CASUALTY DEPARTMENT
Kevin Hexstall (Philadelphia), Alicia Calaf (Roseland), and Patricia McDonagh (Roseland) secured a no-cause verdict on behalf of a national home improvement retailer in a personal injury action. The plaintiff alleged that on May 20, 2019, she was injured at one of the retailer's stores when an associate moved a lumber cart, causing a PVC pipe to fall and strike her head and right shoulder. She claimed permanent traumatic brain injury, concussion, and spinal injuries, supported by her orthopedic and neurologic experts. Our defense orthopedic and neurologic experts testified that the plaintiff's reported symptoms were more consistent with malingering or a somatoform disorder. After a one-week trial and approximately 45 minutes of deliberation, the jury unanimously found the defendant was not negligent.
Neda Salamzadeh (New York) successfully obtained spoliation sanctions in a motor vehicle accident case involving disputed liability. Despite multiple preservation requests and a court order, the plaintiffs failed to preserve the vehicle and its electronic data, which defendants argued was critical to determining how the collision occurred. The court granted the motion in part, ordering a negative inference charge against the passenger-plaintiff at trial and precluding all plaintiffs from offering liability expert testimony.
Kimberly A. House and Olivia R. O'Reilly (both of Philadelphia), successfully obtained an arbitration verdict in a premises liability matter. The plaintiff alleged that the hatch door that led downstairs to the basement of our client's bodega was left open by the staff. The plaintiff claimed that he stepped in the hole and fell, causing his injuries. The plaintiff tried to move this case to the Major Jury Program because he had a frozen shoulder. Kim and Olivia opposed the motion to transfer venue, and his motion was denied. At arbitration, they argued their client was an out-of-possession landlord with no liability, and the arbitration panel found in their favor.
Mark Wellman and Elizabeth Guariglia (both of New York) successfully secured a venue change in a motor vehicle accident case. The plaintiff filed suit in Queens County, arguing venue was proper based on the defendant company's purported Queens location. The defense demonstrated that Queens was not a proper venue, as the accident occurred in Westchester County and the relevant parties were located elsewhere. The court granted the motion and transferred the case to Westchester County.
Jack Farrell, Dan Dolente, and Travis Talbot (all of Philadelphia) successfully obtained dismissal of a lawsuit in Philadelphia County on forum non conveniens grounds, allowing the plaintiffs to refile in Delaware. The case arose from a robbery and assault that occurred in Wilmington, Delaware, with the plaintiffs alleging negligent security against a bank. The defense demonstrated that Delaware was the more appropriate forum, as the plaintiffs, witnesses, underlying events, criminal proceedings, and medical treatment were all located there. Following a lengthy and contested venue dispute, including an appeal, the court granted the petition to dismiss.
Ashley Davis (Mount Laurel) obtained summary judgment in a breach of contract matter involving 41 separate small claims actions filed against our client arising from travel protection policies. The court consolidated the actions into a single matter. The plaintiff, acting by assignment from insureds, sought recovery under the policies' rental car damage provisions for alleged vehicle damages incurred by his rental car company. Ashley successfully argued that the majority of the assignments were invalid, depriving the plaintiff of standing to sue. She further argued that, even if the assignments were deemed valid, the plaintiff failed to comply with the policies' terms, conditions, and claim submission requirements, including conditions precedent to coverage. The court agreed and dismissed all claims against our client.
Adam Fogarty and Ashley Davis (both of Mount Laurel) obtained summary judgment in a construction site accident matter in which the plaintiff alleged he was injured after lifting a cover and falling into a hole at an active worksite. Our client was the owner of the building under construction at the time of the accident. Based on the contractual agreements and testimony of the parties involved, we successfully argued that the subcontractors and the plaintiff's employer were solely responsible for worker safety, supervision, and site conditions. We further argued that our client could not be held liable for the alleged negligence of independent contractors. The court agreed, finding that our client owed no duty to the plaintiff, and dismissed all claims against our client.
