Thought Leadership

CASUALTY DEPARTMENT

Daniel D. Krebbs, with support from Osama Samad and Paul Bryant (all of Philadelphia) secured an outstanding trial result in a Delaware County motor vehicle case where plaintiffs claimed significant injuries from a rear end collision, treated for months, underwent nerve blocks and ablations, and each presented life care plans exceeding $500,000. Their last demand was $98,500 per plaintiff, and they accused the carrier of bad faith failure to settle within limits. During opening statements, the jury audibly reacted when informed that plaintiffs’ medical expert had been paid $1.5 million in 2024 by plaintiffs’ counsel. Liability and causation were admitted, so the trial focused solely on damages. The jury initially returned a zero damages verdict before being instructed to deliberate further. Ten minutes later, they awarded $500 to each plaintiff — a resounding defense win.

Allison Snyder and Mark Wellman (both of New York) successfully obtained a reversal of summary judgment in the First Department Appellate Division. The plaintiff, an employee of a  concrete subtractor, fell from the top of a container when he was attempting to attach a tarp over debris, sustaining numerous injuries to his spine. The container was located on the street in front of the construction site and was approximately four feet above street level. Our client, the general contractor, retained the plaintiff’s employer and the construction manager – a third-party defendant. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment and we moved to dismiss all claims. Additionally, we asked the court to grant conditional summary judgment, dismissing all other labor law claims. We submitted evidence that the plaintiff was observed tarping the container on the street level, along with witnesses who viewed others tarping from the street level as well. We argued that the plaintiff did not need to work at a height and chose to do so at his own peril, and was the sole proximate cause of his accident. The court concluded that the accident was gravity related and he was not provided with proper fall protection. The court also denied our application for conditional indemnification against the construction manager based on a “negligence” trigger in the contract. On appeal, the First Department agreed with our position, finding there was evidence that the plaintiff chose to work at an elevated area, revising the trial court decision finding issues of fact for a jury. More importantly, the court granted our motion for conditional contractual indemnity against the construction manager, finding that there was no mention of negligence in the contract language and that, as a result of the scope of the indemnity provision, the third-party defendant was required to indemnify our client in the event the plaintiff were to be successful at trial. We were successfully able to obtain a risk transfer from our client to the subcontractor and its carrier.

Michael Salvati and Dylan Smith (Philadelphia) won summary judgment on behalf of his client in a premises liability action in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The plaintiff allegedly broke her leg after falling on an icy walking path outside our client’s community center. Mike argued that the plaintiff’s claims were barred by a liability waiver she had signed when applying for membership. The plaintiff denied that she signed the waiver. The court ordered targeted discovery and each side retained a handwriting expert. The Judge ultimately found that the defense had persuasively established that the signature was genuine, and the plaintiff’s unsupported denials did not create a “genuine dispute” to defeat summary judgment.

Barbara Davis and Amy Fox (both of Mount Laurel) won summary judgment for their clients relying on the principals of Stewart and Lucheiko, arguing a residential homeowner owes no duty to a municipal right of way. The plaintiff, a mail carrier, claimed to have injured her foot on uneven pavement in the municipal right of way as she was delivering mail to the defendant/third-party plaintiff. The property is a subdivision and the defendant/third-party plaintiff filed a claim against our clients, named as third-party defendants, alleging the area of the fall abutted our client’s portion of the property. The plaintiff claimed that the position of the mailbox created a dangerous condition. The court reasoned that case law protects residential homeowners by limiting duty to maintain municipal right of ways (such as sidewalks and streets) only to those occasions where a homeowner affirmatively acts to repair, install, or maintain the area. Therefore, a homeowner would only be liable if they would have taken specific acts to cause the condition. There was no expert report opining as to what caused the alleged dangerous condition, only opining that a dangerous condition existed that was not repaired. There was no evidence or allegation that the mailbox was installed by either our clients or the defendant/third-party plaintiff. The court found that the mailbox had been in place before either our clients or the defendant/third-party plaintiffs purchased their homes, and neither took any affirmative action to repair, install, or maintain the pavement in the municipal right of way; nor was there evidence that the mailboxes were moved by our clients. Summary judgment was awarded to both our clients and the defendant/third-party plaintiffs.

