On the Pulse…Defense Verdicts and Successful Litigation Results*

CASUALTY DEPARTMENT

Walter Klekotka (Mount Laurel, NJ) obtained dismissal, with prejudice, of all claims in a personal injury suit against a non-profit youth baseball league. The plaintiffs sought to hold the league liable for injuries their minor child sustained during play. Walt moved for summary judgment under New Jersey’s Charitable Immunity Act, which protects non-profits from ordinary negligence. Plaintiffs challenged the league’s non-profit status, claimed an exception based on the minor’s age, and sought to add volunteer coaches—including the child’s father—as defendants. The court agreed with our arguments, finding the league protected by charitable and volunteer-coach immunity and rejecting any showing of gross negligence. Summary judgment was granted in full, and the plaintiffs’ motion to amend was denied as futile.

Walt and Ashley Davis (also of Mount Laurel, NJ) were granted summary judgment in a slip-and-fall case where the plaintiff claimed to have slipped and fell on snow/ice in a parking lot when getting into her car. Our client and one of the co-defendants had property lines next to each other. Based on the accident report, the plaintiff’s testimony and our expert report, we argued that the plaintiff did not fall on our property and, as a result, we owed her no duty. The judge agreed and dismissed all claims against us.

Jon Cross (Philadelphia, PA), Christin Kochel (King of Prussia, PA) and Carol VanderWoude (Philadelphia, PA) obtained summary judgment in a lawsuit arising from an injury the plaintiff suffered at an indoor trampoline park after allegedly attempting to do a front flip off a trampoline. During the deposition, the plaintiff admitted that there are inherent risks of engaging in trampoline activities, including the risk of being injured. Under the no-duty rule, a defendant owes no duty of care to warn, protect, or insure against risks which are common, frequent, expected, and inherent in an activity. In our motion for summary judgment, it was argued that a trampoline park has no duty to protect patrons from the inherent risks of injury when jumping from a trampoline. The court opined that the no-duty rule was implicated and granted summary judgment in favor of all defendants.

Kevin Hexstall (Philadelphia, PA) and Michael Mongiello (Harrisburg, PA) were successful after a three-day hearing before the PA Department of Human Services on an appeal of a child abuse determination levied against a home health nurse. As a result, the nurse’s record is being expunged. The matter arose out of the alleged attack of a child-patient by a family pit bull during home nursing care. It was asserted that the nurse failed to properly supervise and protect the child and failed to properly respond to the incident when it occurred. We established a lack of definitive proof that the nurse negligently left the child unsupervised. We called into question the circumstances surrounding the alleged attack, including whether the dog had a known history of aggression, which led to credibility issues on the part of the family member witnesses. Medical experts also testified on the appellant’s behalf to address possible alternate explanations for the child’s injuries. Ultimately, we established that the prosecution failed to meet its burden of proof and highlighted multiple errors and inconsistencies relating to the investigation and reporting processes. 

Keith Andresen (New York, NY) was successful in having the plaintiff’s motion to restore his motor vehicle accident case denied and the case dismissed against our insured. Because the plaintiff never properly effectuated service within the timeframe of CPLR 306-b, the defendant moved to dismiss. The plaintiff then filed an order to show cause to vacate the dismissal. The defendant opposed this, and Keith substituted in for the defendant, V. Soni. The court denied the plaintiff’s order to show cause as the plaintiff did not show any reasonable excuse for failing to timely interpose opposition to the underlying motion. The prior order was not vacated, and the case was dismissed against our insured.

Ian Glick (Melville, NY) secured a significant victory in a New York Labor Law case, obtaining partial summary judgment for a municipal library and defeating the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on liability. The plaintiff alleged negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241(6) after being injured when roof trusses collapsed on a construction project managed by a co-defendant on the library’s property. Ian successfully argued that questions of fact existed as to whether the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of the accident. The court dismissed all claims against the non-property-owning clients, all but the § 240 claim against the library, the co-defendant’s cross-claims, and granted the library unconditional contractual indemnification from the plaintiff’s employer.

Sarah Cole, with the assistance of Kylee Harvey (both of Wilmington, DE), received a defense jury verdict before the Delaware Superior Court, New Castle County. Although liability was undisputed at trial, damages were disputed. The plaintiff sought damages for head, neck, back, and left shoulder injuries. He had $350,000 in future medical bills and $78,000 in past medical bills that he could board. The plaintiff also had a $5 million lost wage claim that we were able to have dismissed prior to trial on a motion in limine. 

Christopher Power (Melville, NY) obtained a defense verdict in New York Civil Court on behalf of an appliance company and its employee accused of stealing a $31,000 Rolex watch. The plaintiff alleged conversion, breach of contract, and negligent hiring after his watch went missing following a light fixture installation. Through cross-examination, Chris established that neither the plaintiff nor his wife had proof of theft, no criminal charges were ever filed, and the contracted work was fully completed. He further showed there was no evidence of negligent hiring or the watch’s claimed value. After written summations, the court agreed and dismissed all claims in their entirety.

Kimberly Gitlin (Melville, NY) secured an arbitration win, slashing a $83,000 claim to $625. The appellant, a major medical provider, filed an arbitration matter in the total amount of $83,625, alleging 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 post-accident. Counsel for the medical provider argued that the medical billing was never properly paid, therefore, payment of the claims was overdue. However, Kimberly successfully argued at the arbitration hearing that the applicant’s demand amount was greatly over exaggerated and that the amount in dispute must be limited to the appropriate fee schedule limit of $625.82. After arguments were heard, the arbitrator ruled in our client’s favor, thereby limiting any and all recovery to the $625.82 fee schedule amount, thus, saving nearly $83,000 in exposure.
    
