On the Pulse…Our Litigation Achievements...We Are Proud of Our Attorneys for Their Recent Victories*

Casualty Department

Kevin Hexstall and Mohamed Bakry (Philadelphia, PA) successfully litigated a complex asbestos case and obtained a non-suit on behalf of their client, a manufacturer of asbestos-containing building materials. The case involved a deceased 71-year-old mesothelioma plaintiff. There was an initial seven-figure dollar demand from plaintiff’s counsel. The lawsuit alleged the plaintiff was exposed to asbestos when employed as a construction product salesman by a renowned manufacturer of building materials from 1967 to 1972. The plaintiff died before being deposed, but his wife served as the product identification witness. She testified that she would often go out to job sites with her husband when he supervised the work being performed using his company’s products. She stated that he was exposed to asbestos-containing joint compound when he would perform product demonstrations and when he inspected the trade work being performed on various job sites. She also claimed he would come into contact with laborers at different construction sites who were using joint compound manufactured by various similar companies. She testified that she believed the laborers regularly mixed, applied, sanded, created dust and cleaned such joint compound in her husband’s presence. The plaintiff’s diagnosis was pericardial mesothelioma, the rarest form of this type of cancer, comprising less than one percent of all mesothelioma diagnoses. Three witnesses were presented by the plaintiff in her case-in-chief: a causation expert; an occupational medicine physician who is also an epidemiologist; the plaintiff’s widow; and the plaintiff’s daughter. The widow and daughter presented very emotional testimony on the issue of damages. The plaintiff’s expert witness opined that all forms of mesothelioma are caused by asbestos exposure and that the plaintiff’s occupational exposure to joint compound contributed to his development of pericardial mesothelioma. On cross-examination, this expert admitted that he had no personal experience with products and industrial hygiene. He also admitted that he never tested products, such as joint compound, and has no knowledge regarding any products’ asbestos content or fiber release. He finally revealed that, although he had been a plaintiff’s expert since the 1980s, he had never testified in a pericardial mesothelioma case. At the close of the plaintiff’s case-in-chief, the defense made an oral motion for non-suit, arguing the widow’s testimony did not provide sufficient evidence as to frequency, regularity, or proximity of any product manufactured or supplied by the manufacturer; thus, there was no evidence of record which would establish the plaintiff’s prima facie case. The defense also argued that the plaintiff’s expert’s opinions failed to establish a causal link between pericardial mesothelioma and asbestos exposure. After hearing detailed arguments from both sides, the judge granted the manufacturer’s motion for non-suit.

Christopher Santoro (Philadelphia, PA) obtained a unanimous 12-0 defense verdict after a two-week trial in Santa Fe County, New Mexico, where the plaintiff was seeking approximately $40 million in damages. In this asbestos litigation case, it was alleged that the decedent contracted mesothelioma and died at the age of 76 as a result of being exposed to asbestos-containing joint compound manufactured and sold by our client. The decedent worked as an electrician for 40 years and contended he worked in the vicinity of drywall workers at various commercial worksites throughout Albuquerque and New Mexico. The plaintiff claimed that our client’s joint compound was defective because it was sold without a warning of the well-established dangers of asbestos. Further, the plaintiff argued that our client was negligent because it knew or should have known of the dangers of asbestos, which were readily known from as early as the 1930s. The defense argued that the asbestos fiber used in our client’s joint compound was safe because the fibers were short fibers and not known to increase the risk of disease. It was further argued that our client acted reasonably and in a timely manner when it placed a government-mandated warning on their product in the early 1970s. Lastly, it was argued that the only product identification witness called by the plaintiff was not credible because he gave three depositions in 2017 and had not identified our client’s product. He first identified our client’s product during his fourth deposition in late 2019, when our client was the only remaining defendant. The jury found our client’s product was not defective, but that they were negligent. However, the jury found that the negligence was not a cause of the decedent’s mesothelioma.

