On the Pulse…Defense Verdicts and Successful Litigation Results*
CASUALTY DEPARTMENT
Adam Levy (Mount Laurel, NJ) and Pauline Tutelo (Roseland, NJ) tried a construction-site-related personal injury case to verdict in Hudson County, New Jersey. After a month of trial, Adam and Pauline successfully placed the entirety of the plaintiff’s $4.2 million jury verdict against the remaining co-defendant. By way of post-trial motions, Adam and Pauline also successfully placed all of their client’s costs and attorney’s fees on the co-defendant. In total, including the plaintiff’s success on an offer of judgment and based on Adam and Pauline’s post-trial motions, the judgment against the co-defendant was in excess of $7 million.
Coryn Hubbert (Harrisburg, PA) obtained a defense verdict before the York County Magistrate Court. While riding a bicycle through a shopping center parking lot, the plaintiff collided with our client, who was driving a vehicle, at an intersection that did not have stop signs. The plaintiff alleged that our client was responsible for his medical damages, as well as property damage to his bike and clothing. At the hearing, Coryn elicited testimony from the plaintiff that his medical bills had been fully covered by his health insurance, with no out-of-pocket costs, and demonstrated that the plaintiff did not have sufficient evidence to prove that his alleged property damage was tied to the incident, nor that it occurred at all. The judge agreed and granted a defense verdict.
Lary Zucker and Adam Fogarty (both of Mount Laurel, NJ) obtained summary judgment relief from claims against the administrator of a national flag football program. These claims were based on allegations of a dangerous field condition during a game in a league that was operating within that national program. Our firm represented a non-profit organization that provided uniforms, equipment, and educational materials for local flag football leagues. The plaintiff was a 9-year-old player in one such local league. He suffered an injury when he fell during a game, allegedly due to a hole in the grassy playing field. At the conclusion of discovery, the court granted summary judgment relief for the national organization, finding it had no duty to inspect or maintain the fields used by the local leagues and had no duty to train the local leagues on proper field conditions.
Matthew Gray (Melville, NY) and Scott Ginsberg (New York, NY) successfully defended and submitted post-hearing arguments and secured dismissal of a New York no-fault arbitration matter. The applicant, a major medical provider, filed an arbitration matter in the amount of $361,601.62, claiming our client owed it for the claimant’s unpaid medical bills following a major motor vehicle accident. The claimant had been involved in the motor vehicle accident and sought payment for a series of medical treatments rendered while hospitalized, post-accident. Counsel for the medical provider argued that the medical billing was never properly nor timely denied, therefore, payment of the claims was overdue. However, Matthew successfully argued at the arbitration hearing that the applicant’s client failed to provide the requisite statutorily required medical assignment-of-benefits form, assigning the hospital the right to sue on behalf of the injured party. After arguments were heard, the arbitrator ordered post-hearing submissions to be filed by both sides. Matthew and Scott researched, drafted, and filed a post-hearing submission, resulting in the arbitrator ruling in our client’s favor, thereby dismissing the matter based on the applicant’s total failure to submit the requisite form, saving our client hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Rachael von Rhine (Mount Laurel, NJ) successfully defended an insurance carrier in a New Jersey no-fault arbitration matter. The claimant, a pain management provider, filed an arbitration demand in the amount of $125,218 in connection with a baseline urine toxicology screen and subsequent presumptive and confirmatory testing that was performed on a monthly basis. Counsel for the medical provider argued that the drug testing was necessary to establish baseline toxicology and to monitor the patient’s medication regimen. However, Rachael successfully argued at the arbitration hearing that there was no documentation of the patient taking or being prescribed opioid pain medication and there was no history of aberrant behavior or substance abuse. Rachael further argued that the extensive testing was being performed without regard to the needs of the patient, as the patient was only prescribed anti-inflammatories and NSAIDs. After arguments were heard, the arbitrator issued an award in favor of our client, finding that the excessive testing was not medically necessary, saving our client over $100,000.