Matthew Gray (Melville, NY) prevailed on appeal in a No-Fault/PIP case, and the arbitration dismissal was upheld. The appellant, a major medical provider, initially filed suit via arbitration in spring 2024. After much back and forth and a summer 2025 arbitration hearing, Matthew was able to successfully argue and obtain a dismissal, without prejudice, in our client’s favor. The appellant later filed an arbitration appeal, arguing the lower arbitrator’s findings were irrational, arbitrary, capricious, and incorrect as a matter of law. In our counter appeal, Matthew argued that the lower award was proper and based in legal rationale, grounded on the weight of the evidence provided, and available to all parties in the matter. After reviewing the briefs and arguments, the Master Arbitrator ruled that the lower award was, in actuality, proper and legally reasoned. The Master Arbitrator reaffirmed the lower arbitration decision.

Sean Greenwalt (Tampa, FL) successfully argued a motion to dismiss due to the plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. The plaintiff filed a PIP/No-Fault action and then failed to file any documents or take any affirmative action for over three years. The plaintiff had three months to prepare for the motion to dismiss hearing but only filed a notice for trial two days before the hearing. The plaintiff then claimed it had created sufficient record activity. However, if no record activity occurred, the Florida Rules require record activity within 60 days of a hearing notice for failure to prosecute and a statement of good cause within five days. In dismissing the case, the court agreed with Sean’s argument that the plaintiff’s notice for trial was untimely and did not qualify as a statement of good cause.

Christopher Reeser (Harrisburg, PA) won a motion for summary judgment in Schuylkill County, PA, in a premises liability/product liability case. Chris represented the manufacturer of a concrete railroad crossing that had been installed at an intersection in 2005. In 2021, the plaintiff was riding his bike across the crossing when his bike tire allegedly became stuck in a gap in the concrete. There was ample evidence that the railroad was responsible for inspecting and maintaining the crossing while our client did nothing other than supply the prefabricated crossing. Chris argued the gap in the crossing was not the responsibility of the crossing manufacturer and that the statute of repose barred the lawsuit. The court agreed that the crossing manufacturer had no duty to maintain the crossing and granted summary judgment in favor of the manufacturer.

Chris and Coryn Hubbert (also in Harrisburg, PA) obtained summary judgment on behalf of two homeowners who were sued by family members in a premises liability action. One of the homeowners called his father, the plaintiff, and asked him to come to his house because he had concerns about roofing work being done. The plaintiff arrived at the home and observed nails and other debris strewn about the entire property. Nevertheless, he entered the property to assess the roofing work and took care to avoid stepping on any nails. As he was leaving, he stepped on a nail, which went through his foot. The plaintiff asserted claims of negligence against both homeowners and also attempted to assert that, because his son had requested that he come to inspect the roofing work, he was a business invitee rather than a licensee. Chris and Coryn argued that the plaintiff was a licensee as he was a social guest who was merely providing advice to his son. They further argued that the homeowners owed no duty to the plaintiff as he knew nails were strewn about the property and he understood the risk involved in walking there. Chris and Coryn also argued that the plaintiff’s claim was barred by assumption of risk because as he was aware of the nails and, nonetheless, voluntarily proceeded to walk onto the property. The court agreed and granted summary judgment in favor of the homeowners.

Raychel Garcia (Orlando, FL) was successful in having her motion to dismiss based on the plaintiff’s fraud granted on behalf of a national retailer. The plaintiff claimed that a product defect caused a dish he purchased from our client to cause a fire in his oven, which spread to his house. He alleged $90K in property damage to his home, severe burns, smoke inhalation, and several other injuries. Raychel obtained the plaintiff’s medical and court records, which revealed a history of fraud. At deposition, Raychel used these records to impeach the plaintiff, establishing that he misrepresented both the circumstances of the incident and the extent of his alleged injuries. Based on this evidence, Raychel successfully secured a dismissal of the case with prejudice.

In a premises liability case involving problematic liability for our client, Olivia O’Reilly (Philadelphia, PA) was able to achieve an extremely favorable settlement after taking the plaintiff’s deposition. Olivia’s tactical and thorough deposition resulted in plaintiff’s counsel agreeing to remand the case to arbitration and, eventually, taking a mere $5,000 to settle the case. The plaintiff had initially demanded six figures.

Joseph Lesinski and James Cullen (both of Pittsburgh, PA) secured a defense verdict after a seven-day bench trial in a $30+ million product liability case. Our client, a provider of engineered equipment for the energy sector, sold the plaintiff two reciprocating compressor systems in 2015. These systems injected lubricating oil into the gas stream, which the plaintiff was responsible for filtering out. The plaintiff alleged that weld debris from the compressors damaged filtration devices, allowing excess oil to enter a pipeline and foul turbines at a downstream power plant, causing substantial economic losses. The contract required litigation in Lake County, Indiana and a bench trial; we were admitted pro hac vice. The plaintiff sought $18 million in commercial losses, $4 million in attorney fees, and $5–7 million in pre-judgment interest. We demonstrated that weld debris was not the cause of the damage—material testing showed minimal weld debris compared to naturally occurring contaminants. Expert testimony revealed that the plaintiff’s own design flaws, poor maintenance, equipment failure, and inadequate alarm response were likely responsible for the contamination. The court ruled in our favor.

