claimant’s testimony and Dr. Martinez’s testimony not credible. The judge found the employer’s witness and Dr. Talsania credible in all respects. She also found the UR reports credible concerning the claimant’s treatment. The judge suspended the claimant’s benefits effective May 23, 2024, finding she was capable of performing the quality monitor position in the cold environment. 

We obtained a defense verdict in binding arbitration on behalf of a nursing home client. The plaintiff alleged that the nursing staff provided inadequate pressure-reducing devices and negligently cared for his lower extremity, allegedly resulting in a below-the-knee amputation and permanent and total disability. We established that, not only did the nursing staff treat the resident in accordance with the standard of care but, also, the resident’s below-the-knee amputation was caused by the resident’s vascular conditions and comorbidities, not by any alleged actions and/or inactions of the nursing home staff. After a lengthy arbitration, the arbitrator ultimately found in favor of the defense.

We obtained a defense verdict on behalf of an anesthesiologist after a medical malpractice jury trial in Lehigh County, Pennsylvania. The plaintiff, who underwent an elective right-shoulder surgery, alleged that the anesthesiologist and the certified registered nurse anesthetist who performed his laryngoscopy intubated him too soon, and under suboptimal paralytic conditions, leading to permanent throat damage. After a five-day trial, the jury returned a defense verdict within 15 minutes.

We received a decision denying a claim petition that alleged the claimant suffered a work-related cervical injury on June 29, 2023. The claimant testified that he felt a snap but did not feel the pain right away and continued to work until July 17, 2023. He then went to the emergency room and subsequently had surgery on July 20, 2023. During cross-examination, the claimant agreed he only suffered a cervical injury, not a low back injury. He further noted he had a prior low back injury on October 19, 2022, for which he filled out an accident report and was sent to a doctor and received treatment. However, the claimant first reported the June 29, 2023, injury on September 1, 2023, and at that time could not recall a specific event that occurred on June 29, 2023. However, he did confirm he heard a snap in his back when the injury did occur. The claimant also agreed he worked full duty, without reporting the incident, until July 17, 2023. Dr. Martinez, the claimant’s expert, testified the claimant was a partial quadriplegic in the upper and lower extremities. Dr. Henderson, our expert, found no evidence of a work-related injury on June 29, 2023, and that the claimant’s symptoms are consistent with cervical stenosis with myelopathy, which is a degenerative condition. The workers’ compensation judge found the claimant to be not credible to the extent he testified he suffered a work-related injury on June 29, 2023, or any disability related to it. He noted his demeanor during the hearing was not credible and his testimony was called into question based upon the employer’s policy that you must immediately report injuries, as he had in the past. The judge also noted that subsequent treatment notes indicate the injury or condition pre-dated the June 29, 2023, work injury date.   

We secured summary judgment in a case where the plaintiff fell down a flight of stairs at a NASCAR race in Monroe County, Pennsylvania, sustaining multiple fractures. The plaintiff alleged that she fell on water that had accumulated from patrons’ coolers dripping through the bleachers onto the staircase below. The court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims in their entirety due to her failure to adequately establish actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition.

We received a favorable decision dismissing a Claim Petition involving a claimant who alleged injuries from working at home on the couch. Mike submitted the claimant’s testimony from third-party litigation demonstrating conflicts with her testimony in the workers’ compensation case to impact her credibility. He also emphasized the claimant’s pre-existing condition, even though she told her medical expert that she was asymptomatic, as the claimant had been receiving chiropractic care for 38 years. The judge found that the history relied upon by the claimant’s medical expert was based upon what the claimant told him, which he found not credible. The judge ultimately found that the claimant did not meet her burden of proving that she suffered a work-related injury.

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 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 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 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 obtained an arbitration defense award in a medical malpractice case, in which the plaintiff alleged that our radiologist client misread the first of two head CT scans. She claimed that a timely diagnosis of her issue, which turned out to be cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT), would have given her the opportunity for a cure. We successfully argued that the head CT showed what appeared to be a normal anatomical variant, which only identified plaintiff’s CVT diagnosis with additional, more sensitive imaging studies.

We achieved a defense jury verdict in a 4th Amendment civil rights trial in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The plaintiff alleged that two officers of our Northeastern Pennsylvania Police Department client used excessive force to transfer him from the police station’s processing room to a holding cell. We argued that the officers’ actions were reasonable under the circumstances because they were brief in duration, used techniques within the officers’ training, caused no injury to the plaintiff, and only occurred after the plaintiff repeatedly refused to walk to the holding cell on his own power. The jury returned a unanimous verdict in our client’s favor after approximately an hour of deliberation. 

We obtained complete dismissal of all medical malpractice claims against a hospitalist physician where the plaintiff’s demand was $23.9 million. As our client treated the plaintiff, a 53-year-old who had a stroke, promptly and within the standard of care, in addition to her not being on shift at the time of alleged malpractice, the court dismissed our client outright.

We obtained the dismissal of a federal civil rights action alleging that a municipality retaliated against a real estate developer after the sale of a large tract of local property.

