.

Defense Digest

On the Pulse…Other Notable Achievements

Defense Digest, Vol. 29, No. 3, September 2023

September 1, 2023

RECOGNITION

121 Marshall Dennehey Attorneys Recognized in the 2024 Editions of The Best Lawyers in America® and The Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America
Marshall Dennehey is proud to highlight the firm’s 121 attorneys who have been recognized in the 2024 editions of The Best Lawyers in America® and the Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America. Less than 6% of all practicing lawyers in the U.S. were selected by their peers for this recognition. Additionally, five of the firm’s attorneys received the Best Lawyers® 2024 “Lawyer of the Year” awards in their respective practice areas and demographic regions. 

Marshall Dennehey Named a Finalist in The American Lawyer Regional Litigation Departments of the Year Awards for New Jersey and Florida
Marshall Dennehey has been named a finalist in The American Lawyer Regional Litigation Departments of the Year awards in both New Jersey and Florida. Winners will be announced at Law.com’s annual awards gala in New York, NY on November 15, 2023.

Five Marshall Dennehey Attorneys Selected to the 2023 Florida Super Lawyers List
Five attorneys from the Florida offices of Marshall Dennehey have been selected to the 2023 edition of Florida Super Lawyers magazine. A Thomson Reuters business, Super Lawyers is a rating service of lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement.

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2023 Pennsylvania Super Lawyers and Rising Stars
Twenty-seven attorneys across Marshall Dennehey's six Pennsylvania offices have been selected to the 2023 edition of Pennsylvania Super Lawyers magazine. A Thomson Reuters business, Super Lawyers is a rating service of lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. 

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2023 New Jersey Super Lawyers and Rising Stars
Eight attorneys from Marshall Dennehey’s Mount Laurel and Roseland, New Jersey offices have been selected to the 2023 edition of New Jersey Super Lawyers magazine. A Thomson Reuters business, Super Lawyers is a rating service of lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement.

Marshall Dennehey Continues “Best Places to Work” Streak for 11th Year
For the 11th year in a row, Marshall Dennehey has been selected one of the Philadelphia region's "Best Places to Work" by the Philadelphia Business Journal. The award recognizes the company's achievements in creating a positive work environment that attracts and retains employees through a combination of benefits, working conditions and company culture.

Clients Name Marshall Dennehey to the BTI Client Service 100
Marshall Dennehey has earned a coveted spot in the BTI Client Service 100 report, as recommended by corporate counsel. The report is based on research with more than 24,000 buyers of professional services, who rank firms according to performance of 17 activities that drive superior client relationships. Among the report’s findings, Marshall Dennehey was also one of only 50 law firms named to the BTI Midsize Client Service Masters list. The survey is one of the leading measures of its kind. Rankings are purely research-driven and are not subject to law firm submissions, self-referrals, suggestions, or payments.

Bradley Blystone Recognized as Notable Managing Partner by Florida Trend's Legal Elite
Bradley P. Blystone, shareholder and managing attorney of Marshall Dennehey's Orlando, Florida office, has been selected a Notable Managing Partner by Florida Trend Legal Elite. The award recognizes attorneys who have made a measurable and specific impact not only in their legal practice but also in their community.

 

OTHER NEWS

Kimberly Kanoff Berman (Fort Lauderdale, FL) was appointed to two new positions. First, she has been appointed Vice Chair (Live Programs) of the CLE Committee, Appellate Practice Section of the Florida Bar and, second, as Secretary of the Florida Supreme Court Historical Society.

Ryan Hauck (Pittsburgh, PA) has been elected by his peers to a second term on the Council of the Allegheny County Bar Association’s Workers’ Compensation Section. The committee supports the resolution of problems that are identified within the practice of workers’ compensation via interaction with the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation and its administrative personnel.

Peggy Smith Bush (Orlando, FL) received the University of North Alabama 2023 Alumni Award for Public Service. She was honored for her strong commitment to professional and community activities that have benefited others over the course of her career.