Nicholas Bowers, Carol VanderWoude and Kevin Todorow (all of Philadelphia, PA) obtained dismissal of their clients by way of summary judgment in a Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas premises liability matter, where we represented the interests of the landowner and tenant. The original settlement demand was $2 million, and the demand at the time the motion for summary judgment was filed was $800,000. It was admitted that our clients were responsible for the maintenance and care of the sidewalk area in question. At the plaintiff’s deposition, testimony was elicited from her indicating that she tripped on a smaller portion of an alleged defect which was larger in other portions of the sidewalk. We then drafted and filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the portion of the alleged defect in question that caused the plaintiff to fall was “de minimis” and, thus, not actionable under Pennsylvania law. Although the plaintiff submitted a comprehensive answer and memorandum of law in opposition, the court agreed with our arguments and dismissed the claims against our clients, with prejudice. The court also denied the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. 

HEALTH CARE DEPARTMENT

Melissa Dziak and Robert Aldrich (both in Scranton, PA) received a defense verdict after a two-day arbitration hearing in a traumatic brain injury case. With an initial $5.25 million demand, the plaintiff alleged overmedication led to his cardiac arrest and a traumatic brain injury, resulting in permanent neurocognitive impairment. Through testimony from our providers and experts across internal medicine, pulmonology, toxicology and neuropsychology, Missy and Rob demonstrated that our client’s care met the standard, did not cause the cardiac arrest and any deficits could have been pre-existing.

Megan Nelson (Orlando, FL) was successful in having her Florida Rule 5.900 Petition for Expedited Judicial Intervention Concerning Medical Treatment Procedure granted. The allegedly incapacitated person had been medically cleared for discharge to a skilled nursing facility. However, his brother, who had been appointed as the health care surrogate and power of attorney, had refused to consent to his brother’s transfer to any skilled nursing facility. After numerous unsuccessful attempts by the hospital’s case management team to transfer the patient, Megan was retained to file a Florida Rule 5.900 Petition. After the emergency evidentiary hearing, the court granted the petition and ordered the brother to consent to the transfer of the patient to a skilled nursing facility.

Gary Samms (Philadelphia, PA/King of Prussia, PA), with outstanding support from Adam Fulginiti and Nancy Farnen (both of Philadelphia), secured a unanimous defense verdict in Philadelphia on behalf of a prominent orthopedic surgeon accused of inappropriate touching during a preoperative examination for bilateral hip surgery. Through precise cross-examination and persuasive advocacy, the team achieved a complete victory.

Gary also achieved a defense verdict for a Philadelphia hospital and two Emergency Department physicians following a six-day jury trial in a complex and emotionally charged case involving the tragic death of a seven-year-old child. Allegations centered on the alleged failure to admit and perform a urine drug screen on an 18-year-old patient under the influence of synthetic marijuana (K2). Gary successfully argued that the physicians performed appropriate testing, monitoring and examinations until the patient achieved clinical sobriety. The patient was later discharged and, nearly a day afterward, tragically killed his sister. Paralegal Nancy Farnen (Philadelphia, PA) played a key role in the defense.

In another matter, Gary obtained a mid-trial dismissal after cross-examining the plaintiffs’ witnesses in a case involving a former NFL player and opera singer who claimed permanent injuries following knee surgery and an alleged failure to diagnose a pseudoaneurysm. Plaintiffs’ counsel voluntarily dismissed Gary and his client before the conclusion of their case to prevent further damage from his cross-examination, choosing instead to limit recovery to the remaining defendants.

Most recently, after an 11-day, hard-fought trial, Gary obtained a defense verdict on behalf of four physicians and a major teaching hospital in Philadelphia. The medical malpractice action arose from the labor and delivery of a baby later alleged to have a hypoxic birth injury, resulting in developmental delays and permanent brain damage, among other issues. The plaintiffs’ experts boarded $21 million in future medical costs, and the pretrial demand reflected those figures.

Jeffrey Bates and Travis Talbot, with the help of paralegal Jennifer Cicchetti (all in Philadelphia, PA), secured a defense verdict in a dental malpractice case in Luzerne County. The plaintiff alleged negligence after a tooth extraction led to a serious infection and a 40-day hospital stay involving multiple procedures. Our client had advised the plaintiff to remove all four wisdom teeth due to infection risk, but the plaintiff declined further treatment. When he returned in 2017 with an infected tooth, our client extracted it, prescribed antibiotics, and gave clear instructions to follow up if symptoms worsened. The plaintiff failed to do so until the infection had significantly progressed. Expert testimony confirmed the plaintiff’s own decisions contributed to the outcome. The jury found our client was not negligent and never reached the issue of contributory negligence.

Leslie Jenny (Cleveland, OH) received an arbitration defense verdict on behalf of a nursing home in a medical malpractice suit. The plaintiff, a 63-year-old, had fallen at home and sustained a spinal fracture. He was admitted to the nursing home for rehabilitation. While there, the plaintiff underwent a series of three epidural injections. He developed multiple pressure injuries that became infected with MRSA as well as paralysis. After he was transferred to the hospital, he was diagnosed with an epidural abscess and, unfortunately, died. This case was twice heard by the Court of Appeals and was later accepted by the Ohio Supreme Court, where Leslie argued and won enforcement of the arbitration agreement. 

In another matter, Jenny obtained a defense verdict on behalf of a nursing home in Cuyahoga County. The case involved a 75-year-old resident who fell, fracturing his hip, and died. The medical examiner ruled that the death was accidental and due to the fall. The plaintiff claimed inadequate fall precautions and failure to assess appropriately after the fall against the skilled nursing facility and requested punitive damages. The plaintiff’s Final Pretrial Statement demanded $7 million. After three days of trial, the judge granted a directed verdict for the defense.