Pete Read and Elizabeth Guariglia (both of New York) obtained summary judgment dismissing all third-party claims against a local specialty contractor in a Brooklyn construction accident matter. The court rejected claims for contractual indemnification and failure to procure insurance, finding that an unsigned work proposal and estimate did not constitute an enforceable contract and contained no indemnification or insurance procurement obligations. The court also dismissed contribution claims after finding that the contractor neither owned the property nor supervised, controlled, or performed any work at the project site, having fully subcontracted the scope of work to another entity.
Kevin Hexstall (Philadelphia), Alicia Calaf (Roseland), Patricia McDonagh (Roseland), Dillon Payne (Philadelphia), and Kelly Dermody (Roseland) secured a unanimous defense verdict in a premises liability matter involving a national home improvement retailer. The plaintiff alleged that she developed Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS) following a fall in the retailer's parking lot in October 2022. She claimed that the incident necessitated significant ongoing medical treatment, including the implantation of a permanent spinal cord stimulator. The plaintiff sought substantial damages, including claims for extensive future medical care. The defense team successfully challenged the credibility of the plaintiff's allegations and expert testimony through rigorous cross-examination and the presentation of defense experts in forensic engineering, human factors, and pain management. The defense also demonstrated that the plaintiff's alleged condition was attributable to pre-existing medical issues rather than the incident at issue. Following a six-day trial, the jury deliberated for just 42 minutes before returning a unanimous verdict, finding no negligence on the part of the defendant.
Steven Christman and Allison Snyder (both of New York) obtained summary judgment prior to discovery in a premises liability action on behalf of a retail store tenant. The plaintiff alleged that she tripped and fell on a sidewalk abutting our client's retail store. The action was commenced against multiple defendants, including New York City, the owner of the premises, and the owners and managers of an adjacent property where the client leased storage space. On behalf of the tenant, we moved for summary judgment before any discovery had taken place. The motion was supported by an affidavit from the client establishing that it neither created the alleged sidewalk defect nor made any special use of the sidewalk that could give rise to liability. In opposition, the plaintiff did not offer evidence raising a triable issue of fact and instead argued that the motion was premature because discovery had not yet been conducted. The Supreme Court rejected the plaintiff's argument and granted summary judgment, dismissing all claims against our client, finding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that discovery might lead to evidence supporting liability.
Michael Salvati and Dylan Smith (Philadelphia) won summary judgment on behalf of our client in a premises liability action in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The plaintiff allegedly broke her leg after falling on an icy walking path outside the client's community center. Mike argued that the plaintiff's claims were barred by a liability waiver she had signed when applying for membership. The plaintiff denied that she signed the waiver. The court ordered targeted discovery and each side retained a handwriting expert. The Judge ultimately found that the defense had persuasively established that the signature was genuine, and the plaintiff's unsupported denials did not create a “genuine dispute" to defeat summary judgment.
Kevin Hexstall (Philadelphia) and Sara Mazzolla (Roseland) with assistance from Patricia McDonagh (Roseland), Tim Jaeger (Roseland), and Dillon Payne (Philadelphia), obtained a unanimous defense verdict in a New Jersey premises liability case involving claims of traumatic brain injury and significant cognitive impairment. The case arose after a six-foot drill bit weighing less than two pounds fell from a display and struck the plaintiff after an unidentified customer inadvertently bumped the shelving with a shopping cart. Although the plaintiff later underwent brain surgery to address two previously undiscovered, unruptured aneurysms, she alleged that the incident caused a concussion, post-concussion syndrome, and lasting cognitive deficits. The defense successfully demonstrated that the falling merchandise resulted from the unforeseeable actions of an unknown third party rather than any negligence by store employees. Through store surveillance video, witness testimony, and contemporaneous documentation, the defense established that the item had likely been misplaced by another customer and that there was no evidence any employee knew or should have known it posed a hazard. Expert testimony further established that the impact generated forces well below those typically associated with a concussion, while cross-examination of the plaintiff's medical experts highlighted alternative explanations for her claimed injuries, including the subsequent craniotomy. Following a six-day trial, the jury found no negligence on the part of the defendant, returning a 6-0 verdict in favor of the defense.
Robert McCormick and Evan Saltzman (both of Philadelphia) secured a unanimous defense verdict in a premises liability case in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas. The matter involved allegations arising from a claimed sidewalk defect near the Port Richmond section of Philadelphia. The plaintiff alleged that our client failed to properly maintain the sidewalk adjacent to its property and sought damages of $875,000. Following a three-day jury trial, the jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of the defense, finding that our client was not liable for the plaintiff's alleged injuries.