Matthew Keris (Scranton, PA) was named the recipient of the Defense Research Institute (DRI) Foundation Community Service Award. The award honors a DRI member who has  demonstrated a commitment to the well-being of the general public by initiating or participating in programs which have a positive impact on the community. Matt has been active in the leadership of DRI and is the outgoing President of the DRI Foundation which provides support to DRI members and their communities. Proceeds raised by the Foundation go directly to funding DRI charitable initiatives including community service, member attorney support programs, disaster recovery, support for the judicial system, and diversity programming.

 

PUBLISHED ARTICLES

Samuel Cohen and Ryan Friel (both in Philadelphia, PA) authored “FINRA Proposal Creates Urgency for Brokers Seeking Expungement of Customer Complaints,” which appeared in the May 4, 2023, edition of The Legal Intelligencer.

Brad Haas’ (Pittsburgh, PA) article, “Tracking the Truth: Utilizing App Data in Personal Injury Defense,” was published in the July 6, 2023, edition of The Legal Intelligencer.

Holly Hamilton’s (Fort Lauderdale, FL) article, “Consider the Charge Before Responding to An EEOC Investigation,” was published on the PLUS Blog on June 22, 2023.

John Hare (Philadelphia, PA) and Pennsylvania Superior Court President Judge Jack Panella authored a publication entitled 125 Years of Justice, which is a history of the Superior Court that will be presented during an event commemorating the Court’s 125th anniversary. Also, John authored an article entitled “Medical Malpractice Venue Un-Reform” in the Claims Judicial and Legislative Affairs (CJLA) Quarterly Digest. John was also quoted in The Philadelphia Inquirer article, “Jury Verdicts Like the $183 Million Award Against Penn Medicine Can Be Tied Up for Years, But Usually Stand.”

William Murphy’s (Roseland, NJ) article “The Implications of Remote Work on Workers’ Compensation” was published in the June 6, 2023, edition of The New Jersey Law Journal.

Tony Natale (Philadelphia, PA) authored the article, “Why Do Claimants Lie? Because They Can and Swift Prosecution Is the Only Way to Deter It,” appearing in the June 2023 issue of CLM Magazine.

“Why Your Mental Health Matters to the Disciplinary Board,” by Josh Byrne and Alesia Sulock (Philadelphia, PA) was published in the May 16, 2023, edition of The Legal Intelligencer. On July 14, The Legal Intelligencer published “You Diligently Protect Your Clients; What About You? Part 1 (The Beginning),” also by Alesia and Josh.

David Tomeo (Roseland, NJ) authored the article, “Turnabout Is Fair Play: When an Expert Switches Sides on the Eve of Trial,” appearing in the New Jersey Law Journal’s Medical Malpractice Supplement.

Eli Hassinger (Philadelphia, PA) authored the article, “Pa. High Court Doubles Down on the Workers’ Comp Act’s Exclusivity Provision,” for Pennsylvania Law Weekly. 

 

SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS

Mohamed Bakry and Mike Turner (both of Philadelphia, PA) presented “Know Your Worth: Promotion, Rate, and Salary” at the DRI Diversity for Success Seminar.

Jeffrey Bates (Philadelphia, PA) presented “Anatomy of a Lawsuit” at the annual meeting of the Pennsylvania Prosthodontic Association.

Michael Bradford (Tampa, FL) presented “Here Comes the Boom: Cranes and Accidents” at the recent Florida Defense Lawyers Association Conference.

Ryan Burns (Fort Lauderdale, FL) presented “Florida’s Tort Reform” to members of RIMS Broward County Chapter.

Josh Byrne (Philadelphia, PA) spoke to the Monroe County Bar Association on legal malpractice avoidance.

Samuel Cohen (Philadelphia, PA) presented “Educational and Technology Tools that May Save you in the Long Run if you are Named in an Arbitration/Lawsuit” at the Annual IBDC-RIAC Risk Management Conference in Park City, Utah.

James Cole (Philadelphia, PA), Jeffrey Rapattoni (Mount Laurel, NJ) and Christopher Woodward (Harrisburg, PA) were featured speakers at the 2023 Pennsylvania Insurance Fraud Conference. Jim and Chris presented “Untying Tangled Titles – How Property Insurance Drives Fraud,” and Jeff presented “Legal Update.”