Matthew Butler (Scranton, PA) succeeded in having a default judgment opened in Lackawanna County on behalf of a long-term care client. After default had been entered, a hearing on damages was scheduled before the insurance carrier was on notice of the case. In having the default judgment opened, the court adopted Matthew’s arguments that the petition to open was filed timely, that the judgment was entered in error and that there was a viable, meritorious defense to the claim. What stood out about this victory was the unusual delay in attempting to open the default judgment, which was entered long before a scheduled hearing on damages. The defense had to overcome both the default judgment and the damages hearing in order to achieve a successful outcome.

Adam Fulginiti, Bobbi Lewis, Ryan Harvie and Dorien Belle (all of Philadelphia, PA) received summary judgment in the defendant’s favor in a nursing home malpractice case. The plaintiff claimed that the facility failed to prevent various conditions and injuries during the resident’s admission—such as UTI/sepsis, acute kidney injury/metabolic encephalopathy, dehydration and failure to thrive/weight loss, and skin breakdown. The plaintiff alleged these developments resulted in numerous damages, including, but not limited to, death. Our motion for summary judgment on behalf of the defendant sought dismissal on the grounds that the facility held immunity pursuant to the Pennsylvania Tort Claims Act. Our motion included numerous supporting documents, ranging from public entity reimbursement agreements, personnel information, corporate bylaws, and other materials. The plaintiff hotly disputed the issue. Ultimately, several rounds of briefing were required to achieve the ruling in the facility’s favor. 

PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY DEPARTMENT

Andrew Campbell (Philadelphia, PA) achieved a successful outcome in multi-million-dollar construction defect claim. Andrew successfully enforced claims for contractual defense, indemnity, and coverage as an additional insured in favor of our client—a large general contractor/construction manager—against the subcontractor and their carrier. Andrew’s successful argument for risk transfer effectively ends any direct exposure to our client or their carrier.

Gregory Kelley (King of Prussia, PA) obtained a summary judgment dismissal, with prejudice, of an architect with respect to a personal injury claim. The plaintiff sued a school district, alleging she was injured by a dangerous condition in the bleachers of a high school stadium. The school district then joined our client on a theory that, five years earlier, in connection with a stadium upgrade project, the architect should have seen the condition and taken steps to have it corrected. With great assistance from our client, Greg convinced the court that the architect did not owe a duty to the school district for assessing and remedying the allegedly dangerous condition because the area in question was not part of the scope of the architect’s project. The school district presented an expert report, claiming the Building Code required that the bleacher structure be brought up to current code. However, Greg and the architect showed the court that the school district’s expert failed to cite the correct section of the Pennsylvania Construction Code as the International Existing Building Code specifically provided that no assessment and upgrade was required for the pre-existing condition.

Greg also obtained a summary judgment dismissal, with prejudice, of a residential exterior cladding/moisture testing company in a professional liability action in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs had purchased a $2 million home that needed remediation. They filed negligent misrepresentation and unfair trade practices claims, alleging the statements on our client’s website and the findings in his report of his testing misrepresented the conditions of the exterior stucco and windows. Without ever taking a deposition or answering discovery, Greg obtained records from the plaintiffs’ realtor that conclusively proved there were no misrepresentations as the plaintiffs had been fully informed of the condition of the home and proceeded to purchase it anyway. The case lives on for a claim against a stucco contractor, but our client has been dismissed with prejudice. 

Aaron Moore (Wilmington, DE) obtained a defense verdict on behalf of his client, a real estate broker and agent. The plaintiffs, homebuyers, claimed that the sellers’ broker and agent were liable to them for the value of fixtures that were taken by the sellers when they vacated the property, which were alleged to have been included in the sale. At a bench trial, the judge determined that neither the broker nor the agent could be held liable to the plaintiffs because the representations regarding what was included in the sale were made by the sellers.

Aaron also prevailed on a motion to dismiss on behalf of his client in a complex matter involving claims of fraud, misappropriation of trade secrets, tortious interference with contractual relations, and piercing the corporate veil. The plaintiff, an investment fund, had purchased a business that was controlled and primarily owned by our client. The business ultimately went bankrupt, and the plaintiff claimed that the purchase was premised upon misrepresentation by our client. The plaintiff maintained that jurisdiction in Delaware was proper pursuant to the Asset Purchase Agreement. The District Court was persuaded by Aaron’s arguments that it lacked personal jurisdiction over our client, a citizen of Canada, even though he signed the Asset Purchase Agreement, which included language conferring jurisdiction over claims arising from the sale in Delaware. The court agreed that Aaron’s client did not sign the agreement in his individual capacity, and the plaintiff’s piercing the corporate veil allegations were insufficient to confer personal jurisdiction.

Finally, Aaron obtained dismissal of an unjust enrichment claim brought by a condominium unit owner against the attorneys who represented her condominium association. The unit owner claimed that the law firm was liable to her for unjust enrichment in connection with legal fees it received from the association for legal services provided in efforts to collect on past due assessments owed by the unit owner. Pursuant to the association’s governing documents, the charges were passed on to the unit owner. The court agreed with Aaron’s argument that the fees paid to our client by the condominium association were properly earned.

Kristen Ballard (Tampa, FL) had her motion to dismiss granted in a business dispute regarding failure to perform obligations under a commercial equipment lease. The judge granted, in full, the defendant’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint for fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and promissory estoppel. The judge also granted Kristen’s motion to strike the plaintiff’s claim for attorneys’ fees. 