Jennifer Roberts (Melville, NY) was successful on a motion for summary judgment made in Queens County, New York. The plaintiff argued that she fell down the stairs located inside the defendant’s/employer’s store. As an employee of the defendant, the plaintiff could not sue the defendant directly, and instead sued the landlord of the premises. Jennifer successfully argued that our insured was an out-of-possession landlord that had no liability to the plaintiff. Further, she successfully argued that the provided contract did not bind the insured, who was not contracted to maintain the premises.
Michele Frisbie (King of Prussia, PA), with the input of Tony Michetti (King of Prussia, PA) and Vlada Tasich (Philadelphia, PA), obtained the dismissal, with prejudice, of a product liability case filed against an alcohol beverage manufacturer. The multiple plaintiffs were either seriously injured or killed when the alleged minor drunk driver of the vehicle in which they were passengers was involved in a single car accident. The plaintiffs claimed that the manufacturer was liable to them because the product had more alcohol than other alcohol beverages, was improperly marketed to minors—like their driver, and did not warn of dangers associated with the beverage. Our team argued several points, including that Pennsylvania does not recognize such a product liability cause of action because the dangers of drinking alcohol and then driving are obvious and the manufacturer has no duty to warn potential users of such dangers. Additionally, alcohol is not an unreasonably dangerous product.
HEALTH CARE DEPARTMENT
William Banton and Tara Fung (both of Philadelphia, PA) obtained a defense verdict in Delaware County, Pennsylvania, on behalf of an extended care facility. The plaintiff filed a nursing home malpractice case, alleging negligence regarding the development and progression of certain wounds that the plaintiff’s decedent developed throughout her treatment at various medical facilities. The evidence presented to the jury supported the argument that the decedent’s development of wounds occurred prior to her arrival at our client’s facility and that, while at the facility, the wounds were properly treated. Furthermore, the decedent’s wound progression was the result of her pre-existing conditions and reaching the end stage of life. The trial lasted four days, and the jury returned a verdict in approximately 30 minutes.
Michael Mongiello (Harrisburg, PA) convinced the Senior Prosecutor In Charge for the Pennsylvania Department of State to withdraw an extensive seven-count order to show cause that had been filed against his pharmacist and pharmacy clients. As a result, the clients avoided up to $70,000 in civil penalties, as well as other severe disciplinary actions against their professional licenses. The matter arose out of numerous complex allegations that our clients violated the Pharmacy Act in filling and dispensing excessive dosages of Risperdal to an elderly patient in a long-term care setting without proper recordkeeping. Mike’s aggressive and detailed representation led to a complete pre-hearing and withdrawal of all counts with no adverse disciplinary outcome.
Suzanne Utke (Philadelphia, PA) won a summary judgment motion in a failure to diagnose breast cancer case on behalf of an imaging company. The plaintiff had four mammograms between July 2011 and January 2015, all of which read as negative for abnormalities by four radiologists, who were all named defendants and were alleged to be employed by the insured imaging company. In October 2015, after a fall that led to an urgent care visit and an MRI, a metastatic lesion was seen on the plaintiff’s hip. She was subsequently diagnosed with Stage IV metastatic breast cancer. Suit was filed for a missed diagnosis of breast lesions allegedly appearing on each of the four prior mammograms. The imaging company was named for theories of corporate and vicarious liability. After multiple mergers, acquisitions, and contractual relationships with all of the corporate co-defendants, the non-involvement of the imaging company was hotly contested and a stipulated dismissal could not be secured. After complex discovery, the motion for summary judgment was finally granted, with prejudice, for our client.
Lynne Nahmani and Jessica Wachstein (both of Mount Laurel, NJ) successfully defended a chiropractor, obtaining a directed verdict on informed consent and a no cause, 7-0, on standard of care. The plaintiff claimed the defendant was negligent in failing to obtain an MRI before adjusting the lumbar spine with a differential diagnosis, which included a herniated or bulging disc. The plaintiff had claimed increased risk of harm for foot drop, surgery, pain and suffering, and alteration in work and life enjoyment.
PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY DEPARTMENT
Scott Dunlop and Nathan Marinkovich (both of Pittsburgh, PA) received a complete defense verdict in favor of their client in an equity action involving property rights in our client’s public safety building. The plaintiff, a volunteer fire company, moved its operation into public safety building space constructed for it by the Borough, our client. The fire company refused to execute a lease that would have provided it with occupancy for 100 years, unwisely holding out for better terms. Thus, the Borough adopted a resolution making the fire company a tenant at will, with its space allocation subject to the discretion of the Borough Council. Thereafter, the fire company donated $50,000 to the Borough toward construction costs for its space. The fire company enjoyed its space for 10 years, during which it brought into its space, without the Borough’s consent, a for-profit ambulance service with which it is affiliated, but which has no business relationship with the Borough. When the Council voted to convert some of the fire company’s space for use by the police department, the fire company filed suit under the theory that it had been promised control of the space during negotiations over ten years earlier. The plaintiff’s theories were “joint venture” ownership, promissory estoppel, and unjust enrichment/quantum meruit. The Borough, through its solicitor, counterclaimed for quiet title, ejectment of the ambulance company, and unjust enrichment due to the unauthorized sublease. All negotiations involved offers and demands for space usage within the public safety building. There were no monetary offers or demands.
Ray Freudiger and Donielle Willis (both of Cincinnati, OH) won dismissal on behalf of their client, an insurance agency in Hamilton County, Ohio. The plaintiff entity alleged that it suffered monetary damages by having to pay for claims made against its California employees. It alleged the agency failed to obtain employment practices liability insurance for the company’s California employees. In their motion to dismiss, Ray and Donielle successfully argued that the “economic loss doctrine” barred all claims against the agency.
Mark Kozlowski (Scranton, PA) was successful before the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court, which affirmed summary judgment in favor of our client in a high-speed police pursuit case. The plaintiff was the passenger in a vehicle being driven in the early morning hours. After the driver crossed into a turn-only lane, local police attempted to pull over the vehicle. The driver accelerated and entered the interstate highway. A police pursuit lasted only a few minutes before it was called off for safety reasons. The driver attempted to exit the interstate at a high rate of speed, but misjudged the turn and crashed the vehicle. The driver was killed, and the plaintiff was severely injured. The plaintiff then sued the local municipality for negligence, arguing that the officers caused the wreck by turning a traffic stop into a high speed chase. Following discovery, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the Township, finding that the so-called vehicle exception to municipal liability found in the Pennsylvania Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act did not apply. The trial court reasoned that pursuant to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s holding in Sellers v. The Township of Abington, 106 A.3d 679 (Pa. 2014), the defendants did not owe the plaintiff a duty of care because his existence or connection to the driver were unknown to the officers at the time of the pursuit. The Commonwealth Court issued an opinion (non-reported) affirming the trial court and held that the exception to the exception for vehicle liability involving high-speed police pursuits did not apply because the plaintiff was unable to establish the threshold requirement that the defendants owed him a duty of care. As such, the defendants could not be held liable for the accident caused by the driver’s intoxicated, high-speed driving.
Howard Mankoff and Fred Mason (both of Roseland, NJ) obtained a dismissal of a legal malpractice claim in which they represented an attorney whose client was a housekeeper for the plaintiff. The housekeeper had purchased a house from the plaintiff, who later claimed the parties agreed the seller could live in the house the rest of his life (he was 85), but the agreement was not included in the closing documents. The plaintiff sued the attorneys, the housekeeper, and the realtors. We moved, in lieu of an answer, to dismiss the complaint. The court accepted our argument that our client did not owe a duty to the plaintiff, based on case law holding that the circumstances in which an attorney owes a duty to a non-client third party are limited to those in which the attorney knows or should know that the non-client third party is relying on the attorney’s work. The court also accepted our arguments based on the statute of limitations and the entire controversy doctrine.