Matthew Gray (Melville, NY) successfully argued and obtained a full dismissal of joint arbitration matters, totaling $63,405, filed against our insurance company client. ​The applicants filed these matters, claiming our client owed them for unpaid medical bills. The claimant was purportedly involved in a motor vehicle accident on February 4, 2018, and sought payment for medical treatments provided from March 8, 2018, through March 29, 2018. The applicants’ position was that the entire amount was owed as the bills were never paid and were improperly processed by our client. However, after arguments were presented at the arbitration hearing, no duty of coverage was found to be owed by our client. Our arguments—that the claimant withdrew his claims and was never in the subject vehicle—won the day. Therefore, the arbitrator found in full favor for the defense and denied the applicants’ joint claim.

Timothy Jaeger (Roseland, NJ) obtained summary judgment for a senior living community in a wrongful death action arising from a motor vehicle accident involving one of its residents. ​It was alleged that the facility failed to properly monitor and supervise its resident and wrongly permitted the resident to drive a vehicle.

Jessica Wachstein (Mount Laurel, NJ) obtained a defense verdict in Monmouth County, New Jersey in a underinsured motorist claim. ​The jury returned a verdict that the plaintiff did not meet the verbal threshold required to sustain a cause of action.

Janice Merrill (Orlando, FL) obtained summary judgment for a retailer of recreational vehicles. ​The plaintiff tripped over a tree root obscured by grass and leaves in a campsite and sustained a compression fracture of the spine.

Christopher Power (Melville, NY) was successful in having a false arrest case dismissed on summary judgment. ​Our client, an optometrist, owned an optometry store and noticed a $400 pair of sunglasses missing from a display. Upon reviewing the store’s surveillance video, the store manager recognized a customer. The video showed the customer taking the sunglasses off a shelf, looking around, then concealing them in an empty eyeglass case and placing the case in her purse. The manager called the customer, told her what the video showed, and explained that if she returned the glasses they would not call the police. The customer refused. The police were called, the video viewed and the client swore out a criminal complaint. The customer was subsequently arrested by the Nassau County Police Department. The District Attorney dismissed the criminal charges because the video did not show the customer leaving the store. The customer sued our client and the Nassau County Police Department for false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, libel and defamation. After depositions, motions for summary judgment were filed by both defendants and the video of the theft presented to the court. The court granted both motions and dismissed the suit.

Thomas Bracaglia and Angeline Panepresso (Philadelphia, PA) obtained dismissal of a national sorority and its local chapter in a negligence/dram shop case. ​This case was venued in the United States Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The plaintiff suffered severe personal injuries. Angeline authored the successful dispositive motions.

Daniel McDermott (Westchester, NY), Jay Hamad (New York, NY), and Christopher DiCicco (Mount Laurel, NJ) successfully obtained summary judgment, dismissing all claims against our client in a marine construction New York Labor Law case in the Supreme Court in Rockland County, New York. ​The case involved bodily injuries sustained by an employee of our client, a sub-subcontractor, at the site of the new Mario Cuomo Bridge. The property owner, general contractor and the subcontractor each cross-claimed and/or third-partied our client into the case. All sought contractual and common law indemnity and contribution pursuant to the terms and conditions of the various contracts. We argued, and the court agreed, that since there was no finding of negligence against our client in causing the injuries sustained by the plaintiff, the indemnification clauses were not implicated. The court found there was no evidence demonstrating that our client caused, in whole or in part, the injuries that the plaintiff sustained. The plaintiff and general contractor filed motions to reargue, which were denied.

Scott Ginsberg (New York, NY) obtained a dismissal at trial before the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County. ​The plaintiff, an acupuncture facility, alleged wrongful denial of personal injury protection/no-fault benefits relating to acupuncture services rendered to its assignee, a claimant, who sought benefits under the defendant-carrier’s policy. The trial judge granted dismissal of the complaint on the basis of the carrier’s defense that payments were issued in accordance with the applicable fee schedule and, therefore, nothing further was owed to the plaintiff.