The plaintiff was an Emergency Medicine Technician who was severely assaulted during an ambulance transport of a minor patient to a psychiatric facility. The client-physician had discharged the minor patient with orders for sedation and restraints, if needed, during transport. The plaintiff alleged these discharge orders were insufficient and violated standard of care. Our attorneys successfully argued that under Pennsylvania’s Mcare Act our client-physician did not owe a duty to the plaintiff-EMT, only to the minor patient. Further, they successfully argued that the plaintiff’s Emergency Medicine expert was not qualified to opine on the standard of care of our client, an Internal Medicine specialist, in that the plaintiff’s expert had no expertise in the long-term management of psychiatric patients. Without an expert to opine on the applicable standard of care, they reasoned the plaintiff’s claim must fail. As a result, the court granted their motion for summary judgment and dismissed the EMT’s claims.   

We obtained summary judgment on a construction defect claim in Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania. The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims against the defendant, a homebuilder, in their entirety for the plaintiffs’ failure to adequately prove breach of contract, breach of express and implied warranties, fraud in the inducement, wrongful conversion and various alleged violations of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices Act.

We defended a Claim Petition, successfully proving that a claimant’s injury was not work-related. After a thorough investigation and review of the medical records, we were able to present witnesses and evidence that confirmed that the alleged injury had gone unreported and was inconsistent with the mechanism of injury. The Workers’ Compensation Judge found our witnesses credible that the claimant did not report his knee condition as work-related. Their testimony was supported by the medical records, which indicated that for six months after the alleged injury, the claimant had nine office visits with five doctors but never indicated that he had suffered a work-related injury. In addition, the claimant never told his own expert that he suffered a work-related injury until several months later. Finally, the judge believed our expert that the knee condition was inconsistent with the mechanism of injury.

We successfully disposed of a defamation action via preliminary objections. The plaintiff brought a defamation action against a public school district and certain district officials, alleging that he was defamed through a series of internal text messages exchanged between an elementary principal and another parent. The defense raised several procedural violations that occurred in the pro se plaintiff’s filings, and also argued legal insufficiency by way of demurrer. Following oral argument, the court agreed, granted all preliminary objections, and dismissed the complaint in its entirety.

The plaintiffs filed a complaint stemming from the school district’s alleged violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Defense counsel prepared a F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiffs’ pleadings were insufficient to show that the student was disabled under the Act, that the district did not discriminate against the student, and that an isolated incident or comment from one teacher does not impart liability in violation of Section 504. The motion was first evaluated by a U.S. Magistrate Judge who issued a report and recommendation that the motion be granted and the plaintiffs’ complaint be dismissed. The plaintiffs objected, and the defendants briefed the district’s position that the report and recommendation should be adopted. Thereafter, a U.S. District Judge held that the report and recommendation contained no clear errors or manifest injustice, and that “plaintiffs’ objections merely express disagreement with the Judge’s analysis and attempt to rehash or restate arguments already considered and rejected by the Judge in the thorough report and recommendation.” As a result, the defendant’s motion to dismiss was granted and the plaintiffs’ complaint was dismissed with prejudice. 

The plaintiff sought employment as a fork lift operator in a manufacturing facility. He was extended a conditional offer of employment, contingent on passing a pre-employment drug test. His drug test showed a positive indication for the presence of marijuana, and his offer was rescinded. The plaintiff claimed that he notified the facility that he held a valid Medical Marijuana Identification Card, yet our client still rescinded its offer in violation of the Pennsylvania Medical Marijuana Act. The Act prohibits an employer from refusing to hire a person solely on the basis of that person’s status as a certified medical marijuana user. In response to the complaint, we filed preliminary objections arguing that the employment offer was expressly contingent upon passing a drug test. We also argued that fork lift operation is, by its very nature, an inherently dangerous job that, if done carelessly or under the influence of a narcotic, could result in injury or death to the plaintiff or others on the premises. The court held that the Medical Marijuana Act’s provisions do not require an employer to hire a medical marijuana user as a forklift operator and taking on a substantial risk of liability for injury to persons. Additionally, the court found that a medical marijuana user does not have a right to be hired by a prospective employer who, prior to such hiring, determines that the position for which the prospective employee would be hired would require his or her performance of tasks an employer deems life-threatening to the employee or any of its employees. The demurer was sustained, and the complaint was dismissed.

During early morning hours, a vehicle was observed by police officers driving straight through a turning lane. The officers attempted a traffic stop, but the driver took off and led police onto an interstate highway. A high-speed pursuit ensued, reaching speeds in excess of 115 mph. The plaintiff was a passenger in the vehicle. Due to the high speed and an upcoming construction zone, officers broke off the chase. The driver attempted to exit the interstate via an off ramp, but turned too fast and crashed. Although the driver died on impact, the plaintiff-passenger was thrown from the rear of the vehicle and wedged under the dashboard. The plaintiff sued several municipalities under a negligence theory. Following discovery, Mark filed motion for summary judgment on behalf of our client, arguing that the plaintiff’s claim was barred and the township was immune from suit pursuant to the Pennsylvania Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act. Following oral argument, the court granted our motion.