Sean Reeves (Jacksonville) obtained summary judgment on behalf of a funeral home in a case alleging mishandling of a decedent’s remains, interference with rights to remains, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Sean demonstrated that the client’s actions in facilitating the burial were not willful, wanton, intentional, or malicious, and that the conduct did not rise to the level of “outrageous” behavior required to sustain the claims. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the funeral home.

Matthew Gray (Melville) was successful in having a pair of New York No-Fault (PIP) actions discontinued after multi-year dispute. The plaintiff, a major medical provider, filed dual suits in Richmond County Civil court, claiming our client owed for the claimant’s unpaid medical bills. The claimant had been involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought payment for medical treatment arguing that since the billing was never paid by the insurer, it was due in full – despite the fact that a cognizable link between our client and the supposed date of loss did not exist. While there were evidentiary issues in our client’s case, our arguments and position were strong. After many years of negotiations and arguments, and prior to the completion of motion practice and/or a trial, the plaintiff’s counsel acquiesced to a full discontinuance of the matters, without prejudice. Thereby, our client was absolved from any fiscal liability in this action.

Michele Krengel and Ashley Stasak (both of King of Prussia) were successfully granted a motion for judgment in a slip-and-fall matter in Chester County, Pennsylvania. The matter stemmed from a 2023 slip and fall by the plaintiff, who was working as an independent contractor nurse in an office where the co-defendant physicians care surgical center operated. Upon resolution of the plaintiff’s workers’ compensation claim, the plaintiff sued various other parties, including our client, who held the mortgage for the premises where the fall occurred. Despite repeated attempts at dismissal, the plaintiff refused to stipulate out our client, likely because they were still engaged in preliminary objections as to service on the co-defendant. We filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, given that the pleadings were closed as to our client, which the judge granted. The trial team was assisted by administrative assistant Brenda Darden.

HEALTH CARE DEPARTMENT

Justin Johnson and Nataliana Guida (both of Roseland) obtained a unanimous verdict on behalf of our clients in a medical malpractice matter in Bergen County, New Jersey. The plaintiff, a seven-year-old girl, presented with a sacral aneurysmal bone cyst (ABC), which destroyed the sacral bone, causing compression on her lower lumbar and sacral nerve roots. After surgery, the plaintiff was unable to control her bladder and bowels, along with losing sensation in her sex organs. Expert witnesses presented by the plaintiff alleged that our clients’ transected the lower and sacral nerve roots during surgery by negligently placing a suture, cinching the nerves. Our clients, along with several additional experts, denied placing any suture, arguing that the nerves were not transected, but injured by the necessary manipulation of such nerves during the course of tumor removal – a known and accepted complication of that surgery. After deliberation, the jury delivered a verdict in favor of our clients.

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, and dysphagia, and was provided 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 10/12/2023. 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.

Justin Johnson, Ryan Gannon, and Heather LaBombardi (all of 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.

Gary Samms (King of Prussia), with instrumental support from David McColloch (King of Prussia) and paralegal Narcy Farnen (Philadelphia), obtained a defense verdict on behalf of a major Philadelphia healthcare provider after a contentious six-day trial. After undergoing a kidney transplant, a patient suffered complications in post-operative care and died a day after the surgery. The plaintiffs were critical of the post-operative care, claiming that the physicians failed to take the patient back to the operating room in light of post-op bleeding. The hospital and physicians maintained that the post-procedure complications were related to previously unknown liver issues that resulted in liver failure/liver shock that created an unstable condition and prevented re-operation. While the family presented a very sympathetic case, Gary was able to prove, through the science and medicine, that the doctors acted appropriately and did not cause the woman’s passing.

