.

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

Featured Conversations... Key Takeaways from A.M. Best’s Webinar on the Misuse Defense in Product Liability Claims, Featuring Michael Salvati

Michael Salvati, shareholder in our Philadelphia office, was a panelist for the April A.M. Best webinar, “The Misuse Defense: Strategic Approaches to Defending Product Liability Claims for Insurers.” During the program, Michael and his fellow panelists offered practical, jurisdiction‑specific guidance on how misuse and failure‑to‑warn theories intersect in modern product liability litigation. Michael emphasized the unique challenges these claims present—particularly in states like Pennsylvania, where evidentiary rules diverge sharply from those applied in many other jurisdictions. Failure to Warn as the “Flip Side” of Misuse Salvati explained that failure‑to‑warn allegations often arise as a direct counter to a misuse defense. As he noted, “If our misuse defense is that the plaintiff didn't use a product properly or safely, then the failure to warn claim is that we didn't tell them how to use it properly.” He emphasized that these claims can stem from either the absence of warnings or criticisms of existing warnings, such as insufficient specificity or lack of clarity about risks. Pennsylvania’s Unique Evidentiary Landscape One of Salvati’s most notable points was the stark difference in how Pennsylvania treats evidence of compliance with industry standards. He highlighted that Pennsylvania is “one of the only states…where that evidence is not admissible” in strict liability cases. Manufacturers cannot rely on compliance with ANSI, UL, ISO, or even federal safety standards to defend the product against a strict liability claim—because the focus is solely on the product itself, not the manufacturer’s conduct. Salvati acknowledged the challenge this creates for defense counsel and clients who expect such compliance to carry weight. Understanding the Three Defect Theories Salvati also walked through the three primary defect theories recognized in many jurisdictions: - Design defect – a flaw in the product’s intended design - Manufacturing defect – a deviation affecting a specific unit - Failure to warn – inadequate instructions or warnings He noted that warnings claims are increasingly significant and sometimes stand alone when design or manufacturing theories are weak. As he put it, plaintiffs often default to warnings claims because “the default position seems to be, ‘If I got hurt, there must be something wrong.’” Warranties and State‑by‑State Variations Salvati addressed how breach‑of‑warranty claims fit into the broader framework, explaining that implied warranties—such as merchantability—often overlap with strict liability in Pennsylvania. He emphasized the importance of understanding local nuances, as warranty law and admissibility rules vary widely across states. Looking Ahead: The Growing Importance of Warnings In his closing remarks, Salvati stressed that warnings should never be treated as an afterthought in product liability defense. He observed that warnings‑only claims are becoming more common and urged manufacturers and insurers to continually evaluate the clarity and completeness of their instructions and warnings. His takeaway: “We should always be talking about what are the instructions that come with our products…to bolster a misuse defense.” Listen to the complete webinar here: https://www3.ambest.com/conferences/events/eventregister.aspx?event_id=WEB1074.

Thought Leadership

The Enforceability of Online Arbitration Agreements Remains Unresolved in Pennsylvania, But the Pennsylvania Superior Court has Provided Substantive Guidance on the Issue