Ralph Bocchino and Robert McCormick (both of Philadelphia) obtained a dismissal with prejudice in a Philadelphia premises liability matter involving allegations of water intrusion and resulting property damage. The plaintiff alleged that water damage to her residence, beginning in December 2021, was caused by renovation work performed by neighboring property owners in the spring of 2021. Although our client resided within the same community, the properties were not adjoining, and our client had no involvement in the alleged renovation work or the events giving rise to the claim. Following a court-mandated settlement conference, defense counsel filed an unopposed motion for summary judgment establishing our client's non-involvement in the matter. The defense further supported its position with a signed and notarized affidavit of non-involvement, which was provided to all parties. Thereafter, the plaintiff circulated a stipulation dismissing our client from the action. The court granted the unopposed motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims against our client with prejudice.
Keith Andresen and Lucinda James (both of New York) Keith Andresen and Lucinda James (both of New York) secured the voluntary discontinuance of a premises liability action after uncovering evidence that undermined the plaintiff's claims. The defense obtained medical records and social media evidence that contradicted the alleged injuries, successfully challenged the plaintiff's deficient discovery responses, and obtained a conditional order of dismissal. After the plaintiff failed to comply with the court's order and faced a pending dismissal motion, the plaintiff voluntarily discontinued the case with prejudice.
Keith Andresen (New York) and Ashley Davis (Mount Laurel) secured a voluntary dismissal of all claims against their clients in a Labor Law matter in Suffolk County, New York. The plaintiff sustained injuries while working on a residential construction project at the insured homeowner's property. The plaintiff commenced suit under the New York Labor Law Sections 240(1), 200, and 241(6). The homeowners had hired a general contractor to complete an addition to their home, and the general contractor retained the plaintiff's employer as a subcontractor. The defense established early in the litigation that the homeowners were entitled to the Labor Law homeowner's exception because they did not direct, control, or supervise the work. After filing an early motion for summary judgment, the defense secured a stipulation of discontinuance as to their clients before any depositions were conducted, sparing the homeowners years of costly litigation.
Kevin McKeon and Eric Glass (both of Mount Laurel) successfully obtained dismissal of all claims against their client in a personal injury action arising from a December 22, 2021, workplace accident. The plaintiff alleged injuries sustained while unloading pharmaceutical products from a tractor trailer and sought to add the client as a defendant more than two years after the statute of limitations had expired. The defense demonstrated that records identifying the client as the shipper were available to the plaintiff's employer before the limitations period expired, and argued that the plaintiff failed to exercise the diligence required to preserve claims against an unidentified party. The court agreed and dismissed all claims against the client as time-barred.
Gregory Kelley and Veronica Sansone (both of King of Prussia) obtained dismissal of multiple claims in a construction defect action arising from a residential construction project. The plaintiffs sought more than $750,000 in damages against a contractor and an architect, alleging construction defects and violations of Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. Through preliminary objections, Veronica and Greg successfully secured dismissal of four causes of action against the architect—two with prejudice and two without prejudice, subject to the plaintiffs' right to file a factually specific amended complaint. Following the Chester County Court of Common Pleas' ruling, the plaintiffs approached the defense to settle the matter, resulting in an early resolution for less than one-third of the projected cost of defense and eliminating the need for an amended complaint.
Michael Philippou (New York) secured a Master Arbitration award in a New York No-Fault Insurance arbitration, upholding a lower arbitration award which dismissed claims in favor of our client. The applicant/medical provider sought reimbursement for medical services allegedly rendered, and unpaid, through New York's No-Fault Insurance system. At the lower arbitration hearing, Michael secured a dismissal on the basis that our client properly paid claims in accordance with the New York No-Fault law and corresponding fee schedule for the subject services. The applicant/medical provider commenced an appeal through the Master Arbitration process, asserting that it never actually received payments and that the lower arbitrator's dismissal was arbitrary, capricious, and irrational. Michael successfully argued that the applicant/medical provider effectively sought a de novo review of the facts and evidence, which is not within the purview of a Master Arbitrator. Michael further successfully argued that the lower arbitrator's dismissal was rational, logical, and consistent with the evidence submitted in the lower arbitration. The Master Arbitrator agreed with these points and affirmed the lower arbitration award in favor of our client.
