.

The Quarterly Dose

ALL RISE: Recent Victories and Success Stories

The Quarterly Dose – June 2026

June 11, 2026

Justin Johnson, Ryan Gannon, and Heather LaBombardi (all Roseland) 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. The trial team was assisted by paralegal Elina Sheldon.

Kimberly House (Philadelphia) achieved a significant appellate victory in the Pennsylvania Superior Court that reversed the trial court’s decision and remanded the case for reinstatement of the jury verdict, which was originally won by Gary Samms (King of Prussia/Philadelphia). At trial, the jury returned a defense verdict finding that the defendant’s negligence was not a cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. The trial judge granted the plaintiff’s post-trial motions and ordered a new trial solely on the issue of damages. The Superior Court found that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that causation was disputed and that the jury’s finding of no causation was against the weight of the evidence. Kim authored the appellate brief and delivered the oral argument that secured the reversal. The underlying medical malpractice case involved claims seeking more than $5 million in damages, where Gary successfully demonstrated that the plaintiff’s alleged serious eye injuries—including a detached retina and macular hole—were unrelated to the care provided by an orthopedic and physical therapy practice, exposing critical flaws in the plaintiff’s case.

Lynne Nahmani (Mount Laurel) and Justin Johnson (Roseland) successfully had a directed verdict affirmed in Gloucester County Superior Court. The decedent, a 72 year-old man, was a resident at a rehabilitation center where he received treatment for encephalopathy, obesity, DM, HTN, UTI, respiratory failure, dysphagia, and needing assistance with activities of daily life, including eating. The plaintiffs alleged that the decedent’s care plan was not met when he was eating alone in his room and choked, requiring emergency efforts. The patient never regained consciousness and passed away two days later in the hospital. A directed verdict for our client was entered on October 12, 2023. The plaintiff appealed and the appellate court affirmed the decision, opining on the requisite causation required under both negligence and the Resident Rights Act Statute in New Jersey. The trial team was assisted by Walt Kawalec on appeal and paralegal Dana Fiorelli.

Gary Samms (King of Prussia/Philadelphia) successfully defended an anesthesiologist and pain management physician in a complex medical malpractice matter involving extra-articular facet joint injections which allegedly led to cauda equina syndrome, urinary and fecal incontinence, ED and other serious complications.  After six days, a Delaware County jury found on behalf of the physicians.  Experts in the case included anesthesiology, pain management, neurosurgery, neurology, neuroradiology, and urology experts.  The defense verdict was dependent on successfully relaying the subtle and complex issues in the medical care and the nerves considering the patient’s past medical history, as well as the medications used in the procedure.  Plaintiffs were critical of ten different aspects of the doctor’s procedure, but with expert testimony and cross examination, Gary and his team were able to prevail.  Instrumental to the defense were David McColloch (King of Prussia) and paralegal Nancy Farnen

Gary Samms, Adam Fulginiti (Philadelphia), and Ryan Harvie (Philadelphia) successfully obtained a defense verdict during arbitration in a medical malpractice case. Our client performed major reconstructive surgery for a patient with a highly complex and longstanding history of severe right foot problems. The surgery included bunion repair to straighten the right big toe, along with the fusion of multiple tarsometatarsal joints and resection of bone wedge to re-align the foot. Additionally, the procedure included correction of bone that previously healed incorrectly from a prior fracture, along with the shortening of another bone to reduce pressure. To facilitate healing, the surgery required taking bone from the right heel to support multiple areas of reconstruction, as well as inserting a metal pin in the joint to keep it straight. The plaintiffs alleged that our client failed to properly evaluate the patient and perform the surgery at issue, resulting in the misalignment of the forefoot, altering the patient’s weightbearing forms, causing increased pressure. The plaintiff argued that these complications required three additional surgeries to correct. We emphasized that the plaintiff presented to our client with a long history of severe foot problems that not only hindered his functional capacity, but manifested in other complications, particularly with his knees and back, which required him to undergo multiple surgeries in those areas long before the time at issue. Given the severity of the plaintiff’s presenting foot problems, surgical treatment required a highly complex procedure with significant risks and potential complications. Our client discussed all of these issues with the plaintiff, who understood them and elected to proceed. Thereafter, our client’s operative note, along with the intraoperative fluoroscopy imaging, demonstrated he performed the surgery at issue appropriately and consistent with the standard of care. The plaintiff’s postoperative course, including the clinical manifestations that developed and the subsequent surgeries he received, constituted a series of known complications/outcomes regarding the complex surgery he underwent. An arbitration verdict was made in favor of our client. The trial team was assisted by paralegal Nancy Farnen.