Scott Ginsberg (New York, NY) successfully obtained summary judgment before the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County. ​The plaintiff had commenced an action seeking reimbursement of PIP benefits under the defendant-carrier’s policy for anesthesia rendered to the claimant during a surgical procedure. After establishing that the claimant failed to appear at multiple, duly scheduled independent medical examinations—a condition precedent to coverage—the complaint was dismissed.

Walter Kawalec and Carolyn Bogart (Mount Laurel, NJ) were successful in the New Jersey Appellate Division, which affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint under New Jersey’s Charitable Immunity Act. The defendant operated a shelter for battered women, their dependent children and the homeless. The plaintiff and her child were residents at the shelter and beneficiaries of its charitable goals when the plaintiff slipped and fell on ice at the shelter’s property. Plaintiff argued that she was not a beneficiary of the charity because she did administrative tasks and volunteered in the charity’s thrift store. However, the trial court and Appellate Division rejected those arguments, holding that the plaintiff’s presence on the defendant’s property was due to her being a resident beneficiary of the charity, not as a result of any volunteer work she may have performed for the defendant. Thus, because her volunteer activities were incidental to her residency at the shelter, the Charitable Immunity Act applied and the dismissal of the complaint was affirmed.

Health Care Department

Matthew Keris and Robert Aldrich (Scranton, PA) successfully obtained a defense verdict on behalf of a dentist in a dental malpractice action in Luzerne County. ​The plaintiff asserted causes of action for negligence and lack of informed consent. Regarding negligence, the plaintiff alleged the dentist used excessive force in extracting a lower third molar, thereby causing a fracture of the mandible and alleged permanent paresthesia. In response, the defense admitted that the mandible was fractured during the extraction but offered expert testimony that the fracture was an extremely rare complication and was not caused by negligence. The defense argued there was no evidence of the use of excessive force, such as TMJ disorders or dislocation, lacerations or broken adjacent teeth. As for informed consent, the plaintiff argued the dentist did not obtain informed consent because he did not discuss the risk of fracture. The dentist testified that he discussed the possibility of permanent numbness as a risk, but he admitted that fracture was a risk of the extraction and that he did not discuss this risk because the chances of it occurring were astronomically low. The plaintiff’s and the defendant’s experts both agreed that the chances of a fracture occurring were less than 0.0009%. The defense gained a significant advantage by attacking the plaintiff’s expert’s credibility, using prior inconsistent testimony from transcripts of the expert taken by Jeffrey Bates (Philadelphia, PA) and Lynne Nahmani (Mount Laurel, NJ) a few years earlier. The jury returned a defense verdict on all causes of action in less than one hour.

William Banton and Adam Fulginiti (Philadelphia, PA) obtained a dismissal in a nursing home malpractice case. ​After removing the case to federal court, the Eastern District Court of Pennsylvania judge granted our motion to dismiss the case on all counts, with prejudice.

Professional Liability Department

Melissa Gullo (Mount Laurel, NJ) successfully obtained a withdrawal of claims against our insurance company client based on lack of jurisdiction. This claim involved a demand for reimbursement to a claimant-medical provider for a multitude of pain management procedures rendered to our insured following a motor vehicle accident. Our client’s policy was issued in Delaware to our Delaware resident-insured, and the motor vehicle accident took place in Pennsylvania. The only connection to New Jersey was the location of the treatment in dispute. The claim was at all times handled pursuant to Delaware policy provisions and regulations. We submitted our defense brief, asserting lack of jurisdiction in New Jersey based on the fact that the applicable statute did not apply to reform any substantive elements of the policy. In turn, the place of the contract, Delaware, was controlling with regard to choice of law, and New Jersey ultimately lacked jurisdiction to proceed. Based on our defense submission, the claimant withdrew their demand in its entirety.