HEALTH CARE DEPARTMENT
Jessica Wachstein and Dylan Trochtenberg (both of Mount Laurel) achieved summary judgment in a slip-and-fall matter that took place in a nursing home. The plaintiff filed suit after suffering a fall while transferring a resident at our client's facility, where the plaintiff worked as a nurse. The plaintiff alleged injuries to his neck and nose, which required a cervical epidural injection and a septoplasty procedure. The plaintiff subsequently filed a workers' compensation claim, and actually settled same prior to filing suit in this instant action. After taking the deposition of the plaintiff, we filed a motion for summary judgment, stating that his claims should be barred by the Workers' Compensation Act. After oral argument, our motion was granted, and all claims were dismissed with prejudice.
Megan Nelson (Orlando) achieved an order granting a Florida Probate Rule 5.900 petition for expedited judicial intervention concerning medical treatment procedures in a guardianship case. Despite being medically cleared for transfer to a skilled nursing facility, the patient's co-guardians refused to cooperate with the Medicaid application process, provide required financial documentation, or participate in discharge planning. Following an evidentiary hearing, the court granted Megan's petition and ordered the co-guardians to take the necessary steps to facilitate the patient's discharge. When they continued to ignore the court's directives, the court appointed an emergency temporary co-guardian, who promptly completed the required application process, allowing the patient to move toward placement in an appropriate care facility.
Suzanne Utke, with the assistance of Tyler Price (both of Philadelphia), obtained a defense verdict on behalf of an addiction medicine psychiatrist following a 12-day Philadelphia trial arising from the overdose death of a 26-year-old patient. The decedent, who had a history of chronic pain treatment and alleged opioid addiction, was referred to the client for detoxification and rehabilitation treatment. After completing a detox program, he was scheduled to begin Vivitrol therapy, but was found deceased days later. Toxicology testing revealed the presence of multiple substances, including heroin, fentanyl, morphine, Valium, and xylazine. Following two days of jury deliberations, the jury found the client was not negligent. While negligence was attributed to a co-defendant physician and the decedent, the jury assigned 65% of the fault to the decedent, resulting in no recovery for the plaintiffs.
Gary Samms, Adam Fulginiti , and Ryan Harvie (all of Philadelphia) successfully obtained a defense verdict during arbitration in a medical malpractice case involving complex foot reconstruction surgery. The plaintiff alleged that the surgery was improperly planned and performed, resulting in foot misalignment and the need for three subsequent corrective procedures. The defense demonstrated that the plaintiff presented with a lengthy history of severe foot problems and related orthopedic issues, requiring a highly complex surgical procedure with known risks and potential complications. Medical records, operative documentation, and imaging confirmed that the surgery was performed appropriately and in accordance with the standard of care. The defense further established that the plaintiff's postoperative issues were recognized risks and outcomes associated with the procedure. The arbitration panel returned a verdict in favor of the client.
Dylan Trochtenberg and Jessica Wachstein (both of Mount Laurel) successfully obtained a motion to dismiss for failure to serve an appropriate affidavit of merit (AOM) in a medical malpractice case. The plaintiff's decedent was a resident of our client, a nursing home, from May 19, 2023, through May 28, 2023. The plaintiff alleged that, as a result of the negligent care provided by our client and the co-defendant, the decedent developed wounds and ultimately passed away on September 13, 2023. The plaintiff brought claims of medical malpractice and wrongful death against all defendants. We had previously filed a motion to dismiss the malpractice claims due to failing to file within the statute of limitations, which was granted on January 16, 2026. At that time, only the wrongful death claim persisted. The plaintiff provided only an AOM from a geriatric physician and failed to serve any from experts in the field of nursing standard of care or nursing home administration, even after the Ferreira Conference. We moved to dismiss due to failure to serve the appropriate or required AOMs.