Jessica Wachstein and Dylan Trochtenberg (both of Mount Laurel) successfully obtained a motion to dismiss for failure to serve an appropriate affidavit of merit in a medical malpractice case. The plaintiff’s decedent was a resident of our client, a nursing home, from May 19, 2023, through May 28, 2023. The plaintiff alleged that, as a result of the negligent care provided by our client and the co-defendant, the decedent developed wounds and ultimately passed away on September 13, 2023. The plaintiff made claims of medical malpractice and wrongful death against all defendants. We had previously filed a motion to dismiss the malpractice claims due to failing to file within the statute of limitations, which was granted on January 16, 2026. At that time, only the wrongful death claim persisted. The plaintiff provided only an affidavit of merit from a geriatric physician and failed to serve any AOMs from experts in the field of nursing standard of care or nursing home administration, even after the Ferreira Conference. We moved to dismiss due to failure to serve the appropriate or required AOMs, which was ultimately granted on April 10, 2026.

Jessica and Dylan also had a Motion for Summary Judgment granted in a personal injury and negligence matter. The plaintiff nurse filed suit after suffering a fall while transferring a resident at our client’s facility. He alleged injuries to his neck and nose, which required a cervical epidural injection and a septoplasty procedure. The plaintiff subsequently filed a worker’s compensation claim and settled same prior to filing suit in this instant action. After taking the deposition of the plaintiff, we filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, stating that his claims should be barred by the Workers’ Compensation Act. After oral argument, our motion was granted and all clients were dismissed, with prejudice.

Suzanne Utke, with the assistance of Tyler Price (both of Philadelphia), received a defense verdict for her client, an addiction medicine psychiatrist, after a 12-day trial in Philadelphia involving the death of a 26-year-old who overdosed on illicit substances. The plaintiffs’ decedent, a 26-year-old man, had a long history of major spinal surgeries and subsequently went to the codefendants’ pain management group for relief, allegedly becoming addicted to Nucynta, an opioid. The plaintiffs’ decedent was then referred to our client for detox and rehabilitation to “get off” Nucynta, but failed to disclose his use of other illegal substances. After a period of a “cold turkey” detox from Nucynta, the client scheduled him to receive Vivitrol, a maintenance medication meant to facilitate long-term rehabilitation. A few days before he was to receive the Vivitrol, he was found dead by his father in the bedroom of his apartment with drug paraphernalia present. The medical examiner’s toxicology screen was positive for heroin, morphine, Fentanyl, Tranq, Valium, and Nucynta. The trial was 12 days in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, with the defense verdict requiring two days of deliberation. The client was found not negligent. The co-defendant physician and the plaintiffs’ decedent were both found negligent with causation, but the comparative negligence apportionment of liability was 65% attributable to plaintiffs’ decedent, so no recovery was awarded.

Megan Nelson (Orlando) secured multiple favorable rulings granting Florida Rule 5.900 petitions for expedited judicial intervention concerning medical treatment procedures, enabling hospitals to safely discharge medically cleared patients despite significant resistance from guardians and family decision-makers. Across several matters, Megan successfully addressed situations where guardians, health care surrogates, or family members refused to consent to appropriate discharge plans, declined to provide necessary financial documentation for ICP Medicaid evaluations, or failed to cooperate with case management teams—often causing prolonged, unnecessary hospital stays. Through emergency and evidentiary hearings, courts consistently granted relief, ordering patient transfers to skilled nursing facilities or assisted living facilities, requiring the production of financial records, mandating Medicaid application compliance, and, in one case, appointing an emergency temporary co-guardian to facilitate discharge. As a result of these efforts, patients were promptly and appropriately discharged—sometimes within 24 hours of court orders—demonstrating Megan’s effective advocacy in resolving complex guardianship and discharge disputes to ensure proper patient care and hospital throughput.

*Results do not guarantee a similar result.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

New Jersey Expands Family Leave Protections Effective July 17, 2026

On January 17, 2026, Governor Murphy signed into law legislation expanding the New Jersey Family Leave Act (NJFLA). Beginning July 17, 2026, significant amendments to the NJFLA will expand job-protected family leave to smaller businesses and more employees across the state. The new law broadens coverage by lowering the threshold for private employers from 30 employees to 15 employees, meaning many smaller businesses will now be subject to the NJFLA. Employees of state and local government agencies will continue to be covered regardless of the size of the employer. The amendments also make it easier for employees to qualify for leave. Under the revised law, an employee will be eligible after three months of employment and at least 250 hours worked during the preceding 12 months, replacing the previous requirement of 12 months of employment and 1,000 hours worked. Currently, New Jersey's Temporary Disability Insurance (TDI) and Family Leave Insurance (FLI) programs provide eligible employees with wage replacement while they are on leave but do not independently guarantee job protection. The recent amendments to the New Jersey Family Leave Act (NJFLA) expand these protections by extending job-protected leave to additional employees. Under the amended law, employees receiving TDI or FLI benefits may be entitled to return to the same position they held before taking leave, or to an equivalent position with the same seniority, status, pay, and benefits. Although the legislation also states that it does not expand or modify an employee's reinstatement rights under the NJFLA, the amendments appear to provide job protection to eligible employees receiving TDI or FLI benefits without requiring them to separately satisfy the eligibility requirements of the NJFLA or the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). As a result, some employees may be entitled to longer periods of job-protected leave than were previously available under existing law. With these amendments, New Jersey continues to strengthen workplace protections by expanding access to job-protected family leave for eligible employees. These changes significantly expand access to job-protected family leave and may require employers to update their leave policies, employee handbooks, and HR practices. Notably, employers who were previously not required to administer NJFLA may need to amend their policies and/or create new protocols to come into compliance with the NJFLA. Failure to do so would prove costly, as the penalties for non-compliance are significant.