Jennie Philip and James Cole (Philadelphia, PA) obtained summary judgment in favor of an insurer relative to a fire that had occurred in 2013. ​The plaintiff sued her homeowners insurance carrier for bad faith, breach of contract, and negligence arising out of a rental property fire in Maine. Policy coverage issues were prominent, including: Maine’s definition of actual cash value; whether an insurance company may depreciate labor; whether an insured is entitled to replacement cost if the property was never repaired; whether fair rental value coverage continues in excess of the period of restoration due to a valuation dispute; whether a direct-write carrier owes a duty to recommend certain coverages during the underwriting process; and whether these actions trigger a breach of Maine’s Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act. When Jennie and Jim took over this case in October 2017, apart from expert depositions, discovery was closed. After filing their motion for summary judgment in October 2018, the plaintiff filed a series of motions to remand the case to state court, raising for the first time the argument that the federal court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. After many unsuccessful attempts to procedurally attack the case, Plaintiff fired her third lawyer and proceeded pro se. In the end, the court granted summary judgment.

Isabel Andreacchi (Fort Lauderdale, FL) successfully obtained an appraisal award in favor of our insurance company client. The plaintiff, a roofing company, filed suit in state court seeking damages under an assignment of benefits. The plaintiff sued to replace the roof, claiming it was damaged as a result of Hurricane Irma. Based upon its investigation, the defendant issued a denial of the plaintiff’s claim on the basis that the roof was not damaged by the hurricane. The plaintiff retained a general contractor as its expert to write a report and to create an estimate totaling $86,000. At arbitration, the defendant maintained its denial and argued the deficiencies in the plaintiff’s expert report. The arbitrator found no basis for recovery by the plaintiff from the defendant.

Isabel Andreacchi (Fort Lauderdale, FL) successfully obtained summary judgment at Circuit Court in Broward County in favor of our client, an insurance company. The plaintiff reported a claim as a result of an air conditioning leak. The defendant attempted to exercise its option to repair, but the plaintiffs filed suit instead. The defendant prevailed on a motion to stay, and the plaintiffs were compelled to permit the insurance carrier to make the repairs, which were completed to the plaintiffs’ satisfaction. However, the plaintiffs refused to dismiss the case, claiming entitlement to attorney’s fees and costs. In its motion for summary judgment, the defendant argued that it complied with the conditions of the policy and that the plaintiffs could no longer maintain a cause of action or obtain attorney’s fees and costs. Days prior to the hearing, the plaintiffs attempted to delay by filing a motion to amend the complaint to add an additional count for bad faith based upon a civil remedy notice they had filed. The court found in favor of the defendant and granted the motion for summary Judgment.

Jack Slimm (Mount Laurel, NJ) obtained an order for summary judgment from the Superior Court, Law Division in an action involving claims brought by an insured against his homeowner’s carrier and the public adjusting company that adjusted a loss in which the insured’s premises were destroyed in a fire.

Aaron Moore and Alesia Sulock (Philadelphia, PA) obtained dismissal of all claims against their attorney client in a consumer rights lawsuit. ​The plaintiff was named as a defendant in a debt collection action for failing to pay her attorney’s legal bills. Judgment was entered against her but never fully enforced. More than five years later, our client filed a praecipe to issue writ of revival and then mistakenly filed a praecipe for writ of execution before the judgment was revived by the court. Although the sheriff’s sale of the plaintiff’s home never proceeded, she nonetheless sued our client for due process violations, abuse of process, conspiracy, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act. Most of the claims were dismissed early in the proceedings. Thereafter, we successfully argued in a summary judgment motion that the plaintiff failed to adduce evidence that our client acted in a manner to harass, oppress or abuse her, or that our client engaged in any other activity in violation of the FDCPA or FCEUA. The court agreed and dismissed the plaintiff’s remaining claims.