Lee Durivage (Philadelphia, PA) co-presented “You Have Headaches? We Have Solutions” at the Public Risk Management Association Annual Conference.

Benjamin Durstein and Keri Morris-Johnston (Wilmington, DE) were featured speakers at the Workers’ Compensation Seminar 2023, co-hosted by the Delaware State Bar Association and Industrial Accident Board. Ben was a panelist for “Ethics and the Duty to the Tribunal and Opposing Counsel,” while Keri participated as part of a panel discussing “The Legal Implications of Successive Injuries.”

Scott Eberle (Pittsburgh, PA) spoke to the Westmoreland County Bar Association on legal malpractice avoidance. 

Scott Eberle (Pittsburgh, PA) and Alesia Sulock (Philadelphia, PA) presented on a panel discussion, “Avoiding Legal Malpractice,” on behalf of the Pennsylvania Bar Association and in connection with the Pennsylvania Bar Institute. The presentation was a live broadcast to several hundred attorneys across Pennsylvania.

Linda Wagner Farrell (Jacksonville, FL) was a faculty member at the Office of Judges of Compensation Claims “Work Comp Academy 2023: The Next Generation.” Linda presented on evidence and trial memorandum.

John Gonzales (Philadelphia, PA) spoke at the 110th Annual Pennsylvania Chiefs of Police Association Annual Conference and Seminar. John spoke on “Recent Trends in Police Civil Rights Litigation.”

John Hare (Philadelphia, PA) presented a seminar on civil litigation developments for the Pennsylvania Coalition for Civil Justice Reform. The seminar was held at the Pennsylvania Manufacturers Association facility in Harrisburg and was attended by representatives from more than forty insurance carriers and corporations. John also presented the “Pennsylvania Supreme Court Update” at the annual Appellate Update CLE course for the Pennsylvania Bar Association.

Matthew Keris (Scranton, PA) and fellow panelists discussed the criminalization of health care errors at the Medical Professional Liability Association annual conference. Matt was also a panelist at the fourth annual American Legal Connections Healthcare Symposium in Atlanta, Georgia. Matt joined a distinguished panel of speakers to discuss “Criminal Prosecutions: Dobbs and the Future of Care.”

Mark Kozlowski (Scranton, PA) presented “FLSA – Wage and Labor Laws” for NEPA SHRM (Northeast Pennsylvania Chapter of Society of Human Resource Management). This was the second presentation in a four-part HR 101 series Mark is participating in for NEPA SHRM.

Estelle McGrath (Pittsburgh, PA) presented a webinar, “How to Avoid Mistakes with Mismanagement of Life & Health Claims,” with members of NAPA (National Association of Professional Agents).

Missy Minehan (Harrisburg, PA) presented “Trends, Tips & Tricks in the Defense of Long-Term Care Facilities” at the Pennsylvania Association for Health Care Risk Management conference.

A.C. Nash (Fort Lauderdale, FL) was in New York City to present “Civil Rights for Uncivil Times” at the International Association of Claims Professionals’ 2023 Conference. 

Jeffrey Rapattoni (Mount Laurel, NJ) presented “Top 10 Cases Impacting Fraud Fighting & the SIU” at the IASIU New England Chapter’s Annual Seminar.

Courtney Schulnick (Philadelphia, PA) was part of a panel for the Philadelphia Law Department’s annual CLE program held at the Pennsylvania Convention Center. During this two-hour CLE, Courtney was joined by Alison Lintal, Esq., visiting Assistant Professor of Law and Director of the Externship Program at Penn State University Dickinson Law School and Dena Lefkowitz, Esq., author, business and career coach for lawyers. The panel discussed Emotional Intelligence (EI) and how it can help attorneys to handle interpersonal relations judiciously and empathetically. Courtney focused on mindfulness practices that can help us step out of reactivity and choose how to most skillfully respond, whether it’s trying a case in court, dealing with a difficult adversary, serving the needs of our clients, working together with colleagues, or caring for a loved one.