Jeffrey Imeri (Long Island, NY), Diane Toner (New York, NY) and Ashley Davis (Mount Laurel, NJ) won summary judgment in a federal breach of contract case based on credit cardholders’ assignment of Collision Damage Waiver benefits to the plaintiff, a car rental company. Just ten days before trial, the court dismissed the case in its entirety, finding that there was no underlying contract between our client and the cardholders; the contracts were between the cardholders and the non-party banks.

Lee Durivage and Alexandra Freeman (both of Philadelphia, PA) obtained a defense verdict in two consolidated matters in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania following a five-day trial. The first plaintiff alleged he was terminated in retaliation for filing a lawsuit and that he was subjected to racial discrimination during his employment. The second plaintiff alleged he was terminated in retaliation for supporting the wage and hour claims of the first plaintiff. After deliberating for approximately two hours, the jury answered “no” on the five theories asserted by the plaintiffs.

Sharon O’Donnell (Harrisburg, PA), Lee Durivage and Alexandra Freeman (both of Philadelphia, PA) obtained dismissal in favor of a school district where a former student claimed the district was liable for damages under Title IX, Section 504, and the ADA after he was sexually abused by a teacher’s aide from a different school. The student was transitioning back into the school district after attending a private school for his emotional support needs. During the summer months, the student’s former aide was arrested and confessed to sexual abuse of the student. The student’s guardians then removed him from the district’s extended school year program. After the teacher’s aide was released on bail, she contacted and met up with the student at a local park. The police were contacted by the student’s family, and the teacher’s aide committed suicide in the park when they arrived. In the lawsuit, the student alleged the district should have taken more steps to amend his Individualized Education Program and to conduct a Title IX investigation when it learned the teacher’s aide was arrested, arguing that had this occurred, the meeting in the park would not have happened. The Magistrate Judge disagreed, finding the plaintiff could not state a plausible claim under Title IX, Section 504, and the ADA, and dismissed all claims against the school district, with prejudice.

Seth Altman (Fort Lauderdale, FL) and James Hanratty (Jacksonville, FL) obtained summary judgment in a coverage dispute where the plaintiff sought UM benefits under a policy for a car he owned, after an accident on his uninsured motorcycle. The court held that UM coverage was excluded for the motorcycle. The plaintiff argued the policy was ambiguous because the PIP section defined a “motor vehicle” as having four wheels—excluding motorcycles—while the UM section did not. This was an ambiguity in the policy that could have been interpreted against the carrier. The plaintiff had significant injuries that far exceeded the value of the policy. The court rejected this argument, agreeing with our position that the PIP and UM coverages are separate and distinct, and upheld both exclusions despite the plaintiff’s significant injuries.

Matthew Flanagan (New York, NY) succeeded in obtaining a pre-answer dismissal of malpractice claims against a Brooklyn attorney who allegedly failed to advise his former client of the exposure he faced in a fraud lawsuit. The plaintiff claimed he understood the risk of losing at trial, but his attorney allegedly failed to advise him that he would be liable for pre-verdict interest, which amounted to over $389,000. Additionally, the plaintiff claimed the attorney failed to seek a set-off based on a co-defendant’s settlement. Matt argued that documentary evidence, including emails the plaintiff denied receiving, established his awareness of the potential exposure. Matt also argued that the plaintiff would need to pay the amount of the judgment, less the set-off which he would have received, before he claimed to have been damaged by the failure to seek the set-off. The court agreed with both arguments and dismissed the complaint against our client. 

Michael Jacobson (New York, NY) successfully secured the dismissal of fraud, RICO, and civil conspiracy claims against a New Jersey attorney and law firm sued in New York. In a pre-answer motion to dismiss, Michael argued that the court lacked jurisdiction over our clients because they did not have sufficient contacts with New York under New York’s general jurisdiction and long arm jurisdiction statutes. The court agreed and dismissed the claims against our clients. 

John Slimm (Mount Laurel, NJ) successfully defended an attorney who specializes in the representation of school boards in a grievance before the New Jersey Office of Attorney Ethics (OAE). The grievance was filed by a plaintiff’s attorney who argued that our client violated the rules of professional conduct in connection with his arguments to the trial court and the appellate court. The OAE rejected the grievance, finding that the allegations of racist and misogynistic behavior by defense counsel were unfounded, that the attorney did not disrespect the court either at trial or on appeal, that the attorney did not lie about the employer’s defenses, and did not make any false statements of fact in response to the plaintiff’s grievance. 

John and Jeremy Zacharias (both of Mount Laurel, NJ) successfully defended an appeal arising out of a legal malpractice/securities action in which they were successful at the trial level. The case is noteworthy because here, for the first time in New Jersey in a legal malpractice action arising out of a securities case, the court applied New Jersey’s entire controversy doctrine and dismissed the complaint. 

Raychel Garcia and Matthew Wykes (both of Orlando, PA) successfully struck the plaintiff’s jury trial demand, ensuring the case will be decided by a judge. Because the allegations against our clients were of negligent hiring, this is a huge victory as sympathy from a jury pool is no longer a factor. The plaintiff, who alleged negligent hiring, had signed 10 consecutive leases containing a jury trial waiver. She claimed the waiver was unconstitutional and invalid due to her limited education. We argued that the plaintiff’s right to a jury trial was not lost as she can still sue the individual who assaulted her; the waiver went both ways. The court agreed with our position that both parties knowingly waived the right to a jury trial and that the plaintiff’s claimed lack of understanding did not void the contract.

