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.
The suit accused the hospital and emergency room staff of negligence in treating injuries sustained from an assault. The claims were dismissed as a result of our motion to dismiss on the statute of limitations and the plaintiff’s failure to effectively toll the statute through an effective notice of intent to investigate.
We successfully appealed an emergency restrictive order issued by the Department of Health against a physician’s license. After allegations by a patient of sexual misconduct, the Department issued an emergency order restricting the physician’s license, thereby preventing him from treating any female patients in his practice.
Our appellate attorneys succeeded in convincing the Pennsylvania Superior Court to vacate a $40.2 million medical malpractice verdict and remand for a new trial. In its unanimous, precedential decision, the Superior Court ruled that the trial court had erroneously allowed plaintiffs’ counsel to utilize hearsay medical literature as substantive evidence. The case involved a spinal cord birth injury and was tried in Delaware County.
The defendants were two family-owned companies that grow, process and sell mushrooms. One defendant, our client, owned the property, and the other operated the business there. The plaintiff worked for an independent company that was contracted to load compost into the defendants’ mushroom beds. The plaintiff encountered a problem with the equipment used to lift the compost (the source of the problem is in dispute).
Our client owned a parcel of land upon which a building was being erected. The plaintiff, an employee of a subcontractor, was at the premises cleaning up the worksite on a Saturday morning. He was standing on top of a company-owned work van in the parking lot, securing ladders to the roof of the van, when he slipped and fell off the van to the ground, sustaining serious leg and knee injuries. He underwent two knee surgeries and was also told he needed back surgery.
Unanimous defense jury verdict in one of the first Pennsylvania civil jury trials held during COVID-19 pandemic.
The verdict came within 30 minutes of deliberation in a five-day Bradford County PA fire-loss subrogation trial. Social distancing protocols were in place: all participants had their temperatures taken before entering the courthouse; jury selection took place at a local school auditorium; everyone in the courtroom was required to wear masks or face shields; and the jurors were spread out to the gallery section of the courtroom instead of the jury box. Witnesses could appear via Zoom.
The plaintiff brought a breach of contract claim against the insurance carrier and the remediation repair company for damages sustained from an alleged faulty remediation effort, after a covered fire loss incident. The insurance carrier filed a motion for summary judgment, invoking the one-year suit limitation clause of the policy. The plaintiff responded by arguing the claim against the insurance carrier fell under Section I of the policy seeking the recovery of depreciation value.
Our client was the roofing contractor on a project in Philadelphia. The plaintiff was an employee of a subcontractor of our client. The plaintiff was injured when he fell through a skylight cutout in the roof. He fell approximately 15 feet and sustained injuries, including a broken hip (requiring ORIF) and fractured vertebra. The plaintiff was hospitalized for one month. The last settlement demand was $2.5 million.
The company was dismissed along with other highway construction companies in a Cumberland County case. The plaintiff sued our client and several other contractors on an active highway construction site, alleging the various construction companies were negligent for failing to properly warn drivers sufficiently ahead of potentially stopped traffic.
Marshall Dennehey’s appellate attorneys filed an amicus curiae brief on behalf of the Pennsylvania Defense Institute and Pennsylvania Association of Defense Counsel in a case pending in the Pennsylvania Superior Court that involved interpretation of a “regular use” exclusion that commonly appears in underinsured motorist coverage in automobile policies. The Superior Court enforced the exclusion, as PDI and PADC had requested. The plaintiff regularly used a company vehicle for his daily work. But one or two days before the accident, the specific vehicle he had been driving was taken