On the Pulse…Marshall Dennehey Is Happy to Celebrate Our Recent Appellate Victories*
Audrey Copeland (King of Prussia, PA) convinced the Commonwealth Court to affirm the Appeal Board’s and judge’s decisions in a workers’ compensation matter, which had granted a claim petition for a limited period and terminated benefits. The court rejected the claimant’s argument, that the judge capriciously disregarded substantial evidence and failed to render a reasoned decision by accepting the opinions of the employer’s medical experts. The court also found that the claimant’s motion to amend the appeal was appropriately quashed by the Appeal Board as untimely, as the claimant could have raised allegations of the judge’s alleged misconduct and bias in a timely appeal but failed to do so. Walker v. WCAB (Drexel University), 904 CD 2019 (May 1, 2020).
In another of Audrey’s cases, the Commonwealth Court affirmed the Appeal Board’s decision holding that a trucking company was the borrowing employer of the claimant, finding that the trucking company was claimant’s responsible employer, despite the fact that another alleged employer had accepted the claim and paid certain workers’ compensation benefits. R&L Carriers v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (QBE Insurance Company, Grace, East Coast Drover Solutions and UEGF), 1164 CD 2019 (June 12, 2020).
In Fritz v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 1034 CD 2019 (May 4, 2020), Audrey also obtained the Commonwealth Court’s affirmance of the decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (UCBR) denying the claimant unemployment benefits. The claimant was a former deputy sheriff who was terminated by her employer, the County, for violating the workplace violence policy and other county policies. The UCBR found that the claimant physically prevented her subordinate from leaving a meeting, where he was acting as a union representative, by shoving and poking him. The claimant’s later acquittal of a summary criminal charge for the incident did not change the outcome of her unemployment case because it was not determinative of whether her actions constituted willful misconduct.
Audrey also persuaded the Pennsylvania Superior Court to affirm summary judgment in favor of the employer, a brewing company, in a wrongful termination case where the plaintiff alleged that he was terminated in retribution for his refusal to provide what he claimed was false and misleading information to the employer’s accountant, using a method to count inventory with which he disagreed. The plaintiff was not an accountant and admitted that he lacked knowledge of pertinent accounting principles and financial information. The court held that the evidence did not support the plaintiff’s allegations that the employer asked him to commit a crime. Additionally, the plaintiff did not allege the accounting practice to be unlawful, and his mere belief that it was illegal and “difference of opinion” did not trigger the public policy exception to at-will employment. Bahnatka v. Victory Brewing Company, 1095 EDA 2019 (Pa. Super. July 8, 2019).
Shane Haselbarth and John Hare (Philadelphia, PA) filed an amicus curiae brief on behalf of the Pennsylvania Defense Institute and Pennsylvania Association of Defense Counsel. The case was pending in the Pennsylvania Superior Court and involved interpretation of a “regular use” exclusion that commonly appears in underinsured motorist coverage in automobile policies. The Superior Court enforced the exclusion, as Pennsylvania Defense Institute and Pennsylvania Association of Defense Counsel had requested.
John and Shane also worked with Steve Ryan (King of Prussia, PA), in successfully convincing the 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.
Walter Kawalec (Mount Laurel, NJ) and John Gonzales (Philadelphia, PA) successfully obtained dismissals of the City of Philadelphia and officials from the City Department of Revenue. The case involved a civil rights, whistleblower and breach of contract action by a proposed contractor for the City to perform legal collections work. The case was originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. After successfully obtaining dismissal of the federal claims, the case was remanded to state court which dismissed the remaining state law claims.
*Results do not guarantee a similar result.
Defense Digest, Vol. 26, No. 3, October 2020 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin 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. © 2020 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.