Jillian Clark and Leonard Leicht (both of Roseland, NJ) obtained a directed verdict in a New Jersey Law Against Discrimination case filed against a national trucking company after two days of trial. The plaintiff, a laborer, assisted a truck driver making deliveries to a retail store. The driver admitted to making sexually explicit comments to the plaintiff. The plaintiff argued the comments were made due to his race (African American) and were protected under the LAD. We argued that the comments were offensive to anyone who heard them and had nothing to do with the plaintiff’s race. At trial, the judge agreed with our argument that the language used by the truck driver, however offensive it was, could not sustain a cause of action under the LAD as it was not based on a protected category, as alleged by the plaintiff. The judge dismissed the case. 

Christopher Conrad (Harrisburg, PA) and Jacob Gilboy (Scranton, PA) were successful in a Dauphin County case stemming from an alleged faulty deed certificate filed in conjunction with a prior real estate transaction. The plaintiff brought claims of negligence, quiet title/declaratory relief, and fraud. We prepared and filed preliminary objections to the plaintiff’s complaint and amended complaint. Following oral argument, our preliminary objections were granted, disposing of the plaintiff’s action on substantive legal grounds and on the basis that the plaintiff’s pleadings were never properly served to our client under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Christopher and Jacob also successfully represented a school district in a retaliation, slander, and defamation case. The suit was filed against the school district, its former Title IX coordinator, and its athletic director following a coach’s removal. We prepared and filed preliminary objection to the complaint on substantive legal grounds. Following oral argument, our preliminary objections were granted. The plaintiff did not appeal and then voluntarily withdrew his action. 

Jillian Dinehart (Cleveland, OH) received summary judgment in a real estate fraud action. Our client represented the seller in the sale of a $400,000 home. During the listing, the seller completed two disclosures. The second disclosure did not include all of the same facts as the first disclosure and failed to identify defects in the roof, which were discovered during an inspection for a failed sale. Although the seller’s realtor was aware of the defects, the realtor did not confirm that the disclosure was correct and did not inform the un-represented buyers of the defects. The buyers claimed that the realtor and the seller were involved in a conspiracy after finding evidence that the seller requested the realtor cancel a showing because of one of the undisclosed defects. Summary judgment was granted pursuant to the doctrine of caveat emptor, with the court finding that the purchase agreement contained an “as is” clause that overcame any misrepresentations. The court further found there was no evidence that the defendants knew of or concealed any of the alleged defects or engaged in any fraud.

In another matter, Jillian obtained judgment on the pleadings for a municipality in a case involving a double above-the-knee amputee who alleged excessive force and ADA violations after being dropped while exiting a police vehicle during a DUI arrest. The Northern District of Ohio court found the complaint failed to allege improper force and that the officers are not duty-bound to adhere to an arrestee’s accommodation requests if they utilize reasonable strategy. It also held their conduct did not violate any clearly established constitutional right. The claim, valued at approximately $500,000, was dismissed.

John Gonzales and Connor Warner (both of Philadelphia, PA) had their clients dismissed via sanctions imposed. The plaintiff was arrested by officers of a Narcotics Field Unit and alleged the officers seized $40,000 in cash from his vehicle, falsified a search warrant affidavit, disregarded proper procedures, and withheld exculpatory evidence, leading to drug charges. The plaintiff entered a guilty plea for probation to avoid a lengthy prison sentence. The court granted the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial based on after-discovered evidence, and the charges were nolle prossed. In his initial complaint, the plaintiff alleged federal civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (unlawful arrest, search, seizure, malicious prosecution, and due process violations) and state law claims (false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, assault and battery). Due to a related litigation involving the Narcotics Field Unit, the case was placed in suspense in 2020 and restored to the active docket in 2023. In April 2024, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, asserting six causes of action: § 1983 claims for fabrication of evidence, suppression of evidence, malicious prosecution, civil rights conspiracy, municipal liability (against the City), and state law claims for false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and conversion. This past August, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed the plaintiff’s claims against the individual police officers under FRCP Rule 37(b) for failure to comply with discovery orders, with prejudice. Applying the Poulis factors, the court found the plaintiff personally responsible for nearly two years of non-communication with his counsel, which prejudiced the police officers by delaying trial preparation and demonstrated a history of dilatoriness without reasonable excuse. Lesser sanctions were deemed ineffective due to the plaintiff’s prolonged unresponsiveness, and the merits of his claims could not be evaluated, rendering this factor neutral. The City’s motion to join the police officers’ sanctions motion was denied, as they did not move to compel discovery or demonstrate the plaintiff’s violation of a related court order.

In an unconnected civil rights case, John and Connor also secured summary judgment granted in favor of the defendants on all counts. The plaintiff sued a township, its police officers, and the buyer of the plaintiff’s former property after events in 2022 related to the sale of her condemned, cluttered home. After a fall and femur fracture in her home, the plaintiff was hospitalized and later granted court orders allowing “unlimited and unfettered access” to retrieve personal property until September 1, 2022. On August 12, 2022, police found her in a soiled hospital gown in extreme heat with no utilities, which lead to a Section 302 mental health arrest and evaluation. The 302 application was denied, and the plaintiff was released the same day. She returned to the property on August 13, 2022, removed plywood and attempted to reside there, resulting in her arrest for burglary, criminal trespass, defiant trespass, and criminal mischief. She was detained until September 7, 2022; charges were later dismissed. The plaintiff alleged constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, failure to train) and common law claims (malicious prosecution, conversion). The court granted our summary judgment motion, ruling that the plaintiff’s court-ordered access was strictly for property removal, not residency. The court found probable cause for both the mental health evaluation and arrest and no evidence of malice or inadequate training. The judge acknowledged the plaintiff’s significant hardships (injury, hoarding, mental health concerns) but emphasized a neutral application of the law and commended the officers for their professionalism.