Gary Samms (King of Prussia) 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 were acquired in the fields of anesthesiology, pain management, neurosurgery, neurology, neuroradiology, and urology. 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 Nancy Farnen (Philadelphia).

PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY DEPARTMENT

Michele P. Frisbie (King of Prussia) secured a dismissal with prejudice in a Magisterial District Court matter involving breach of duty allegations against members of a homeowners’ association board. The pro se plaintiff claimed the board officers violated the Pennsylvania Uniform Planned Community Act by failing to properly notice and conduct meetings, perform annual audits, and manage community funds. Michele successfully argued that the plaintiff’s claims were derivative in nature and therefore outside the jurisdiction of the Magisterial District Judge, resulting in dismissal without the need for testimony or evidence.

Carolin Pacheco (Orlando) successfully obtained an involuntary dismissal in a condominium association case in Marion County, Florida. The plaintiff unit owner brought a declaratory action against a fellow unit owner for alleged failure to comply with the condominium association governing documents. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant made unauthorized changes to the common elements of his unit without first procuring written approval from the association. The plaintiff sought relief, including an injunction to return the unit common elements to its original state or provide proof of approval per the association governing documents. The defendant alleged that any changes to the common elements of his unit were made with the approval of the board, and any evidence of it was the responsibility of the association. The defendant claimed a myriad of defenses including, but not limited to, selective enforcement and waiver and estoppel. The defendant unit owner filed a third-party declaratory action against the association for damages including indemnification and statutory attorney’s fees and costs. We argued that the plaintiff failed to establish that any alterations to the common elements were performed, failed to establish that any changes were unapproved, and as the plaintiff could not prove their case, the defendant unit owner could not hold the association responsible for any damages or breach of statutory duty. The court agreed and the case was dismissed.

Andrew Norfleet and Jennifer Ruth (both of Harrisburg) were successfully granted a motion of dismissal in a wrongful death case in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. The case involved two individuals who were were involved in a boating accident in April 2023, resulting in the death of one of the individuals. The plaintiffs brought their claims in Federal court, alleging violation of their Fourteenth Amendment rights under the state-created danger doctrine. In addition, they filed a Monell Municipal Liability claim, along with state claims including negligence, survival, and wrongful death. We filed a motion to dismiss on behalf of the City of Harrisburg, which was granted, with prejudice, on the federal claims. The court dismissed the state claims, without prejudice, deciding not to exercise jurisdiction. Due to the federal claims being dismissed, with prejudice, the plaintiffs are limited only to their state claims, decreasing our client’s exposure from several million dollars to a maximum of $500,000. The trial team was assisted by paralegal attorney Kelly Mazer and administrative assistant Aimee Paukovits (also from Harrisburg).

Len Leicht (Roseland) successfully defended a state division and individual supervisor in an employment discrimination case. Plaintiff alleged disability discrimination, hostile work environment, failure to accommodate, and retaliation under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD). The trial court granted summary judgment and Plaintiff appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal, holding that the plaintiff’s claims were either time barred or unsupported by specific, actionable evidence. The court further found the division engaged in good faith interactive dialogue, provided extensive accommodations, and that the lower court was correct in concluding there was no viable cause of action against either Defendant.

Jack Slimm (Mt. Laurel) successfully defended the Board of Trustees of the Ocean Club in Atlantic City, New Jersey, against plaintiff's claims of a fraudulent 2024 board election. While the court acknowledged some frustration by plaintiffs, the record did not establish that the election was fraudulent, unfair, or illegal so as to nullify the result and warrant injunctive relief. The court ruled that plaintiffs failed to show concrete, systemic deprivation of voting rights or violation of statutory election protections that would permit overturning the results or impose the specific prospective rules they proposed. Thus, the declaratory relief sought by the plaintiffs was denied. The court upheld and confirmed the 2024 election, denied plaintiff’s request for a new election, and ruled that the current board seats are not to be disturbed.