Christian Marquis (Pittsburgh, PA) obtained summary judgment on behalf of a school district in Fayette County, Pennsylvania. The plaintiff alleged he sustained a concussion as a result of a fall from a loading dock when making a delivery to a middle school of the school district. He argued that the loading dock was dangerous due to inappropriate depth, causing boxes on his hand truck to strike a wall, thus pushing him off of the loading dock. The evidence and testimony elicited during discovery established that the plaintiff had made deliveries on prior dates and made previous trips into the middle school on the date of accident without incident. The court concluded that, because of the plaintiff’s prior encounters with the loading dock, the dock’s condition was open and obvious and the plaintiff was aware of it. The court also referenced the plaintiff’s experience as a delivery driver, noting he was in the best position to determine whether the loading dock represented a dangerous condition. The court also referenced the lack of prior complaints about the condition of the loading dock. Finally, the court concluded that the plaintiff was an experienced delivery driver who, as indicated, was in the best position to perceive whether conditions were dangerous or not, and was, thus, in the best position to take appropriate precautions for his safety. Therefore, the court held that the defendants had no duty to warn or otherwise act to protect the plaintiff.
Aaron Moore (Wilmington, DE and Philadelphia, PA) successfully defended a home inspector before the Delaware Division of Professional Regulation. The claimants sought disciplinary action against our client in connection with his inspection of their home. We were able to persuade the Division that the complained-of defects at the property were not subject to inspection because they were not visible at the time of inspection. The Division weighed all concerns involved in the matter and concluded the facts did not reflect a violation of the laws, rules, and regulations that governed the activities of the licensed professional.
Aaron Moore and Claire McCudden (both of Wilmington, DE) obtained summary judgment and dismissal and an award of attorneys’ fees for our client, a condominium association. Judgment was entered in favor of our client against the plaintiff in an earlier action that sought unpaid assessments. In order to sell its property, the plaintiff sent the association a check in the amount of recorded liens. The association returned the check, demanding the full payoff amount, and claimed a statutory lien for all amounts owed. The plaintiff paid the full amount and then filed its complaint, seeking a declaration from the court that the association should have satisfied a lien for the recorded amount even though additional amounts were owed under a statutory lien. The plaintiff argued that the association’s demands for additional sums beyond what was necessary to satisfy the recorded lien constituted demands made in bad faith and without any factual or legal basis. The court found that the statutory liens which applied to the property created both in rem and in personam liability and, therefore, the association had no legal obligation to mark the lien as satisfied until it was fully satisfied. The statute involved had clear and unambiguous language that recordation of lien was not required to constitute notice to third parties and perfection of the lien. The court awarded our client’s attorneys’ fees for the plaintiff’s failure to appeal the lower court’s decision awarding the initial judgment and attorneys’ fees and, instead, bringing an additional action, which resulted in further delay and expenditure of additional sums by the association.
Jack Slimm (Mount Laurel, NJ) obtained a defense jury verdict in a complex legal malpractice action arising out of two wrongful termination trials. The trial took place in Burlington County, New Jersey. This extremely complicated legal malpractice action arose out of two underlying employment trials for wrongful termination claims, as well as an appeal, and involved intellectual property. Jeremy Zacharias (Mount Laurel, NJ) handled a significant amount of the pretrial and key motions in this case. In addition, Sydney Larsen (Mount Laurel, NJ) handled the evidence exhibits at trial. There were numerous evidence issues as there were two underlying trials. However, in a pretrial hearing, we successfully limited the plaintiff’s proofs and barred significant damages claims asserted through the plaintiff’s expert. The court entered an order dismissing the legal malpractice claims during trial. The jury rejected the plaintiff’s claims and awarded all of our client’s fees, with interest and costs.