Adam Fulginiti and Ryan Harvie (both of Philadelphia) obtained a dismissal for all claims asserted against a nonprofit mental health services provider in Bucks County, Pennsylvania. The claims by a former resident and treatment recipient spanned multiple years and were asserted across separate actions. The claimant alleged various tort-based causes of action arising from their residency and interactions with staff. We obtained an initial dismissal in one of the two matters through a motion for judgment on the pleadings and subsequently leveraged that ruling to file a vexatious litigant motion in the second action, which the court granted. The latter order effectively bars the plaintiff from initiating any future litigation against our insured or its employees involving the same or related claims. This outcome brings finality to protracted litigation and protects the client from continued repetitive and meritless claims, which had caused them significant reputational and financial losses.
Gary Samms (King of Prussia) secured a non-suit in a hotly contested matter with a pre-trial demand of $7 million dollars regarding the death of a neurologist after complications from a green light procedure for prostate issues. Plaintiffs contended thermal injury occurred, as well as a bladder perforation, infection, bladder removal and ultimately death and argued the hospital did not act appropriately and failed to have appropriate policies and procedures regarding the use of warm saline during the procedure. The corporate and direct negligence theories failed after Gary's cross-examination of their expert on voir dire determined that the plaintiff's expert was not qualified to offer opinions on hospital policies and procedures. Successful cross-examination had already occurred regarding the pathologist involved in the autopsy and the urologist who performed the procedure. The granting of a non-suit is a rarity at trial.
Maura Brady, Julia A. Klubenspies, Karen L. Kankula, and Jennifer Polowchena (all of Roseland) obtained a defense verdict in a medical malpractice action involving allegations of anesthesia negligence during emergency surgery. The plaintiff, a 43-year-old woman, presented to the hospital in septic shock seven days after undergoing a robotic hysterectomy and required emergency surgery. She alleged that she aspirated during intubation, causing complications that ultimately resulted in lower extremity gangrene and the loss of all 10 toes. The defense disputed that aspiration occurred, pointing to the patient's stable vital signs and end-tidal CO₂ readings during the procedure, and argued that the toe amputations were caused by the severe sepsis she had upon arrival at the hospital rather than the anesthesia care provided. Despite a $12 million demand, no settlement offers were made. Following a six-week trial in Hudson County, New Jersey, the jury unanimously returned a defense verdict in favor of the defense.
Jack Farrell (Philadelphia), Holli Archer (Philadelphia), Charmaine Pinckney, Jennifer Cicchetti, and Maureen Wagner (Philadelphia) obtained a defense verdict in a medical malpractice action arising from the death of a 63-year-old patient following a cardiac ablation procedure. The plaintiff, acting as administrator of the patient's estate, alleged that the defendants were negligent after the patient suffered a coronary artery dissection during the procedure, which ultimately led to her death. The defense established that coronary artery dissection is a well-known and accepted risk of cardiac ablation procedures and that the complication occurred through no fault of the electrophysiologist who performed the procedure. Following a four-day trial in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, the jury returned a unanimous defense verdict in just 20 minutes, finding in favor of the defense.
PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY DEPARTMENT
Danielle Robinson (Fort Lauderdale) and Brendan Smith (Orlando) successfully obtained a complete defense verdict in a breach of warranty case and appeal of a Florida Lemon Law arbitration decision. The plaintiffs alleged that a leased vehicle was a "lemon" and sought more than $500,000 in damages and attorney's fees under the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The defense successfully upheld a prior Florida New Motor Vehicle Arbitration Board ruling that the plaintiffs were not eligible for relief under the Florida Lemon Law because they did not qualify as consumers. After less than 90 minutes of deliberation, the jury returned a defense verdict on all claims. The plaintiffs recovered no damages, final judgment was entered in favor of the client, and the plaintiffs waived their right to appeal.
Len Leicht (Roseland), Kara Pullman (Philadelphia), and Mary Yurick (Philadelphia) achieved summary judgment on behalf of a New Jersey university and its former Provost in a claim brought under the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA). The plaintiff claimed that her position was eliminated in retaliation for “blowing the whistle" on the university's issues with international student visa compliance, and also on an alleged prostitution ring involving international students. We argued that the plaintiff's position was in fact eliminated as a result of the university's well-documented financial crisis. The court agreed and dismissed the plaintiff's complaint in its entirety, finding that while the plaintiff engaged in protected activity and experienced an adverse employment action, she could not establish pretext or cause.