Will McPartland and Rachel Insalaco (both of Scranton) successfully obtained summary judgment in a litigation matter in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania. The plaintiff had purchased a takeout pizza shop and bar in Kingston Borough, which went out of business not long after. He asserted due process and equal protection claims, a Monell claim, state common law claims, and a civil conspiracy claim against Kingston Borough and two of its police officers, alleging that they improperly targeted his establishment based on the racial makeup of its clientele and ownership. The plaintiff alleged that their improper conduct intimidated his patrons and forced the closure of his business. We argued, and the court agreed, that the plaintiff had offered no evidence to support these allegations, as all evidence obtained during discovery supported that Kingston Borough police officers only reported to the property on limited occasions to address legitimate calls for assistance and verified zoning and/or occupancy violations.

Elizabeth Guariglia and Mark Wellman (both of New York) were successfully granted a motion to compel acceptance of a late answer in a liability matter. The plaintiff suffered injuries after a locker fell on her while she was putting her things away, or taking them out, at the premises owned by our client. The plaintiff rejected our answer after it was eight months late, but never filed a default motion. We filed a motion to compel acceptance of our late answer. In opposition, the plaintiff filed a cross motion for default, citing cases from the judge that was presiding over this case, where he had granted default judgments when the defendants had been less than eight months late in answering. We argued that in those cases, the plaintiff had already moved for default, along with highlighting case law that shows that, if it can be proven that the delay in answering was due to the insurance carrier’s fault or taking time to appoint counsel, then a delayed answer is acceptable. We had an affidavit from the insured and our insurance adjustor. Our motion was granted, and the answer was deemed timely served.

Mark Kozlowski and Jake Gilboy (both of Scranton) obtain Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of state and federal claims against a municipality. The plaintiff filed a complaint bringing claims against a municipal police department and an individual officer following the plaintiff’s arrest. The complaint alleged federal Monell claims for excessive force, failure to train, and state-created danger, along with state law claims for assault and battery, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and loss of consortium. Following a Rule 12 motion and supportive briefing, the court issued an order and accompanying opinion wherein the court granted our Rule 12 motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint against the department and officer, dismissing all of the claims in their entirety, without prejudice. Although the court did grant the plaintiff leave to amend as to the insured defendants, no amended complaint was filed.

Dante Rohr (Orlando) obtained a $1,499,000 verdict in a construction defect case, approximately $1 million less than what the plaintiff asked for. Our client, a stucco subcontractor, installed the stucco and lath in six buildings in a 22-building townhome community in Maitland, Florida, in 2007. The plaintiff originally sued the developer, general contractor, and all subcontractors, but our client had gone out of business in 2013, so service was made on the Secretary of State and a default entered. Our motion to vacate the default was denied on the basis that the carrier waited too long to assign counsel after receipt of notice of the default. Additionally, our motion for leave to disclose experts past the date in the CMO was denied as untimely. The plaintiff settled its claims with all defendants except our client. The plaintiff presented an engineering expert and a cost of repair estimate. In a critical cross-examination, we were able to present to the jury opinions with regard to other trade contractors, that their work was deficient, needed to be replaced, and caused damage to the building envelope. The plaintiff’s cost of repair estimated that the total cost of repairs was $2,426,935, which the plaintiff asked the jury for at closing. We argued that the plaintiff did not present any credible evidence of damages, other trades were the cause of damages within their scope, our client was not a substantial contributing cause of damage, and they should only find such damages against our client as would be just. After an hour and a half of deliberation, the jury returned with the lower verdict.