Jack Slimm and Jeremy Zacharias (both of Mount Laurel, NJ) obtained an order of dismissal on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim in the Superior Court in Monmouth County, New Jersey, in a complex legal malpractice action. This action arose out of a remand from the New Jersey Supreme Court in the matter of Schwartz v. Menas, et al., 279 A.3d 436 (N.J. 2022). The court agreed with our argument, as well as the argument of the co-defendant, a national home builder, that all claims (conspiracy and fraud) for allegedly stealing the plaintiffs’ development rights were barred under the entire controversy doctrine and the doctrine of res judicata, based upon the ruling of the court in the reported decision of Schwartz v. Menas, et al., 279 A.3d 436 (N.J. 2022), which we had argued before the New Jersey Supreme Court.
Jack Slimm (Mount Laurel, NJ), with the assistance of Justyn Coddington (Mount Laurel, NJ), obtained an order from the Superior Court in Ocean County, New Jersey, on the eve of trial, granting our motion for summary judgment in an extremely complex legal malpractice action involving the value of an ultrasound company in an underlying equitable distribution case. The case involved $14 million in damages. At the close of evidence, the court granted our motion for involuntary dismissal, finding that the plaintiff’s experts had offered net opinions. The court dismissed the claims and removed the case away from the jury.
Jack Slimm and Arthur Wheeler (both of Mount Laurel, NJ) won a decision from the Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division, which affirmed an order for summary judgment in a complex multi-party legal malpractice action. This case involved financial ventures that led to two legal malpractice actions with economic losses at over $11.5 million. The dismissal was affirmed, with the Appellate Division agreeing with the trial judge that the plaintiff’s expert reports were net opinions and inadmissible, and since the plaintiff could not demonstrate his actual damages to the jury, the trial court’s orders were affirmed.
David Tomeo, Victoria Pepe, and Karen Kankula (all of Roseland, NJ) obtained summary judgment for a large insurance carrier in a coverage action in New Jersey Superior Court, Essex County. The client’s insured, a sports and recreation facility, named the company in a third-party complaint, seeking coverage for injuries allegedly sustained by the plaintiff in a tennis court accident. The policy had an express condition requiring the provision to the carrier of a waiver and release signed by a participant in connection with the submission of a claim. Having to concede that a waiver and release was not obtained nor provided to the carrier in connection with the claim, the insured tried to “re-write” the condition to say that a waiver and release was not required as the plaintiff bypassed the system in place and participated without authorization. In a case of apparent first impression in New Jersey, the court found the policy language clear and unambiguous and enforced it as written, declining the insured’s invitation to engage in “linguistic gymnastics” to find against our client.
Emily Totoro (Mount Laurel, NJ) obtained a dismissal with prejudice on the pleadings for a client in an insurance coverage matter. The plaintiff filed a detailed complaint, alleging facts and identifying critical documents, all of which then became reviewable by the court. The issue concerned policy interpretations of mold and sump pump supplemental coverages.
Jeremy Zacharias (Mount Laurel, NJ) was successful in obtaining an order compelling arbitration on behalf of his client, the holder of a credit obligation owed by the plaintiff. The court agreed with Jeremy that jurisdiction was lacking and that this matter properly belonged in arbitration. The court properly held that the plaintiff agreed to the established terms of the credit card holder agreement, which contained the clear and unambiguous arbitration clause. The court also agreed that the credit holder stepped into the shoes of the original creditor for purposes of the card holder agreement.
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION DEPARTMENT
Heather Byrer Carbone (Jacksonville, FL) successfully argued that a settlement agreement, based upon a binding and enforceable agreement reached via email between the parties, be enforced. The claimant had given her attorney authority to settle on October 4, 2023, and later changed her mind. Based upon case law, there was unequivocal authority to settle and it was too late for the claimant to negate the agreement previously reached. The judge of compensation claims agreed with Heather and upheld the settlement.
Linda Farrell (Jacksonville, FL) successfully defended a petition at a final hearing on behalf of a road sign contractor and their carrier against a former employee who claimed a work injury. Linda presented four live witnesses before the judge of compensation claims to prove that no accident had been reported by the claimant. The judge found the claimant’s argument, that his employer should have known because he claimed the supervisor was present, was not sufficient and denied the entire claim.