Jack Slimm (Mount Laurel, NJ) spoke at the Camden County Bar Association webinar “Mediation Process & Techniques in Civil & Chancery Disputes: Producing the Best Results for Your Client.” 

Sunny Sparano (Roseland, NJ) spoke at the New Jersey Institute for Continuing Legal Education 2023 Construction Law Forum. The title of her session was “Coordinating the Design Defense.” 

Frank Wickersham (King of Prussia, PA) presented “One Less Zombie in the Workers’ Compensation Apocalypse” at the CLM 2023 Workers Compensation, Casualty & Risk Management Conference.

Heather Byrer Carbone (Jacksonville, FL) was a featured speaker at the 77th Annual Workers’ Compensation Institute Educational Conference & 34th Safety & Health Conference on August 22 in Orlando. Heather joined a panel that presented “Hot Topics for Attorneys,” which delved into the most important and controversial case law decided by the Florida appellate courts and the most relevant amendments to the law enacted by the Florida Legislature.

Jeremy Zacharias (Mount Laurel, NJ) presented “Commercial Real Estate Transactions: From Handshake to Closing” at the NJICLE seminar.

Kimberly Berman (Fort Lauderdale, FL) was a panelist on The Florida Bar Appellate Practice Section’s Audio Webcast, “A Not-So-”Little” Problem With Precedent: Intra-District Conflicts in Florida’s District Court of Appeals.” The webcast explored the question of what happens when two panels of the same appellate court disagree—which opinion controls future disputes? Kimberly and her co-presenters discussed the historical jurisprudence underpinning the debate, and gave advice for lawyers who confront intra-district conflicts in their own cases. More than 100 judges and appellate law practitioners attended the program.

Andrea Rock (Philadelphia, PA) presented a webinar as part of the Philadelphia Bar Association Workers’ Comp Compliance Crusher 2023: Update on Important Issues in Workers' Compensation Practice. In “Navigating the Medicare Maze,” Andrea and plaintiff’s counsel co-panelist discussed the basics of Medicare, including including who exactly is a Medicare Beneficiary and the reasonable expectation of Medicare enrollment. They highlighted how knowing the Medicare laws, the intricacies of Medicare Set-aside allocations, the effect of conditional payments, and the impact Medicare can have on settlement, are all imperative in the representation of clients.

 

Defense Digest, Vol. 29, No. 3, September 2023, is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2023 Marshall Dennehey. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

United State District Court for the Middle District of Florida finds Evidence of Replacement Cost Value is Admissible and Recoverable Even When Repairs Have Not Been Made

The plaintiff filed a claim for damage as a result of Hurricane Ian. It claimed damages were over $24 million, but the carrier accepted partial coverage and paid $8,307.49 for secondary components. The carrier found hurricane damage to the building, but it was below the insurance policy’s $3.6 million deductible. The plaintiff sued for breach of the insurance policy. The carrier argued in a motion for summary judgment that plaintiff could not recover replacement cost value (RCV) because the property repairs had not been effectuated. The policy provided for RCV, but only after the repairs were completed. The carrier argued that because the repairs were not completed, the plaintiff was not entitled to RCV damages. The plaintiff argued the carrier could not withhold the actual cost value (ACV) due, which was the main allegation of the lawsuit, then fault it for not making the repairs to unlock the RCV. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida rejected the carrier’s argument, finding that when an insurer allegedly breached the policy by withholding coverage, it could not hide behind a repair-contingent provision to block the insured from RCV damages at trial. The court found the issue to be whether the contractual language designed to preclude certain coverage until after repairs are completed barred an insured from seeking those damages at trial when repairs were not complete. The court noted the Eleventh Circuit had not resolved this issue and neither side pointed to a definitive answer from the Florida Supreme Court. The court reasoned that it must look to the Sixth District Court of Appeal (6th DCA), which is the court which would have heard this case if it was in state court. The court noted the 6th DCA recently addressed this issue in Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Rodriguez, 427 So. 3d 676 (Fla. 6th DCA 2026). The Rodriguez Court found that a breach of contract action is designed to adjudicate not only whether the contract was breached, but also evaluate the damages incurred had the breach not occurred, which the Rodriguez court found to be recovery of the RCV. This court also noted basic Florida contract principles compelled the same result, as a material breach frees the nonbreaching party to suspend its own performance and can demand the full benefit of its bargain, including RCV damages. Finally, the court found the distinction between a full denial and partial denial did not compel a different result. It found the policy required the carrier to acknowledge coverage and pay ACV for all covered damages, and the failure to do that is a material breach, entitling the insured to all of the damages available under the contract, which included the RCV.