Ray Freudiger (Cincinnati) and Audrey Copeland (King of Prussia) successfully had summary judgment affirmed in favor of their client in a matter involving the First Amendment. Our client enacted rules governing the placement and nature of billboards within its boundaries. The plaintiff’s signs were subject to various requirements, including restrictions on size, location, and spacing. One restriction was that variable message outdoor advertising signs were not permitted. The plaintiff sued, raising various arguments against our client’s ordinance under the First Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment to our client. The Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that one portion of the ordinance governing “public service” signs was an invalid content-based restriction on speech, remanding the case to the district court to determine whether the unconstitutional public service exemption was severable from the rest of the ordinance. The district court found the provision severable, and that the remainder of the ordinance satisfied intermediate scrutiny, granting summary judgment in favor or our client once again. The plaintiffs appealed, and it was held that our client had not forfeited their argument that the public service exemption was severable. Additionally, we argued that when applying the Geiger test, the public service exemption could be severed from the remainder of the ordinance, which satisfied intermediate level scrutiny. The court agreed, affirming the decision of the district court.

Jeremy Zacharias and Zipporah Ridley (both of Mount Laurel) obtained an order of dismissal in a case wherein the plaintiff alleged malpractice against various attorneys for exercising the rights under a judgment creditor. In the underlying family law matter, the plaintiff was sanctioned by the court for failure to follow orders and filing frivolous claims. The attorneys in this case obtained sanctions against the plaintiff, and these sanctions were reduced to valid judgments. We argued that the litigation privilege insulated the attorneys from the claims and that the plaintiff was estopped from using the Federal Bankruptcy Court as an appellate court for the State Court, which was barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.

Jeremy Zacharias and Zipporah Ridley (both of Mount Laurel) obtained summary judgment on behalf of a resort city in a case alleging voice misappropriation for the use of the plaintiff’s voice on the tram car. The tram car, which has been in operation for over 55 years, has the iconic slogan, “watch the tram car, please,” on loop to warn pedestrians of the impending vehicle. We argued that the plaintiff claims were barred by the statute of limitations and that she had consented to the use of her voice for over five decades.

Jeremy Zacharias and Zipporah Ridley (both of Mount Laurel) obtained summary judgment in an insurance producer malpractice matter wherein it was alleged that an insurance agent obtained a policy without the requested coverage. In granting summary judgment, the court reasoned that the plaintiff had a history of non-payment of policy premiums, leading to cancellation of the policy. There was a policy in place that would have covered the claimed loss, but the plaintiff failed to pay the policy premium. The court also focused on the lack of expert report in this case to support the plaintiff’s claims.

Kim 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 not 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.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION DEPARTMENT

Perry Merlo (Harrisburg) successfully obtained a defense decision in a workers’ compensation matter. The claimant alleged she was wrongfully terminated due to a workplace injury, and filed a claim petition demanding $95,000. During testimony, it was revealed that the claimant did not report her alleged work injury until after the employer terminated her for falsifying her time records. Additionally, five employer witnesses testified that the claimant never reported a work injury and was working her full-duty job until she was fired for cause. Ultimately, the Workers’ Compensation Judge dismissed the claim petition.  

Tony Natale (King of Prussia) obtained a defense verdict in a workers’ compensation matter in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. The claimant filed a claim petition alleging a complex tear of the medial meniscus in the knee after being injured walking down a hallway in the police station. We argued that a medical condition arising during employment is not necessarily related to employment itself. We presented medical evidence from an orthopedic surgeon who found no mechanism of injury other than the claimant being present at the job when symptoms began. Additionally, we presented video evidence of the incident taking place, which the court analyzed, finding no evidence of physical injury. The court concluded that injuries that arise at work are not necessarily work related – a defense verdict that will change the landscape of law.

Tony Natale (King of Prussia) was successful in having a workers’ compensation claim petition denied and dismissed. The claimant alleged a work injury after her chair exploded due to her body habitus, causing her to fall to the ground. She claimed to have sustained various injuries and periods of disability. During a critical cross examination, the claimant’s medical expert admitted that there was no evidence of a work-related injury in the medical records generated nearly one year following the incident. Additionally, the expert admitted that the claimant was capable of full-work duty. The court had no choice but to deny and dismiss the claim petition, forming a complete defense verdict.

