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.
We won dismissal of a professional negligence case against a surveyor filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.
Defense verdict for insurance carrier in first party property, breach of contract dispute in the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County.
A water heater leak in a garage caused direct physical damage to the property, and our client paid the plaintiffs $956.95 for damages sustained to the garage, after applying the $1,000 policy deductible. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendant breached the contract of insurance by failing to fully indemnify them for all the property damage caused by the water leak.
We obtained a ruling granting summary judgment in favor of an insurance broker and two Lloyds syndicates in a case pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The case involved a claim arising from a fall from a tree stand at a hunting camp.
A Philadelphia County jury returned a defense verdict on the UIM claim, causing the plaintiff to withdraw her bad faith and UTPCPL claims, in a case where she had alleged permanent injury and facial scarring as a result of a pedestrian/motor vehicle accident. The jury found the plaintiff 20% comparatively negligent, awarded her ‘0’ damages for emotional distress and scarring/disfigurement, $10,000 for pain and suffering, and $5,000 for loss of life’s pleasures.
We obtained an appellate decision affirming the dismissal, with prejudice, of a wrongful death lawsuit filed against a long-term acute care hospital in Florida. The claim alleged the hospital improperly transferred the patient to another hospital without an adequate handoff and appropriate medications, resulting in the death of the patient shortly after arrival at the receiving hospital. The plaintiff sought damages for medical negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
We were successful in obtaining the dismissal of the plaintiff’s corporate negligence claims against an adult inpatient drug rehabilitation center. The plaintiff filed a complaint under wrongful death and survival acts, alleging that the decedent died of unspecified cardiac dysrhythmia while she was a voluntary inpatient resident at the facility. The complaint included claims of negligence/vicarious liability and corporate negligence.
The 55-year-old plaintiff underwent tarsal tunnel surgery. She developed post-operative complications, including infection, and required two additional surgeries, including a sural artery flap graft. The plaintiff gained over 100 pounds after the podiatric surgeries and underwent gastric bypass surgery. She alleged it was required as the result of being sedentary from the podiatric surgeries and complications.
We obtained a defense verdict in a wrongful death claim in Northampton, Massachusetts. This case involved an OB/GYN who allegedly was negligent in his use of a medical device to extract a fibroid uterus. The device spread cancer throughout the peritoneum, which then metastasized throughout the body for a long, drawn-out demise. With a demand close to $20 million, Marshall Dennehey was brought into the case to evaluate whether any defense was possible. The matter went to trial and lasted several weeks.
We prevailed at the trial court level and on appeal in a medical malpractice action filed against a Florida hospital and three of its trauma/critical care physicians. It was alleged that the patient was overmedicated with narcotics during her 64-day hospital stay, resulting in acute respiratory failure and other complications, which caused her death. The plaintiff’s sole expert on liability and causation was a retired internal medicine physician.
In this medical malpractice action, the defendant, a New York doctor with no connection to New Jersey, was sued in New Jersey by a former patient who was a New Jersey resident. The court first found that the defendant did not waive consideration of the issue by waiting until after a dispute concerning the sufficiency of the affidavit of merit was resolved. The court then found that the evidence presented by the plaintiff was simply insufficient to establish either general or specific jurisdiction.