Jack Slimm and Jeremy Zacharias (Mount Laurel, NJ) successfully argued pre-trial motions to dismiss in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Camden County in a matter involving a $10 million tortious interference and defamation case filed on behalf of investors against an attorney and bank counsel arising out of a multi-million dollar loan for a commercial land transaction. The allegations against the attorney included slander, for allegedly calling the plaintiff a “wannabe gangster” in front of a potential investor, and a claim for tortious interference, with prospective economic advantage for a contract that the plaintiff entered into with the investor. First, in connection with the slander claims, Jack and Jeremy argued that calling someone a “wannabe gangster” in the course of settlement negotiations is protected by the litigation privilege. Additionally, allegedly calling the plaintiff a “wannabe gangster” was mere name calling and not actionable defamation. Jack and Jeremy argued that the established case law in New Jersey holds that this pejorative was simply name calling and did not rise to the level of actionable defamation or slander in New Jersey. The court agreed and dismissed the defamation claims. Additionally, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s tortious interference claim, rejected the claims of willful misconduct of the bank’s attorney and found that the plaintiff’s damages claims, although supported by expert reports, were speculative. The court agreed with the defense argument that the plaintiff’s claims for lost profits were barred by New Jersey’s New Business Rule. Under the New Business Rule, prospective profits of a new business are considered too remote and speculative to meet the legal standard to recover damages. As a result, the court entered a dismissal of the entire case.

Jack Slimm (Mount Laurel, NJ) tried a complex chancery action in Superior Court, Ocean County. ​Jack successfully defended an estate planning attorney in connection with claims brought by a diocese against the attorney, a bank, an investment company and a local university. The diocese sought to apply the Cy Pres Doctrine and also sought an order finding that the attorney breached fiduciary duties to the decedent’s estate and to the beneficiaries in connection with disbursements made to the university for millions of dollars, which will occur into the future as well. Our client not only served as the estate planning attorney, but also as a trustee under the decedent’s will. The diocese alleged that the trustees failed to make distributions pursuant to the will and favored the university over the diocese. After trial, the court rejected the diocese’s claims and refused to apply the Cy Pres Doctrine to provide excess income distributions to the diocese.

Danielle Vugrinovich (Pittsburgh, PA) obtained summary judgment in favor of a state actor food service company that provides services to correctional facilities and their employees. ​The Section 1983 lawsuit was filed by two represented prisoners, who claimed that another employee sexually assaulted them while they worked in a prison kitchen. The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit alleging claims pursuant to Section 1983 for the violation of their Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights against the county, 10 of its prison employees, the client food service company, its employee and its former employee. The plaintiffs argued they were subjected to oral and anal rape, sexual harassment and other sexual abuse perpetrated by a former food service employee. They also alleged negligence-based claims, arising out of the alleged breached duties under theories of failure to train, supervise and report such allegations. Default judgment was entered against the former employee alleged to be the perpetrator. Danielle filed motions for summary judgment on behalf of the food service company and the food service worker to whom the plaintiffs claimed that they “reported” the incidents. The magistrate granted the motion on behalf of the food service company but denied the motion filed on behalf of the employee. Danielle filed objections to the magistrate’s report and recommendation on behalf of the food service employee. Ultimately, the district court judge modified the magistrate’s decision and ruled in favor of Danielle’s client, dismissing not only the federal claims against her but also the negligence-based claims.

Patrick Boland and Mark Kozlowski (Scranton, PA) obtained summary judgment on behalf of a local municipality and police sergeant. The plaintiff’s wife reported to police that the plaintiff tried to kill her by firing a shotgun at her while she slept. Following a thorough investigation and witness interviews, the police arrested the plaintiff and charged him with attempted murder. The next day, the wife recanted her story and told police that she was the one who fired a shotgun in the couple’s home in an effort to frame her husband for attempted murder. Police immediately had the plaintiff released from prison. The wife was later charged with, and pleaded guilty to, making false statements to authorities. Thereafter, the plaintiff sued the police department and arresting officer, claiming the defendants falsely arrested and imprisoned him and maliciously prosecuted him without probable cause in violation of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Following discovery, a motion for summary judgment was filed on behalf of the defendants. The court found that the undisputed facts of record clearly showed the existence of probable cause at the time of arrest, and summary judgment was granted in favor of the defendants.