Tony Natale (King of Prussia) was successfully granted a termination petition in a workers’ compensation matter in Berks County, Pennsylvania. The claimant sustained an ankle injury while working with her employer, and she was relegated to modified duty. She worked up to near full-duty capacity. However, she alleged that she could not walk up the stairs as a permanent restriction. We presented medical expert onions from a podiatric surgeon, who determined the claimant to be fully recovered, casting serious doubt on the claimant’s self-imposed permanent restriction of walking up the stairs. We filed a termination petition, which the court granted, holding that the claimant was not credible, finding that a preponderance of evidence supported a full recovery.

Tony Natale (King of Prussia) was successful in being granted a termination petition before the Pittsburgh Bureau of Workers Compensation. The claimant sustained injuries to the wrist and elbows, for which he received consistent treatment and surgery. Upon completion of post-surgical care, the claimant alleged that he was not fully recovered from the injuries, expressing severe pain in his thumb. We filed a termination petition based on the opinions of a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon who highlighted that the claimant recovered from original injuries, and the thumb joint injuries were due to arthritis that had no causal connection to the work injury. The court agreed with our argument, granting a full recovery.

Michele Punturi (Philadelphia) was successful in having a termination petition granted in a workers’ compensation matter in Philadelphia. The matter involved a long-term housekeeping aide of a well-known local hospital, who sustained an injury to the lower back in October 2024. The claimant had a prior injury to her knee in May 2022, and then to both knees in December 2025. The claimant’s treatment following the October 2024 incident included x-rays, an MRI, an EMG, and treatment with an orthopedic specialist, chiropractor, and pain management specialist. All of the providers documented ongoing complaints of pain with radiation, difficulty sitting and standing for more than 20 to 25 minutes, and only being able to walk between two to three blocks. We presented the diagnostic study films and a medical expert who emphasized that the findings of the claimant’s doctors did not correlate to the mechanism of the work injury or any post-traumatic findings. In addition, while the claimant’s providers diagnosed radiculopathy, objective findings did not exist to support that ongoing diagnosis, and the claimant’s subjective complaints were inconsistent with the physical exam. The diagnostic studies failed to demonstrate findings of, but not limited to, any acute disc herniations. We filed a termination petition, which was ultimately granted. This decision will result in substantial recoupment of payments of both indemnity and medical benefits throughout the course of litigation via a Supersedeas Fund Recovery.

Eric Thompson (Wilmington) successfully had a workers’ compensation claim denied before the Delaware Department of Labor Industrial Accident Board. The claimant had a history of respiratory illnesses which she alleged were managed through treatment until she was assigned to work in a specific building by the employer. She alleged that her symptoms became worse as a result of working in the building. The employer had a mold study performed, which showed the existence of mold in various places in the building, but that the mold concentrations were less than those in the external ambient air. Nevertheless, the claimant alleged the mold exposure from the building exacerbated her respiratory conditions. The Industrial Accident Board found our expert to be more credible than the claimant’s, who argued that an employer is strictly liable for exacerbations of conditions of its employees even if it does not know about them. Following a two-day hearing, the board found that the claimant failed to meet her burden of establishing more likely than not that her respiratory conditions were caused by exposure to mold in the building, denying her petition for compensation due.

Andrew Maffet (Harrisburg) was successful in obtaining denial of a workers’ compensation claim in which $165,000 had been demanded to settle. The claimant filed two claim petitions. One alleged a work injury involving his cervical spine in September 2022, while the other complained of a work injury to the lumbar spine in May 2024. The petitions sought payment of full disability benefits from September 2022 to November 2023, partial disability benefits from November 2023 to May 2024, total disability benefits from May 2024 and ongoing, medical bills, and counsel feels. The judge denied the petitions and the claimant was not awarded any workers’ compensation benefits, litigation costs, or attorney fees.