Jacob Gilboy (Harrisburg, PA) obtained dismissal of negligence and breach of contract claims against a real estate agent. In his lawsuit against his former real estate agent, the plaintiff alleged negligence and a breach of the buyer-agency agreement and standard agreement of sale for a March 2025 property transaction. The plaintiff claimed that the agent misrepresented the property’s tax information and that certain wiring defects within the property were known and intentionally withheld. Following a hearing where both the plaintiff and the defendant testified, Jake obtained a complete defense judgment. 

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION DEPARTMENT

Benjamin Durstein (Wilmington, DE) secured multiple victories before the Delaware Industrial Accident Board. In one matter, following an evidentiary hearing, the Board dismissed a Petition to Determine Compensation Due after finding that the claimant failed to prove an “untoward event,” a required element under the Nally successive carrier/subsequent accident analysis. Without such an event beyond the normal duties of employment, liability could not shift from the first employer/carrier to the subsequent one.

In a second case, the Board denied the claimant’s petition alleging injuries to her right ankle, both upper extremities, and low back, finding her account of the accident not credible due to inconsistencies in her conduct before and after the alleged event and a lack of supporting evidence.

Finally, in a third matter, Ben successfully obtained termination of a claimant’s temporary partial disability benefits. The Board determined that the claimant had voluntarily removed himself from the workforce, noting he was capable of medium-duty work, that suitable jobs were available, that he had performed only a minimal job search over an 18-month period, and that his daily activities reflected a retirement lifestyle rather than intent to return to work. Consequently, wage replacement benefits were terminated.

Linda Farrell (Jacksonville, FL) was successful in having her motion for indemnification granted in a case in which our client’s subcontractor did not secure workers’ compensation coverage as required by statute. Therefore, our client—the contractor—became the statutory employer and accepted the claim as compensable. Our client provided medical and indemnity benefits and reached a settlement compromise with the injured worker. Linda filed a motion for indemnification, requesting that the subcontractor be ordered to reimburse our client for all monies paid on the claim. After an evidentiary hearing, where we presented evidence and called the vice president of claims to testify, the judge of compensation claims granted our motion.

William Murphy (Roseland, NJ) achieved two defense victories on behalf of health care clients. In the first matter, Bill successfully obtained the dismissal, with prejudice, of a dependency claim filed by the husband of an emergency room physician who passed away from COVID-19. The claim sought $1.75 million, later reduced to $300,000, to be divided among multiple employers where the decedent had worked. Bill raised the statute of limitations defense, noting the petition was filed more than two years after the decedent’s death. Ultimately, the matter was resolved with other defendants paying $140,000 and $10,000 respectively, while the claim against our client was dismissed, with prejudice, with no payment made.

In the second matter, Bill successfully obtained dismissal of a $104,688.13 medical provider claim seeking payment for treatment rendered following a work-related injury. Bill moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing there were insufficient contacts with the state of New Jersey to establish jurisdiction. The court agreed and granted the motion, dismissing the case in its entirety.

Gabrielle Winter (Mount Laurel, NJ) successfully argued a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on a medical provider claim petition where the medical provider was seeking $105,688.13. The judge dismissed the case, agreeing with Gabrielle’s argument that there was insufficient contact with New Jersey and that the proper jurisdiction was New York.

Anthony Natale (King of Prussia, PA) achieved a series of defense victories before Pennsylvania workers’ compensation judges, successfully representing employers across multiple complex matters. 

In one case, Tony won a defense verdict on a penalty petition filed against a mushroom company. The claimant alleged that Supreme Court precedent required penalties as the carrier failed to issue an award check immediately after a decision on the merits. The check, issued 19 days post-decision, was within the 30-day industry standard. The court agreed with the employer’s position that common-sense practice and precedent did not support the claimant’s interpretation, and the penalty petition was denied and dismissed.

In another matter, Tony obtained a defense verdict on a claim petition filed by a township police officer who developed neurological symptoms after an active shooter standoff. The court found the claimant’s medical expert not credible and accepted the employer’s neuro-ophthalmologist’s opinion that no work-related injury occurred, dismissing the petition in full.

In a case where the claimant repeatedly refused to attend independent medical examinations (IMEs), a petition to compel her attendance was filed and granted by the court. A new court-ordered IME was scheduled, which the claimant did not attend. Tony filed a petition to suspend both indemnity and medical benefits. The court found the claimant’s refusal to cooperate warranted suspension of benefits.

In a separate claim involving a shoulder injury, Tony earned a defense verdict after proving that the claimant’s loss of earnings resulted from his discharge for cause—not from a continuing work injury. After the claimant secured new employment with another company at lower wages, he alleged he was entitled to ongoing partial disability. The court found the employer’s fact and medical witnesses credible, leading to dismissal of the claim petition.

Tony also prevailed on several termination petitions. In one, the court found a claimant fully recovered from a concussion and post-concussive syndrome after the claimant’s own treating physician supported the employer’s position. In another case involving a university employee with neck and low back strain injuries, the claimant’s expert conceded on cross-examination that imaging studies showed no structural changes, leading the judge to find full recovery.

Finally, in a case involving a claimant who slipped and fell in an elevator, Tony successfully proved full recovery based on diagnostic imaging showing no objective changes pre- and post-injury. The court credited the employer’s expert testimony and dismissed the claim in its entirety.