Linda Farrell (Jacksonville, FL) filed a motion to enforce a settlement agreement reached by the parties at mediation, which the judge of compensation claims granted. Despite attending mediation, reaching an agreement and having a mediation report drafted, the claimant did not sign the agreement. He then terminated the services of his attorney and retained new counsel. At the hearing held before the judge, Linda called the claimant’s former attorney as a witness and also conducted a direct examination of the claimant. Ultimately, the judge found that the claimant had agreed to settle and changed his mind later. Therefore, the settlement agreement was enforced.
Adam Huber (Mount Laurel, NJ) obtained a dismissal of two medical provider claims filed by a hospital and surgical center seeking additional payment for medical services. Adam successfully argued the providers were barred from seeking benefits in the New Jersey workers’ compensation court due to a jurisdictional issue as the New York appellate court had previously found the alleged body part at issue was not an occupational injury. The additional money the providers sought was $8,591.52.
Tony Natale (Philadelphia, PA) successfully defended an international law firm in the litigation of a claim petition wherein the claimant alleged vision injuries due to “staring at a computer” as part of her job as a paralegal. Tony presented a two-fold defense. First, during cross-examination, the claimant was forced to admit that her vision problems pre-existed her employment with the firm. Second, sound medical testimony was presented challenging the mechanism of injury as being “impossible.” The court accepted Tony’s evidence as most credible and dismissed the claim petition in its entirety.
Tony Natale (Philadelphia, PA) successfully prosecuted a termination petition on behalf of a local bar/restaurant. The claimant had serious injuries in the form of an ACL tear and medial/lateral meniscal tears to her knee. Despite meniscectomy surgery (which removed parts of the torn menisci in the knee), Tony was able to convince the court that the claimant fully recovered from all injuries and that residual minor deformities, which did not contribute to loss of function, did not defeat the full recovery request. The employer’s termination petition was granted.
Tony Natale (Philadelphia, PA) successfully prosecuted a termination petition on behalf of packaging company with reference to a head injury with post-concussive syndrome. While the claimant still alleged post-concussive symptoms, the medical evidence and surveillance evidence submitted convinced the court as to the claimant’s complete and full recovery from all aspects of the work injury. The termination petition was summarily granted.
Tony Natale (Philadelphia, PA) successfully defeated the claimant’s appeal on a hotly debated issue surrounding course and scope of employment. While on a paid lunch hour, the claimant was involved in a motor vehicle accident resulting in extreme medical treatment costs. Tony was able to convince the underlying court that the claimant was not in the course and scope of employment at the time of injury due to her deviation to run personal errands, as Tony uncovered on cross-examination. The claimant appealed to the Appeal Board, alleging the fact that, as her lunch hour is paid, she was certainly in the course and scope of employment and the underlying court erred in this legal conclusion. The Appeal Board accepted Tony’s argument that, even on a paid lunch hour, the claimant took herself out of the course and scope of employment based on her deviation to run personal errands. The claimant’s appeal was dismissed.
Rachel Ramsay-Lowe (Roseland, NJ) won a trial for a cable company where the claimant was injured while working at a one of the company’s sites. The employer had hired a contractor to complete the work, and various parts of the job were subcontracted out to several different companies. The claimant was hired by one of the subcontractors. Rachel argued that the claimant was not an employee or special employee of the cable company. In addition, the court agreed that an owner who contracts with an independent contractor for construction on his own property is not a contractor within the meaning of section 56 of the New Jersey workers’ compensation law. The court, therefore, dismissed our client from this claim.