Joseph Santarone and Kyle Heisner (Philadelphia, PA) obtained a defense verdict in a jury trial in Montgomery County. ​Joe took the case case over shortly before trial. The matter had only been assigned to our firm after discovery was over and summary judgment denied. Joe and Kyle represented a water company in a breach of contract and defamation case brought by a contractor who had a three-year agreement with our client to service the water system, make repairs, and perform installations. After 11 months, our client terminated the contract. The plaintiff would not move off of a $1.4 million demand, so the $107,000 in settlement authority we had was never offered. We were able to show at trial that the termination of the contract was “with cause” and therefore proper. The defamation claims were dismissed at the final pre-trial conference pursuant to the little-used Rule 212.3. Kyle handled the direct and cross of two CPAs who testified as experts, provided timely research, and assisted during the trial.

Sharon O’Donnell (Harrisburg, PA) and Thomas Specht (Scranton, PA) obtained a defense verdict after a one-week trial in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The case involved alleged race, gender and “intersectional” (race and gender) discrimination claims (10 total claims) by two African-American women against a Philadelphia-area school district. It was argued by the defense that the school district reasonably exercised its business judgment and that the plaintiffs’ claims were grounded in speculative beliefs and conjecture. The jury rendered its verdict in favor of the school district on all claims after a few short hours of deliberations. Plaintiffs’ demands in the case had been exorbitant.

Workers’ Compensation Department

Angela DeMary, Kiara Hartwell and Bob Fitzgerald (Mount Laurel, NJ) obtained a defense verdict for a prominent health care system. ​The petitioner filed a motion for additional medical and temporary disability benefits, essentially alleging she was permanently and totally disabled from prior compensable shoulder and leg injuries. After a three-day trial and extensive briefing, the judge dismissed the motion. He determined that, despite the compensable injuries, the petitioner had plateaued medically and was not entitled to any further benefits.

Michele Punturi (Philadelphia, PA) successfully defended a claim petition on behalf of a renowned local hospital. ​The claimant, an ultrasound technician, alleged right hand tendonitis, ulnar neuropathy, and right thumb trigger finger due to the repetitive nature of her job duties and resultant cumulative trauma. The defense presented fact witnesses from the employer who demonstrated a discrepancy with the date of injury, lack of notice that any complaints were related to her job duties, text messages demonstrating activity and complaints occurring at places outside of work. All of the foregoing significantly challenged the claimant’s credibility on any alleged date of injury, causation and notice. The defense also presented multiple dates of surveillance, demonstrating no observable difficulty in using the alleged injured body part. The judge ultimately found the claimant not credible with respect to sustaining any work injury. The claim petition was denied and dismissed, and the defense was not liable for the significant litigation costs presented by the claimant. This case clearly demonstrates the significance of challenging the mechanism of injury with factual and medical evidence, securing any and all medical records, and demonstrating, through surveillance, that the claimant has engaged in activities contrary to any alleged disability and/or injury.

Tony Natale (Philadelphia, PA) successfully defended a Philadelphia-based university in litigation surrounding the efficacy of the Utilization Review system in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. ​The case is one of first impression at the lower court level and is destined to be the subject of appellate review action. The claimant treated with a well-known provider (pain specialist) and was prescribed narcotic medication. That medication was made the subject of a Utilization Review request and found to be unreasonable. The claimant appealed that determination, and the judge also found the medication unreasonable after very lengthy litigation. As a result, the provider referred claimant to his partner (another pain specialist), who prescribed the same narcotics. Since the Utilization Review provisions follow the provider as opposed to the treatment, the employer was required to file a new Utilization Review request on the same narcotic treatment that the judge and the previous URO found unreasonable. This time, the narcotics were found to be reasonable. Tony filed an appeal of this new determination (in the form of a petition to review) and argued that the new UR determination collaterally attacked the previous judge’s decision pertaining to the narcotic medication at issue. The Philadelphia Judge Supervisor presided over the case and concluded, as a matter of law, that the new UR Determination was an unlawful collateral attack on the previous judge’s decision. All narcotic treatment was deemed unreasonable.