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

News

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

graphic announcing our 6 2027 Super Lawyers & Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2027 New Jersey Super Lawyers And Rising Stars

Result

Statutory Employer Immunity Upheld

In this construction accident case that resulted in a $5 million verdict, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania upheld the Statutory Employer Doctrine, which immunizes general contractors and other contractors on construction sites when certain elements are satisfied.

Result

$1.09 Billion Products Liability Verdict Overturned

In this products liability crashworthiness case, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania reversed a Philadelphia jury verdict of $1.09 billion, the largest verdict ever overturned by a PA appellate court.  The court ordered a new trial based on deficient jury instructions, clarified important aspects of crashworthiness law, and confirmed that so-called standard jury instructions may be incompatible with Pennsylvania law. 

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

News

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

Thought Leadership

First DCA Reverses Excessive Jury Award Unsupported by the Evidence

In December 2019, the plaintiffs filed a claim with Universal for damages caused by a water and sewage back up through the plumbing system and existing through multiple fixtures including the washing machine drain, kitchen sink, dishwasher, bathtub and toilet. Universal investigated the claim, issued payment for resulting water damage totaling $7,000.00 in actual cash value ($12,000.00 in replacement cost value). The plaintiffs sought additional benefits for work needed to access the below-slab cast iron plumbing system due to the failure of the system from rust, deterioration, corrosion and breaks in the line. Universal denied any additional benefits for access. In 2021, the plaintiffs filed suit. During litigation, Universal sent a plumber to inspect the home and the plumber concluded the pipes were clogged but could be cleaned. The plaintiffs’ plumber testified that the plumbing system needed to be replaced due to holes and openings in the pipes. The plaintiffs introduced two estimates prepared by Triad Restoration services totaling $79,680.22 in replacement cost value and $50,219.97 in actual cash value and an executed contract with another company for repairs with the amounts of repair redacted. Since the insurance policy did not provide coverage for repair or replacement of the plumbing system, the jury only had to decide whether the plumbing system needed to be replaced, and if it did, Universal would owe for the access costs; the jury verdict form required the jury to determine both the replacement cost value and actual cash value amounts. The jury asked if it had to rely on the Triad estimates for their amounts. The trial court advised the amount awarded had to be based on the evidence presented at trial and the law given by the trial court. The jury awarded $335,000.00 in replacement cost value or $305,000.00 in actual cash value. Universal motioned for a new trial arguing the amount awarded was unsupported by the evidence and then moved for remittitur. The trial court denied both motions and this appeal followed. The court found that while a jury’s verdict should only be disturbed with caution and discretion, the trial court must give the properly challenged award close scrutiny and determine whether it bears a reasonable relation to the damaged provided, is supported by the evidence, and could have been reached in a logical manner by reasonable means §768.74(3), (5)(d)-(e), Fla. Stat. The court found the trial court did consider the statutory requirements at the hearing on Universal’s remittitur motion and was concerned about a reasonable relation to the amount of damages proved and injury suffered and whether the award was supported by the evidence, but ultimately denied the motion, reasoning that the jury had been properly instructed to fairly and adequately compensate the plaintiffs. The court noted the only evidence providing the basis for the jury verdict was Triad’s estimates and those valued the plaintiffs' claimed loss at $79,680.22 in replacement cost value and $50,219.97 in actual cash value; no valuation evidence reasonably supported the jury verdict. The plaintiffs argued that the jury was entitled to consider more than the estimates, but the court conveyed the evidence provided did not give the jury a way to reach the amounts they awarded. The court was also not swayed by the plaintiffs’ argument regarding inflation and later price increases, but the court noted that no evidence via the contract, nor testimony regarding increase in labor, material, fuel or construction costs were entered into the record.  The court concluded the jury may draw reasonable inferences from the evidence, but it may not supply a damages number by speculation. The court did not find any of the plaintiffs’ remaining argument persuasive either. The court reversed the denial of Universal’s remittitur motion and motion for new trial as to damaged and remanded the case. The court ended its opinion with advising the trial court must determine whether replacement cost value or actual cash value is the property measure of damages under the policy and order remittitur in an amount consistent with that determination and the evidence.

