.

The Quarterly Dose

ALL RISE: Recent Victories and Success Stories

The Quarterly Dose – August 2025

August 1, 2025

Gary Samms (King of Prussia) and Shane Haselbarth (Philadelphia) succeeded in partially dismantling a complex claim against a major health care client. The family of a former in-patient resident who died as a result of complications from the Covid-19 virus filed suit, raising claims that the patient was sexually assaulted while in the care of the hospital and a subsidiary ambulance company. Asked to join the defense team shortly before trial, Gary effectively discredited the plaintiff’s witnesses throughout the plaintiff’s case-in-chief. Then at the nonsuit stage, Gary wholly extricated his client—sealing off any exposure to liability for the large, corporate parent company. Following the jury’s $3.5 million verdict against the remaining defendants, Shane was engaged as appellate counsel and succeeded in further winnowing the liability exposure. He convinced the trial judge to: (1) deny the plaintiff’s request to reinstate the punitive damages claim based on the trial record; (2) grant a partial judgment notwithstanding the verdict on one claim, lopping a full $700,000 off the jury’s verdict; and (3) outright deny the plaintiff’s motion for delay damages, which had sought to add $742,000 to the jury’s verdict. All in all, a terrific result from a hard-fought trial.

Robert Aldrich (Scranton) obtained a defense verdict in binding arbitration on behalf of a nursing home. The plaintiff alleged that the nursing staff provided inadequate pressure reducing devices and negligently cared for his lower extremity, resulting in a below-the-knee amputation and permanent and total disability. Rob defended the case by establishing not only that the nursing staff treated the resident in accordance with the standard of care, but also that the resident’s below-the-knee amputation was caused by 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.

Leslie Jenny (Cleveland) successfully won enforcement of an arbitration agreement on behalf of a nursing home. In this case, the 63-year-old plaintiff fell at home and sustained a spinal fracture, after which he was admitted to a nursing home for rehabilitation. The plaintiff underwent a series of three epidural injections. He subsequently developed multiple pressure injuries that became infected with MRSA, as well as paralysis. The plaintiff was transferred to the hospital and diagnosed with an epidural abscess and later died. This case went up and down twice to the Court of Appeals and was accepted by the Ohio Supreme Court, where Leslie argued and won enforcement of the arbitration agreement.

Matthew Butler (Scranton) succeeded in having a default judgment opened in Lackawanna County on behalf of a long-term care client. Default had been entered and a hearing on damages was scheduled before the insurance carrier was on notice of the case. In having the default judgment opened, the court adopted Matt’s arguments that the petition to open was filed timely, that the judgment was entered in error, and there was a viable meritorious defense to the claim. In this case, the defense had to overcome both the default judgment and the damages hearing in order to achieve a successful outcome. 


 

The Quarterly Dose – August 2025, has been prepared for our readers by Marshall Dennehey. It is solely intended to provide information on recent legal developments and is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We welcome the opportunity to provide such legal assistance as you require on this and other subjects. If you receive the alerts in error, please send a note to tamontemuro@mdwcg.com. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2025 Marshall Dennehey. All Rights Reserved.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Affirms Dismissal of Legal Malpractice Counterclaim Against Martin Law Firm

In Martin v. Loury, 2026 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1617 (App. Div. July 15, 2026), Martin Law Firm represented Kirk Loury in an employment matter Mr. Loury filed against his former employer, Concord Equity Group Advisors LLC (“Concord”). The allegations included, among other things, that Loury was not fairly compensated for his employment with Concord. After a bench trial finding in Loury’s favor, the Appellate Division remanded this matter in February 2016 for a second trial. During the second trial, Concord CEO, Lee Argush, testified to lower compensation estimate than first trial. On remand, the second trial judge awarded Mr. Loury the same damages as the first judge, finding Mr. Argush not credible. After the findings during the second trial, Martin Law Firm filed an action against Mr. Loury to recover legal fees and costs of representing Mr. Loury in a second bench trial and Mr. Loury filed a counterclaim against Martin Law Firm for legal malpractice, alleging he should have received an even higher award in the second bench trial. In this allegation, Mr. Loury, through his expert, claimed that Martin Law Firm should have recalled Mr. Loury to the stand to rebut Mr. Argush’s testimony to allege an alternative theory of damages. Mr. Loury’s expert admitted that the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's theory and accepted Loury's damages theory. The trial court barred Mr. Loury’s expert and dismissed Loury's counterclaim with prejudice before convening the collection trial, and the jury ruled in Martin Law Firm’s favor. Mr. Loury appealed the trial court's pretrial rulings barring his liability expert from testifying in support of his legal malpractice counterclaim, denying his motion for summary judgment on that counterclaim, and denying his motion to amend his counterclaim by adding attorney Joseph A. Martin as a codefendant. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly excluded Loury’s expert testimony in the counterclaim against Martin Law Firm because the expert could not explain how calling Loury as a rebuttal witness would have increased damages when the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's testimony and accepted Loury's damages theory, making the expert’s causation opinion speculative. The Appellate Division also held that the trial court properly denied Mr. Loury's summary judgment motion on his malpractice counterclaim because reasonable minds could differ on whether Mr. Martin's alleged failures would have changed the second judge's damages award, given the judge already found Mr. Argush not credible, creating genuine factual disputes precluding summary judgment. Also, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly denied Loury's May 2023 motion to add Joseph Martin individually because the statute of limitations expired in February 2022, six years after the 2016 appellate remand when Mr. Loury incurred new legal costs, and relation back did not apply because Mr. Loury knew Mr. Martin's identity throughout and strategically chose to sue only Martin Law Firm in his 2019 counterclaim.