The plaintiff, a part-time police officer, alleged that she told her Police Chief that she believed the hiring/promotions of three male police officers to full-time positions were illegal. After that meeting, the plaintiff claimed she was not assigned to higher-paying assignments like the male police officers in the department. She sued the borough and the police chief for First Amendment retaliation under Section 1983, and gender-based discrimination and retaliation pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act. Following a six-day trial and five hours of deliberation, the jury returned a complete defense verdict on all counts against both defendants.

We obtained dismissal of all claims against an optometrist in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The plaintiff was incarcerated when the allegations at issue arose. He alleged medical malpractice and civil rights violations against various health care providers for treatment received while he was an inmate at SCI-Dallas. Rob filed a motion to dismiss on numerous grounds, including the plaintiff’s claims were timed barred by the statute of limitations, failure to state a viable cause of action, and failure to file a Certificate of Merit pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1042.3. The court granted the motion and dismissed all claims, finding they were timed barred by the statute of limitations, and because the plaintiff failed to meet his burden that the discovery rule applied.

We obtained summary judgment in Carbon County, Pennsylvania in a negligence action brought against a local school district. The plaintiff, a former high school athlete, was working out in the District’s weight lifting facility when a cable snapped on a leg curl machine, striking his head and causing significant injury. The plaintiff sued the district, alleging negligence in the operation, inspection, and maintenance of the gym and, more specifically, the leg curl machine. Following discovery, the district moved for summary judgment, arguing that the leg curl machine at issue was personalty and not part of the District’s real property and, accordingly, the Pennsylvania Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act (PSTCA) prevented recovery. The court agreed and concluded the District was immune under the PSTCA since all evidence showed that the leg curl machine was not a fixture of the building and, therefore, the “real property” exception to local governmental immunity did not apply.

We obtained an entry of judgment on behalf of an urgent care physician. The plaintiff filed suit in magisterial district court in Wayne County, PA. She alleged that the physician negligently sutured a hand laceration, leading to dehiscence and the need for subsequent surgery. The plaintiff sought recovery of medical expenses and pain and suffering. At the bench trial, the defense sought dismissal based upon the plaintiff’s lack of expert support for her claims, as is required in medical malpractice claims. The court agreed and entered judgment in the defendant’s favor. 

Our attorneys successfully obtained summary judgment on behalf of a car dealership. The dealership rented a vehicle to the co-defendant, who was having his personal vehicle serviced at the dealership. The co-defendant was involved in an auto accident with the plaintiff while operating the dealership’s rental. The plaintiff was operating a motorcycle, and significant damages were alleged. The defense team filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to the Graves Amendment, which states that an owner of a motor vehicle, who rents a vehicle to a person, shall not be vicariously liable for harm to persons or property that arises out of the use or operation of that vehicle during the period of the rental, so long as certain additional criteria is met. The court agreed with our arguments raised in the motion and dismissed our client with prejudice.

In the complaint and throughout discovery, the plaintiff raised claims of overarching neglect in addition to a fall that occurred during physical therapy. The plaintiff alleged negligence, corporate negligence, and punitive damages premised upon allegations of understaffing, Department of Health violations and putting profits over patient care. The plaintiff sought to hold not only the nursing home, but also its management company and a holdings company, liable for such claims. The defense sought partial summary judgment and asked the court to limit the plaintiff’s claims to the fall only and argued that neither the record evidence nor the plaintiff’s expert reports supported the all-encompassing claims of neglect. The court agreed and narrowed the claims, thereby significantly hampering the plaintiff’s case. The court limited the claims to proceed at trial to the fall only. The court also dismissed punitive damages and dismissed the holdings company defendant outright.

We successfully defended a civil rights appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The plaintiff filed a federal civil rights complaint against a police sergeant and a local municipality following his arrest and release. The plaintiff was charged with the attempted murder of his wife, who later recanted her statement to police. After the plaintiff was released from custody, he filed suit, claiming that police failed to conduct an adequate criminal investigation into the charges against him. At the district court, it was found that probable cause existed based on information known to officers at the time of the plaintiff’s arrest. Therefore, our defense motion for summary judgment was granted. The plaintiff appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, claiming that the district court failed to weigh the evidence in the light most favorable to him, and ignored relevant evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision finding probable cause.

The plaintiffs contracted with a builder to construct a 5,000 sq. ft. home. In accordance with the Uniform Construction Code, the local township contracted with a privately-owned company to serve as a code enforcement and permit officer. The company issued a building permit, inspected the home at several points during construction, and eventually issued a certificate of occupancy. However, the plaintiffs claimed that the home had significant structural and aesthetic defects, and the code enforcement officer failed to conduct proper inspections during the construction process. The plaintiffs sued their builder, the code enforcement officer and the township. The township was alleged to have negligently hired and/or negligently supervised the code enforcement officer. Preliminary objections were filed in response, raising governmental immunity as a clear defense to the negligence claims against the township. Following oral argument, the court sustained the preliminary objections and dismissed the township from the action, finding there were no plausible claims for negligence based upon application of the Pennsylvania Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act.