Michele Punturi (Philadelphia, PA) successfully prosecuted a termination petition on behalf of a renowned international automobile corporation. Michele secured medical records supporting a significant pre-existing history of a prior left knee replacement and treatment, thus establishing that the only work injury sustained was a left knee contusion. Further, the opinions of the defense medical expert, a board-certified orthopedic surgeon with a sub-specialty in the treatment of the knees, were found competent and credible, thus supporting a full recovery. The workers’ compensation judge further found the employer had a reasonable basis to contest all issues and denied attorney’s fees. This decision will result in a substantial recoupment of indemnity and benefits payments via a Supersedeas Fund Reimbursement recovery. 

Ryan Hauck (Pittsburgh, PA) secured two significant defense victories. In the first matter, Ryan successfully defended a claim petition in which the claimant alleged multiple orthopedic fractures and dislocations to the upper extremity, hip and bilateral lower extremities, seeking both past and future wage loss and medical benefits. The workers’ compensation judge adopted Ryan’s position that the injuries did not arise in the course and scope of employment. Through strategic reliance on case law, precise cross-examination and close collaboration with the employer to establish property boundaries within a commercial complex, Ryan demonstrated that the claimant was injured off premises during an unpaid lunch break, was not furthering the employer’s interests, and was not engaged in any authorized or work-related activity at the time. The claim was completely denied, and bifurcation of the issues led to substantial savings in litigation costs by avoiding unnecessary medical discovery.

In the second case, Ryan successfully defended a six-figure workers’ compensation claim in which the claimant alleged back and leg injuries and sought more than $60,000 in past wage loss plus ongoing benefits. Working closely with the employer, Ryan presented compelling surveillance footage, persuasive medical testimony, and strategic cross-examination that undermined the claimant’s factual and medical assertions. The judge found the defense evidence more credible and persuasive, resulting in a full denial of the claim petition.

Michael Sebastian (Scranton, PA) achieved multiple defense victories, successfully representing employers across several complex claims.

In one case, Mike defended a multinational food corporation in a matter involving petitions for suspension, reinstatement, claim, and utilization review. The claimant alleged that her right and left carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) prevented her from working in a cold environment. Prior to the decision, the defense accepted the left-sided CTS as work-related, narrowing the dispute to whether the claimant could return to work. The judge found the claimant and her medical expert not credible, noting that the claimant wore gloves and cold-weather gear and did not handle cold meat directly. The employer’s witness conducted a temperature experiment showing that hand temperatures remained within safe limits, and the employer’s medical expert testified that cold exposure does not affect CTS. The judge credited the employer’s witnesses and experts, suspended the claimant’s benefits, and found subsequent treatment with two providers unreasonable and unnecessary.

In a second matter, Mike obtained a defense verdict in a claim petition where the claimant alleged a work-related knee injury requiring knee replacement surgery and sought more than $149,000 in medical expenses. The judge found the claimant’s testimony not credible, as he failed to identify a specific incident or repetitive trauma to support the claim. The claimant’s medical expert was also found not credible because he did not examine the claimant until after surgery and lacked sufficient information. Given the unreliability of the claimant’s evidence, the judge dismissed the claim without needing to address the employer’s expert testimony.

In a third case, Mike successfully defended against a claim petition where the claimant alleged a back injury at work. The judge found significant inconsistencies in the claimant’s testimony regarding the date, location, and cause of injury. Multiple employer witnesses credibly testified that the claimant had reported hurting her back at home after falling down stairs. The judge found the employer’s witnesses and medical expert credible, determining that the claimant only sustained a lumbar strain from a non-work-related incident and had fully recovered. The claimant’s testimony and expert opinions were rejected, and the claim petition was denied and dismissed in full.

A. Judd Woytek (King of Prussia, PA) received a favorable decision which found that our client had a valid subrogation lien in the amount of $82,266.60 that the claimant and her third-party attorney had failed to honor. The workers’ compensation judge directed repayment of the employer’s automatic and absolute subrogation lien in the total amount requested.

In another matter, Judd successfully defended against a petition for joinder of additional defendant that sought to place liability on our client as a statutory employer under the Workers’ Compensation Act. The judge found that the original defendants had failed to join the proper party, had failed to prove that our client was a statutory employer, and had failed to prove facts sufficient to pierce the corporate veil. Our client was dismissed from the claim.

Kacey Wiedt (Harrisburg, PA) successfully defended against the claimant’s claim and penalty petitions by proving the alleged injury occurred months later than claimed. The claimant, a technical operator, alleged a left shoulder tear from using a tool to dislodge cheese from a machine and claimed to have given timely notice. Through cross-examination and employer testimony, Kacey established that notice was not provided until four-to-five months after the alleged incident and that the claimant left work that day because he was sick. Medical evidence further showed the injury occurred later than alleged, as the bicep showed no retraction 10 months after the claimed date. The workers’ compensation judge found the employer’s medical expert more credible, denying both the claim and penalty petitions in full.
    
Michael Duffy (King of Prussia, PA) obtained a favorable decision that saved the client millions of dollars. The claimant alleged a left shoulder dislocation, stroke, traumatic brain injury, gait dysfunction, central pain syndrome, and post-traumatic seizures from a workplace fall. We proved that the claimant only dislocated his shoulder, presenting witnesses who confirmed he never hit his head or bled as claimed. When the claimant later alleged his stroke was caused by a hypertensive crisis triggered by the fall, we demonstrated his long-standing, uncontrolled hypertension and lack of medical evidence linking the two events. The judge agreed, awarding only one day of wage loss benefits (approximately $88) for the shoulder injury and denying all other claims. This ruling avoided lifetime wage loss and medical expenses that would have totaled millions.

*Results do not guarantee a similar result. 

_{Defense Digest, Vol. 31, No. 4, December 2025, 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. © 2025 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.}