Our attorneys work hard to get the best possible results for our clients. Please review our recent litigation successes encompassing our four departments and 40 practice areas. You may search by keyword, practice area or year of result.
Marshall Dennehey and its shareholder, Jonathan E. Kanov, Esq., were successful in a South Florida arbitration representing a prominent Florida real estate developer against construction damage claims brought by a neighboring property’s condominium association. In a final, binding ruling, the arbitrator issued a complete defense verdict, plus an award of attorney’s fees and costs to the developer.
Successful defense of claim petition for an alleged spine injury on behalf of a construction company.
The claimant was employed as a construction worker, and a week after being hired, he was allegedly injured while using a jackhammer. He filed a claim petition for multilevel disc injuries in the lumbar spine. We presented the medical testimony of an orthopedic expert who explained how the injury was soft tissue in nature, and had resolved as of an independent medical examination.
We successfully defended a claim petition for a left foot injury alleged to be traumatic plantar fasciitis and aggravation of pre-existing plantar fasciitis and tendonitis. The defense was able to show that the claimant had longstanding left foot complaints, including a previous surgery. In addition, the claimant’s testimony was rejected by the judge for misrepresenting that he did not have a CDL license when he initially testified.
The claimant alleged a work-related injury while working as a seasonal actor for the employer. Specifically at issue was a left shoulder injury, which according to the claimant, resulted in a reverse left shoulder total replacement procedure. The injury was denied as compensable, and a claim petition and a penalty petition were filed for total disability.
The hearing was to challenge the Pennsylvania Bureau of Workers’ Compensation Fee Review Section’s final determination that an injured worker’s shoulder surgery expenses must be paid by the insurance carrier and the employer. We argued that the work-relatedness of the shoulder surgery is currently in dispute, thus barring the Bureau’s attempt to compel payment.
The claimant alleged that he suffered a significant, disabling knee injury while carrying an air conditioner at work during the early hours of his shift. The claimant worked his entire shift, performing his full work duties for the remainder of his day. The claimant testified that he reported the work injury to a representative of the human resources department upon his completion of the shift.
In this Pennsylvania workers’ compensation action, the judge found that the claimant failed to prove a loss in earnings related to his work injury since returning to work. Instead, he found that the claimant’s loss in earnings was due to lack of work caused by weather conditions or other factors. Additionally, the judge denied both penalty petitions, finding that the claimant had failed to prove a violation of the Act by the carrier for refusal to pay wage loss benefits and medical bills.
We successfully defended a local school district in a special education due process complaint by the parent of a former student who was diagnosed with autism, learning disabilities and ADHD. The student had graduated from high school, completed all credits and earned a regular diploma.
We successfully defended a civil rights appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The plaintiff filed a federal civil rights complaint against a police sergeant and a local municipality following his arrest and release. The plaintiff was charged with the attempted murder of his wife, who later recanted her statement to police.
The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs were the maternal grandparents of two children who were removed from the custody of their parents and placed in foster care. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants violated their substantive and procedural due process rights protected by the 14th Amendment by failing to provide them with custody of the children and notice of court hearings.