Kacey Wiedt (Harrisburg) and Alana Staniszewski (Pittsburgh) obtained a defense verdict, successfully having claim and penalty petitions denied and dismissed. The claimant alleged a work injury when she tripped over a pallet and fell onto her left knee during the course and scope of her employment. The claimant delayed treatment, first seeking treatment approximately one month after the incident at work. We presented employer witnesses and evidence, establishing that the claimant’s orthopedic issues, including knee surgery, were unrelated to the fall at work. The court agreed, finding that the claimant did not have any symptoms following the incident and that the medical expert we presented showed that the claimant only sustained a contusion to the knee following the incident at work.

Tony Natale (King of Prussia) had a claim petition dismissed before the Venango County, PA Workers’ Compensation Bureau. The claimant alleged a stretching injury to his lower back while working on a circuit board for an electronics company, claiming he was debilitated to the point that he could not walk. During a crucial cross-examination, the claimant’s orthopedic surgeon admitted that he had the wrong date of injury, the wrong mechanism of injury, and the diagnostic MRI and EMG refuted every work-related diagnosis in his chart. The court returned a complete defense verdict, denying and dismissing the claim petition.

Andrew Maffett (Harrisburg) successfully had a claim petition dismissed in a workers’ compensation matter, awarding $0.00 in benefits to the claimant. The claimant filed a petition, alleging a work injury on April 15, 2025. We filed a motion to dismiss, which the judge granted, concluding that an employee/employer relationship was not established after February 20, 2025, because the claimant unilaterally misrepresented her identity to obtain continued employment.

Tony Natale (King of Prussia) successfully had a workers’ compensation claim petition denied and dismissed. The claimant filed a claim petition alleging a foot injury with specific loss while working with a mushroom dispensary. The petition was filed within days of the expiration of the relevant statute of limitations. The claimant failed to provide discovery, appear for an independent medical exam, or appear for a defense-scheduled deposition. During the hearing, an explosive oral argument was made in support of the motion to dismiss the claim. The claimant’s attorney argued that the “humanitarian nature” of the Act allowed the case to move forward. A resounding rattling of Supreme Court case law put that argument to rest. The claim petition was dismissed and a full defense verdict was awarded, despite the humanitarian nature of the Act.

Tony Natale (King of Prussia) successfully obtained a full defense verdict in a workers’ compensation matter in Philadelphia. The claimant sustained a work-related abdominal hernia while working for the employer dismantling a stage. Five months later, while undergoing physical therapy, he alleged new injuries to his neck and back related to the PT. He filed a review/claim petition, where claimant testimony and orthopedic experts from both sides were presented. On cross-examination of the claimant, he admitted that no pain was felt during therapy to his neck or back, he did not remember injuring his neck or back during therapy, and did not experience any neck and back pain until later in the evening. The court ruled that there was no evidence of any neck or back injury, denying and dismissing the petition.

Michele Punturi (Philadelphia) and Alana Staniszewski (Pittsburgh) successfully had a termination petition granted in a Pennsylvania workers’ compensation case. The claimant suffered a minor head injury, with some features consistent with a minor concussion. The claimant was a Marine who served in the Iraq war from 2003 to 2005, during which he suffered a head injury. Additionally, the claimant had a history of headaches and psychogenic non-epileptic seizures dating back to his childhood. We secured the pre-existing medical records, which supported the significant pre-existing history leading up to the minor head injury. We presented a Board-certified neurologist who testified that there was no evidence of any ongoing neurological deficits based on a review of medical records and diagnostic film studies. Additionally, surveillance evidence covering multiple months demonstrated the claimant being active and unimpaired. The judge found that the claimant’s pre-existing conditions accounted for his ongoing complaints, along with a lack of causal relationship. This decision will result in a substantial recoupment of payments of indemnity benefits and medical throughout the course of the litigation via Supersedeas Fund recovery.

*Results do not guarantee a similar result.