Kristopher Starr (Wilmington, DE) received a favorable decision from the Industrial Accident Board in a matter where the claimant had been injured in a compensable and accepted work accident where he sustained an injury to his lumbar spine (ligamentous). However, he had pre-existing degenerative pathology in the spine. We filed a petition for review to end temporary total disability benefits, alleging the claimant could work within restrictions. The claimant filed a petition for additional compensation, demanding approval of a lumbar discogram and ongoing total temporary disability benefits. The Board held that conservative treatment was appropriate, including TFESI injections, and that the lumbar discogram was not reasonable. Two MRI studies evidenced a resolving soft tissue injury to the lumbar spine ligaments, and the claimant did not present as a surgical candidate. The employer’s doctor was found persuasive as to the issue of lumbar discography. The claimant’s doctor conceded, under cross-examination, there were no neurologic deficits showing radiculopathy on successive exams. Considering the evidence and the Health Care Practice Guidelines, the Board determined discography was not reasonable. A Petition to Determine Additional Compensation Due was granted in part and denied in part. As to indemnity, Kris presented vocational evidence and a Labor Market Survey showing no wage loss for positions within the claimant’s work restrictions. Kris indicated that Hoey v. Chrysler did not apply as the claimant was advised he could no longer be accommodated and was obligated to look for work. The claimant’s physician agreed, under cross-examination, that the claimant could work the Labor Market Survey jobs (all sedentary positions) and that the claimant was not totally disabled. Ongoing indemnity benefits were denied, and our petition for review was granted. No appeal is anticipated by the claimant.
Frank Wickersham (King of Prussia, PA) successfully defended a claim petition on behalf of a national trucking company where the answer was late without a reasonable excuse. However, Frank persuaded the workers’ compensation judge that the claim petition was not well-pled as to the main allegation, which was that the claimant suffered a disabling aggravation of a pre-existing cervical condition from a fall at work. Frank further convinced the judge that the claimant did not meet his burden of proof on causation.
Kacey Wiedt (Harrisburg, PA) successfully prosecuted a modification petition where the workers’ compensation judge found that the claimant’s benefits are to be reduced based upon an earning power assessment. The judge found our medical and vocational experts more credible than the claimant’s experts that the claimant had an earning power of $610.00 per week.
Kacey Wiedt (Harrisburg, PA) successfully defended a Claim Petition where the workers’ compensation judge found that the claimant did not sustain a work-related wrist injury due to repetitively lifting cardboard boxes at work. The judge determined that our employer’s witnesses were more credible and persuasive than the claimant, who testified that he was performing this task for a short period of time and that his medical issues were related to his diabetes, not an overuse injury, in accordance with our medical expert opinion.
Kacey Wiedt (Harrisburg, PA) successfully prosecuted a termination petition where the workers’ compensation judge found that the claimant was fully recovered from his back injury, which was previously accepted as a “lumbar sprain, L4-5 disc herniation with aggravation of degenerative spondylosis and spinal stenosis at L4 causing radiculopathy.” The judge found our medical expert more credible than the claimant’s medical expert.
Judd Woytek (King of Prussia, PA) successfully defended a survivor’s claim for Federal Black Lung benefits. The miner had worked 11 years in the coal mine industry, and the parties stipulated that he had simple coal workers’ pneumoconiosis at the time of his death. Judd presented credible medical evidence to show that the miner’s pneumoconiosis did not cause or contribute to his death, and benefits were denied.
Judd Woytek (King of Prussia, PA) successfully defended a claim petition for an alleged left-knee injury and nasal fracture that resulted from a trip and fall over a rug. The judge found that the claimant failed to prove an injury to her nose. Therefore, he limited her injury to a non-disabling knee contusion, denied claimant’s claim for wage loss benefits, and terminated benefits effective the date of our IME.
Judd Woytek (King of Prussia, PA) successfully defended a claim for a right shoulder sprain/strain, impingement, and superior labrum anterior and posterior tear. Based upon the fact witness and medical expert testimony that Judd presented, the workers’ compensation judge limited the injury to a right shoulder sprain/strain, limited disability benefits to a closed period of four months and terminated benefits as of the date of our IME.
Defense Digest, Vol. 30, No. 1, March 2024, 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. © 2024 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.