Result

No-Cause Jury Verdict Secured in Wrongful Death Trial

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. 

Thought Leadership

SIU Gets a Boost: NJ Supreme Court Affirms Insurers' Right to Litigate, Not Arbitrate, Fraud Claims

In a significant win for insurers' Special Investigation Units, the New Jersey Supreme Court clarified that statutory insurance fraud and racketeering claims may proceed in court rather than through PIP arbitration. At issue was whether insurance fraud claims brought under New Jersey's Insurance Fraud Prevention Act (IFPA) and the state's Anti-Racketeering Act (NJ RICO) are subject to mandatory arbitration under the Automobile Insurance Cost Reduction Act’s (AICRA) PIP dispute-resolution framework. Allstate had sued a network of medical practices, physicians, and related corporate entities, alleging a scheme to extract more than $1.7 million in PIP benefits through fraudulent and misleading billing. The trial court dismissed Allstate's complaint and compelled arbitration, reading AICRA's arbitration clause — which covers "any dispute regarding the recovery of... benefits" under PIP coverage, N.J.S.A. 39:6A-5.1(a) — as sweeping in fraud and racketeering claims along with routine benefit disputes. The Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Division's reversal, adopting Judge Gilson's opinion below (480 N.J. Super. 566 (App. Div. 2025)) as its own reasoning. The Court held that IFPA and RICO claims fall outside the scope of AICRA's PIP arbitration mechanism because that "streamlined and specialized" process cannot grant the relief those statutes contemplate — treble damages, injunctive relief, broad discovery, and joinder of third parties — and because arbitrators lack authority to award compensatory or treble damages to an insurer. The Court also rejected the argument that Allstate's own Decision Point Review Plans independently compel arbitration, finding those plan provisions no broader than AICRA's own arbitration clause. Notably, the Court expressly disagreed with the Third Circuit's contrary holding in GEICO v. Mt. Prospect Chiropractic Center, 98 F.4th 463 (3d Cir. 2024), concluding it is not bound by that federal interpretation of New Jersey law. Insurers retain the right to pursue IFPA and RICO claims in the Law Division, with a jury trial. For SIU units and NJ insurance carriers, this decision is a significant win: it forecloses defense clinics' primary procedural tool for shunting fraud investigations into limited-scope PIP arbitration, where treble damages, RICO relief, and meaningful discovery were never realistically available. Carriers building cases against fraudulently structured clinics, straw-owned practices, or coordinated billing networks can now proceed with confidence that a well-pleaded IFPA/RICO complaint stays in the Law Division rather than being diverted to arbitration on a motion to compel. Practically, this strengthens SIU's leverage in settlement negotiations, preserves civil discovery tools (subpoenas, depositions, joinder of related corporate entities) critical to unwinding complex ownership and referral schemes, and resolves the split with the Third Circuit in favor of NJ insurers — at least as a matter of state law. Expect increased reliance on IFPA civil actions, rather than PIP arbitration demands, as SIU's primary enforcement vehicle going forward.

Thought Leadership

Congress Passes Financial Exploitation Prevention Act

On June 25, 2026, the House passed the Financial Exploitation Prevention Act of 2025 (“the Act”) by a vote of 414 to 2. The Act allows financial advisors and firms to delay suspicious transactions regarding the accounts of clients who are 65 or older, if they believe financial exploitation has occurred or is about to take place. With the advancement of technology and AI, the House’s overwhelming bipartisan passage of the Financial Exploitation Prevention Act represents an important step in strengthening the financial industry’s ability to combat the growing threat of elder financial exploitation. The Act recognizes what advisors have long known that financial professionals are often the first to detect suspicious behavior but have historically lacked clear legal authority to intervene before irreversible financial harm occurs. From the industry’s perspective, the bill accomplishes several important objectives, including the following: (1) Provides a practical “pause button” by allowing financial professionals to temporarily delay certain transaction requests when there is a reasonable belief that a senior or vulnerable adult is being financially exploited; (2) Empowers financial professionals to act by providing greater certainty that firms can act in good faith to protect clients without unnecessary legal risk; and (3) Strengthens investor protection without sacrificing client rights by allowing temporary delays based on a reasonable suspicion of exploitation, which is intended only to allow additional review and not to deny clients access to their money indefinitely. In sum, the Financial Exploitation Prevention Act will equip financial professionals with practical, carefully tailored tools to stop suspected financial exploitation before client assets are lost. By allowing firms to temporarily delay suspicious transactions under defined circumstances, Congress is recognizing the critical role advisors play as the first line of defense against increasingly sophisticated fraud schemes. The Act strikes an appropriate balance between protecting vulnerable investors and preserving individual financial autonomy, while reinforcing collaboration among advisors, families, and law enforcement to combat financial exploitation. The bill now awaits Senate action.