.

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

The Tolling Trap: Filing Alone Will Not Toll the Statute Without Good-Faith Service

The Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently reinforced a critical limitation on bad faith claims, holding that a timely filing alone will not preserve a cause of action absent a good-faith effort to serve the original process. The plaintiff had presented a claim for underinsured motorist benefits to his auto insurer. The insurer evaluated the claim and determined that the plaintiff’s accident-related damages did not exceed the bodily injury liability insurance limits of the at-fault driver and denied his claim. Among other claims, the plaintiff sought to present a claim for insurance bad faith under 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 8371, to which a two year statute of limitation applies. He first filed a praecipe for writ of summons before the expiration of the statute of limitation. However, the plaintiff did not attempt to serve the praecipe or writ until after the statute of limitations had expired. Additionally, the service failed as the plaintiff had mailed the original process to an incorrect address. Despite receipt of the Postal Service’s failure to deliver the original process, the plaintiff did not attempt to re-serve the writ. Two months later, the plaintiff filed a complaint and then successfully served that complaint. The insurer sought to dismiss the plaintiff’s bad faith claim as time-barred by the statute of limitations. The district court agreed. Though the plaintiff had filed a praecipe for a writ of summons prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations, the statute is only tolled if there is a good faith effort to serve that original process. In this case, the court determined that the plaintiff had failed to perform a “good faith effort to serve the original process”. Additionally, though the filing and service of a complaint can serve as alternative original process when the lawsuit is commenced by the filing of a praecipe for a writ of summons, the plaintiff filed his complaint after the statute of limitations had expired. The plaintiff’s bad faith claim was therefore determined to be barred by the statute of limitations and dismissed by the court, with prejudice. A key takeaway for the defense is not to assume that the statute of limitations has been successfully tolled by a plaintiff merely because a praecipe for a writ of summons or complaint has been filed prior to the expiration of the statute. A filed complaint or writ is only part of the equation. The defense should carefully review the docket and filings to confirm that the plaintiff also performed the requisite good faith effort to serve that original process. A thorough review of the docket may reveal that the plaintiff failed to make the good-faith service efforts necessary to toll the statute of limitations.

Thought Leadership

Florida Supreme Court Rules Florida Statute §627.70152 Does not Apply Retroactively

In a decision that resolves years of appellate uncertainty and confirms that insurers and insureds alike can rely on the legal framework in place when a policy is issued, the Supreme Court of Florida last week found that Florida Statute §627.70152, which involves an insured’s requirement to provide an insurer with pre-suit notice before filing a suit, cannot be applied retroactively. In Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. Hughes, the Court was presented with the issue of whether the statutory pre-suit notice requirement applied retroactively and whether it would apply to a breach of contract of an insurance policy that was issued before the statute went into effect. Before the Court was an appeal from a homeowner, Ms. Hughes, who sued her insurance carrier, Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company (Universal) for breach of contract under an insurance policy that was in effect from April 24, 2019 through April 24, 2020. During the policy period, Ms. Hughes suffered a loss and, on May 29, 2019, made a claim for water damage. The carrier investigated the loss and issued payment; Ms. Hughes disputed the payment, finding the amount insufficient for repairs. On July 1, 2021, Florida Statute §627.70152 went into effect, which required insureds to provide notice of intent to initiate litigation against the carrier prior to filing a lawsuit; if an insured filed the lawsuit without complying with §627.70152, a court must dismiss the case without prejudice. On August 4, 2021, Ms. Hughes filed her lawsuit against Universal for breach of contract. Universal moved to dismiss based on her failure to comply with §627.70152. Ms. Hughes contended the notice requirement could not be applied retroactively. The trial court disagreed and dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice, and Ms. Hughes appealed. During the appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeal, in Cole v. Universal Property & Casualty, 363 So. 3d 1089 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023), ruled that Florida Statute §627.70152 did apply retroactively to policies issued before the effective date of §627.70152. However, the Sixth District Court agreed with Ms. Hughes and overturned the trial court’s ruling, finding the statute could not retroactively apply to policies issued prior to the statute effective date. Thereafter, the other district courts weighed in, with the Third District Court agreeing with the Fourth District Court, and the First, Second and Fifth District Courts agreeing with the Sixth District Court. In resolving the conflict amongst the district courts, the Supreme Court advised “as a general rule, ‘the statute in effect at the time an insurance contract is executed governs substantive issues arising in connection with that contract.’ Hassen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 674 So. 2d 106, 108 (Fla. 1996). The Court applied the two-step test when deciding whether a statute has retroactive application: “First, the Court must ascertain whether the Legislature intended for the statute to apply retroactively. Second, if such an intent is clearly expressed, the Court must determine whether retroactive application would violate any constitutional principles.” Menendez v. Progressive Exp. Ins. Co., 35 So. 3d 873, 877 (Fla. 2010). In analyzing the Legislature’s intent, the Court must determine whether the Legislature has manifested a clear command for retroactivity in the statutory text.  In review of the statutory text, the Court found nothing in the language of the statute to indicate that the phrase “all suits” was serving another purpose of expanding its reach to suits based on policies that both predate and postdate the enactment of the statute. Buis v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 394 So. 3d 738, 741 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024). Further, the Court noted the statute has an effective date, which has long been considered to be evidence against retroactive application of a statute. The Court concluded that, on its face, no provision of §627.70152 speaks to application of the statute to insurance policies issued before the statute’s effective date and therefore, the Legislature did not clearly command retroactivity of the statute to include insurance policies issued prior to the enactment of the statute. The Court briefly reviewed Universal’s argument that the presuit notice requirement was procedural, not substantive, and therefore should be applied retroactively; however, the Court agreed with the Sixth District Court’s finding that, in its entirety, §627.70152 transformed an insured’s ability to sue an insurance company under a property insurance policy and an insurer’s obligations to respond to and pay insurance claims, thus making the requirement a substantive change. The Court thereby upheld the decision of the Sixth District and disapproved the decision of the Fourth District in Cole.

Thought Leadership

Commonwealth Court Reaffirms the Constitutionality of Act 111's IRE Provisions

In this case, the claimant sustained a work injury of January 6, 1994, which was acknowledged by Notice of Compensation Payable (NCP). After the claimant’s receipt of 104 weeks of temporary total disability benefits, the employer filed a Request for an Impairment Rating Examination (IRE). The IRE was performed in May 2023 and the IRE physician found that the claimant had a 5% whole person impairment, under the AMA Guides. The employer filed a Petition based on the IRE results, and the Petition was granted by the WCJ. During litigation, the claimant argued that the IRE provisions of Act 111 (Section 306(a.3) of the Act) were not applicable to her injury, since it predated June 24, 1996, the date Act 57 went into effect, and that the IRE provisions were unconstitutional. The Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ)) granted the Petition and the Board affirmed. On appeal to the Commonwealth Court, the claimant argued that Act 111 violated the nondelegation doctrine and that its retroactive application to the claimant’s injury was unconstitutional. The court rejected the arguments on the basis that they had already found the same arguments without merit in multiple, prior cases. The court also addressed an argument made by the claimant that Act 111 was procedurally defective under the Pennsylvania Constitution because it was only considered on two days in each House after having undergone amendments and reassignments. The court noted that the Pennsylvania Constitution requires every bill to be considered on three different days in each House. The claimant maintained that, according to the legislative history, the bill did not receive three separate days of consideration from each House when it was assigned a new bill number. The court pointed out, however, that the bill number, H.B. 1840 remained constant and was considered on three occasions by the House. Further, the court concluded that minor amendments to the bill were germane to its original subject, which was to modify the Act’s IRE process, in accordance with Protz II.