Linda Wilson (Wilmington, DE) successfully defended a petition seeking to have a second injury deemed compensable. ​The claimant was previously found to have a compensable left knee injury and subsequently filed a petition, seeking to have a back injury deemed compensable due to an altered gait from the knee injury. Linda’s detailed direct examination of the medical experts and review of the claimant’s medical records proved that, although there were references to an altered gait, the claimant’s back injury was the result of an incident unrelated to the knee injury.

Linda Wilson (Wilmington, DE) also successfully defended a case in which the claimant sought to have an additional surgical procedure deemed compensable. As a result of a back injury sustained in 1998, the claimant had undergone three back surgeries and was seeking to have a fourth surgery based on testimony presented by a medical expert. Linda’s aggressive cross-examination of the claimant’s expert and presentation of testimony from a credible medical expert for the defense resulted in a a defense verdict.

Gregory Bartley (Roseland, NJ) successfully defended a case that was transferred from the insurance carrier’s staff counsel after litigation and motion practice. ​After a settlement offer in excess of $16 million was rejected, the case went to trial. At trial, Greg was able to prove that an uninsured subcontractor was hired by the general contractor, who was the actual employer of the injured worker. Under New Jersey Law, this means that the general contractor is responsible for the workers’ compensation benefits for the petitioner. The case was dismissed, with prejudice, and the general contractor was also ordered to reimburse the carrier approximately $2.8 million that they had paid out based upon a previous order to provide medical and temporary benefits to the petitioner.

Ashley Eldridge (Philadelphia, PA) obtained a defense verdict on a claim petition which alleged significant cognitive, spinal, and orthopedic injuries following a fall at work. The claimant fell from the second level of a mushroom house. There was no dispute as to the fall, nor that the claimant required hospitalization for multiple transverse process fractures in the lumbar spine. However, after approximately three months of treatment, the claimant was released to full-duty work, at which point, the claim was denied. A claim petition was filed, alleging not only total disability, but also a multitude of additional cognitive, spinal and orthopedic injuries. Ashley presented the testimony of the claimant’s treating physician, a neurosurgeon, and an orthopedic surgeon doctor, as well as fact witness testimony from the insured and an SIU investigator. Ultimately, although granting the claim petition for the time the claimant was in the hospital, the judge suspended benefits dating from a few weeks after the injury and granted a termination based upon the medical evidence presented by Ashley. The decision was the best possible outcome and an outright win for the employer.

Ashley Eldridge (Philadelphia, PA) and Audrey Copeland (King of Prussia, PA) obtained a defense verdict on appeal of a claim petition to the Commonwealth Court. ​Initially, Ashley successfully defended a bifurcated claim petition filed by the claimant, an independent contractor. Opposing counsel appealed, and the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board reversed and remanded the decision for evidence on the medical component of the claim. However, contrary to the defendant’s argument, on remand, the judge granted the claim petition, finding she was “constrained” to reaffirm the Board on the independent contractor issue. The defendant once again appealed, and the Board re-affirmed the claim petition. Audrey and Ashley took the case up on appeal, and the Commonwealth Court agreed that the record did not demonstrate a “high level of control” such that an employment relationship had been established. Accordingly, the court reversed the order affirming the claim petition.

*Prior Results Do Not Guarantee A Similar Outcome

_{Defense Digest, Vol. 26, No. 2, June 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.}