Key Points: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court confirms that an order compelling arbitration is not immediately appealable as collateral orders. The outcome of Chilutti II has generally left the substantive enforceability issues with browsewrap agreements unresolved in Pennsylvania. Until this issue is resolved by the Pennsylvania courts, companies operating in the Commonwealth should strive to ensure that their registration websites and/or application screens conspicuously present arbitration agreements in manners which ensure their users and consumers assent to the terms of the agreements by following the standards set forth in Chilutti I. Browsewrap agreements have been defined as agreements “‘in which a website offers terms that are disclosed only through a hyperlink and the user supposedly manifests assent to those terms simply by continuing to use the website,’ and typically do not require an electronic signature.” See, Cobb v. Tesla, Inc., 2026 WL 458470, at *1 n. 2 (Pa. Super. Feb. 18, 2026) (citation omitted). They are largely regarded as the “if you keep using this, you agree to everything buried in this link” terms embedded into almost every online agreement consumers and users sign before proceeding with purchases of goods and/or services. While consumers are generally aware of them, many almost never click on the link, nor read them in their entirety. This leaves many consumers and users ignorant of the terms and impact of such agreements. However, one’s ignorance of the otherwise neatly-tucked-away terms rarely renders them unenforceable. The issue of the enforceability of browsewrap agreements has been up for debate for some time in many jurisdictions, including Pennsylvania. Indeed, Pennsylvania had a brief grip on this issue for a period in time. Specifically, in 2023, an en banc Superior Court set forth heightened standards for companies to meet in order to secure assent and enforce browsewrap arbitration agreements. See Chilutti v. Uber Techs., Inc., 300 A.3d 430 (Pa.Super. 2023) (en banc) (“Chilutti I”) Chilutti I involved a husband and wife who sued Uber and its subsidiaries after the wife, a wheelchair bound passenger using Uber’s rideshare service, fell, struck her head, and lost consciousness due to her uber driver failing to provide a seatbelt and making an aggressive turn during the trip. The Chilutti’s filed a negligence lawsuit against Uber and its subsidiaries. In response, the defendants moved to compel arbitration, arguing that “the couple’s conduct on the company’s website and application — when they registered for the ridesharing service — signified that they agreed to be bound by the mandatory arbitration provision found in the hyperlinked terms and conditions.” The trial court granted the defendants’ petition and stayed the proceedings pending the results of arbitration, and the Chilutti’s appealed. On appeal, the Superior Court addressed two issues. First, it addressed the issue of whether it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal. A divided Superior Court determined that it did, with its basis for the holding being that the order from which the Chilutti’s appealed was a collateral order. Next, the Superior Court set out to address the merits of the Chilutti’s substantive claim. The Superior Court concluded that the parties lacked a valid agreement to arbitrate. Its rationale was that Uber’s website and application did not provide reasonably conspicuous notice of the terms to the Chiluttis. In reaching this decision, the en banc Superior Court held that browsewrap arbitration agreements are enforceable in Pennsylvania only if the registration website and application screens explicitly inform consumers that they are waiving the right to a jury trial, the registration process cannot be completed until the consumer is fully informed of this waiver, and, when the agreement is available via hyperlink, the waiver appears at the top of the first page of the terms in bold, capitalized text. Since the ruling, Pennsylvania courts have applied Chilutti I to determine if browsewrap agreements are enforceable.  For instance, the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas invoked Chilutti I to reject an agreement that lacked an express jury-trial waiver on the assent screen.  See Miller v. Festival Fun Parks, LLC, 92 WDA 2025 (C.P. Alleg. Cnty. Mar. 24, 2025). Similarly, the Superior Court has held that notice which failed to explicitly state the consumer was waiving a jury-trial right did not “me[e]t the strict burden set forth by our en banc Court in Chilutti I.” Pierce v. FloatMe Corp., 348 A.3d 1077, 1088 (Pa. Super. 2025). While the issue of enforceability of browsewrap agreements appeared to have been resolved by Chilutti I, Pennsylvania courts’ grip on this issue has been slackened by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s January 21, 2026, opinion in Chilutti II. See Chilutti v. Uber Techs., Inc., 349 A.3d 826 (Pa. 2026) (“Chilutti II”). Therein, the Supreme Court did not address the merits of the Chiluttis’ substantive claim, but rather the issue of whether the Superior Court had appellate jurisdiction to immediately review the orders staying litigation pending arbitration. The Court ultimately vacated the en banc opinion on jurisdictional grounds, holding that the Superior Court did not have appellate jurisdiction because the trial court’s order from which the Chiluttis appealed did not qualify as a collateral order and, thus, the Superior Court erred in holding to the contrary and lacked jurisdiction to entertain the merits” of the Chiluttis’ substantive claim. As such, Chilutti II has rendered Chilutti I nonbinding, and the issue of enforceability of online arbitration agreements remains unresolved. However, in light of the fact the Supreme Court did not address or comment on the merits of the Chiluttis’ appeal, Chilutti I is still meaningful. Specifically, it provides guidance as to the standards a company should strive to meet to ensure they have obtained users’ assent so that they are able to enforce online arbitration agreements. Additionally, it may serve as persuasive authority in judges’ evaluations of petitions and/or motions to compel browsewrap arbitration agreements until this particular issue is properly put before our appellate courts. Keanna works in our Pittsburgh, PA office. She can be reached at (412) 803-1174 or KASeabrooks@MDWCG.com.

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.