Result

Federal Statute Declared Constitutional

In this products liability case, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed the Superior Court and upheld the constitutionality of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which resulted in judgment as a matter of law for the defendant manufacturer.

Thought Leadership

Appeals Court Reverses Trial Court Order Awarding Attorney’s Fees Due to Lack of Evidence to Support Fee Awarded

The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order awarding appellate fees to People’s Trust Insurance Company based upon a lack of evidence to support the attorney’s fee award in RM & Assocs. Consulting, Inc. v. People's Trust Ins. Co., 2026 Fla. App. LEXIS 4654 (Fla. 4th DCA 2026). People’s Trust was the insurer of a residential property that had sustained water damage. RM & Associates Consulting was hired by the homeowner to perform mitigation services at the property. The homeowner assigned post-loss benefits to RM and RM subsequently filed suit against People’s Trust alleging that it had not been paid the money it was owed for the mitigation services. People’s Trust defended the lawsuit on the ground that the policy required the insured to notify the insurer before authorizing repairs so People's Trust could elect to use its preferred contractor. Because the owner did not comply with that provision, People's Trust asserted its liability was limited to the amount that its preferred contractor would have charged for the work, which People's Trust contended was $2,000. People's Trust paid that amount to RM before RM filed suit. People’s Trust filed a motion for summary judgment which was granted. RM appealed the summary judgment ruling and the ruling was upheld by the Fourth District Court of Appeal. The appellate court also granted People’s Trust’s entitlement to appellate attorney’s fees, subject to the trial court’s determination of the amount of fees, based upon an offer of judgment made by People's Trust. On remand, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing to determine the amount of attorney’s fees People’s Trust was entitled to. At the hearing, People’s Trust presented testimony from it’s fee expert, supervising trial counsel and appellate counsel. People’s Trust sought recovery of $24,866.17 for work performed by appellate counsel. The request primarily consisted of work performed in preparation of the answer brief. The fee expert testified that more than ninety hours spent preparing the answer brief was reasonable given the complexity and significance of the underlying issue. The appellate court found that the fee expert’s testimony fell short of meeting the necessary standard of demonstrating that the hours expended were necessary. The appellate court found that the billing records did not serve to cure the deficient testimony, as the billing records did not contain adequate details regarding the specific tasks performed. Rather the records contained entries such as “answer brief” which the appellate court found to be insufficient. The appellate court noted that neither the fee expert or counsel addressed how the prior research and briefing in the parallel litigation informed the work in the instant matter. The appellate court noted this was significant in that a court's attorney's fees award must exclude excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary hours, citing Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985). Based upon the record failing to support the finding of the trial court, the 4th DCA remanded the case to the trial court for a reconsideration and redetermination of reasonable appellate attorney’s fees supported by competent substantial evidence. The 4th DCA reiterated that the fee expert’s focus on the quality of the work and the importance of the work to People’s Trust did not make up for the perceived deficiencies in the position that spending over ninety hours on a single answer brief was reasonable. Whether moving for attorney’s fees or challenging the amount of fees being sought by an opposing party, practitioners should be mindful of the evidence being used to support the claims being made. Parties should pay close attention to whether the hours being sought may be impacted by prior litigation either party may have engaged in. A party must be prepared to address how prior litigation efforts did or did not impact the amount of hours being claimed in current litigation. Lastly, billing records must be sufficiently detailed so as to support any potential future fee claim.

Result

$19 Million Medical Malpractice Verdict Overturned

In this medical malpractice case, the trial court vacated $10 million of a $19 million verdict in post-trial motions and the Superior Court of Pennsylvania vacated the remaining $9 million on appeal.