Kimberlin Ruiz (Roseland) Kimberlin Ruiz (Roseland) successfully obtained a dismissal with prejudice in a legal malpractice action arising from the purchase of a used car dealership. The plaintiffs alleged that the attorneys who represented them in the stock purchase failed to uncover a previously undisclosed loan, which later resulted in litigation against the new owners. After the plaintiffs settled the underlying lawsuits, they brought malpractice claims against the estate of one attorney and a co-defendant. Following the court's dismissal of the claims against the co-defendant under New Jersey's Entire Controversy Doctrine, Kimberlin successfully argued that the same reasoning barred the claims against her client. The court agreed, applying both the Entire Controversy Doctrine and the Law of the Case Doctrine, and dismissed all claims against the client with prejudice.
Christopher Conrad and Daniel McGannon (both of Harrisburg) successfully had a discrimination claim dismissed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in Baltimore, Maryland. The claimant was a regional controller for our client, a large full-service electrical construction company with over 19 offices. The claimant struggled with interoffice relations with an array of employees across departments. Eventually, she was terminated after multiple incidents and reports by coworkers. After termination, the claimant alleged that she was fired based on her race, sex, and retaliation. We successfully argued that our client had significant documentation attributing the claimants termination to her inability to maintain professional decorum with colleagues despite multiple coaching and training opportunities pursued by management. The EEOC agreed, dismissing the discrimination complaint.
Ray Freudiger and Michael A. Roberts (both of Cincinnati) successfully obtained summary judgment on behalf of their client in a coverage dispute arising from a May 19, 2022 motor vehicle accident. A permissive driver, Driver M, operated a box truck for an interstate trucking company and caused severe injuries to two tort victims. Prior to the accident, the insured had procured a commercial auto policy for the trucking company with stated limits of $1,000,000. Following the accident, the insurer initiated a declaratory judgment action asserting that only reduced bodily injury limits of $25,000/$50,000 applied and later counterclaimed, alleging it would not have insured Driver M had he been properly submitted for approval under the policy. After extensive discovery, briefing, and oral argument, the court rejected the insurer's attempt to shift responsibility for the $750,000 in coverage it was legally required to provide for permissive drivers under Ohio law, granting summary judgment in favor of the insured and preserving $750,000 in liability exposure.
Aaron Moore (Wilmington and Philadelphia) won a motion to dismiss on behalf of our client, a provider of heavy lift helicopter construction services, from a plaintiffs' sole claim of aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty. The plaintiffs, shareholders of a large Delaware aeronautical company, claimed that the company's board of directors breached fiduciary duties owed to them by selling the company to our client for what was alleged to be less than value. Our client, the purchaser of the company, was alleged to have aided and abetted those breaches by offering employment opportunities in the company post-acquisition. The Delaware Court of Chancery held that the plaintiffs had not sufficiently alleged facts that, if proven, would give rise to liability as to our client. The court recognized the heightened pleading standard for an aiding and abetting claim brough against a third-party buyer.
Andrew Norfleet (Harrisburg) successfully obtained summary judgment in a federal civil rights lawsuit alleging false arrest and false imprisonment under the Fourth Amendment. The plaintiff claimed he was wrongfully arrested, but the defense demonstrated that the arresting officer had probable cause based on an on-scene identification made by another responding officer, who was also the victim of the underlying crimes. Both the trial court and the Commonwealth Court concluded that the arrest was based on a reasonable and reliable identification and that the officers acted appropriately under the circumstances. The courts further held that the officers were entitled to both federal and state law immunity, finding no evidence of malice, willful misconduct, or intentional wrongdoing. As a result, all claims against the client were dismissed.
Carol VanderWoude (Philadelphia) successfully obtained reversal of a trial court's order overruling preliminary objections as to venue. The plaintiff filed suit in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas alleging negligence for injuries sustained in a car accident. The accident occurred in Lebanon County between the plaintiff's vehicle and a school bus driven by an employee of defendant transportation company. The corporate defendant provided transportation services to school districts in Lebanon and Lancaster Counties, and had no clients in Philadelphia County. The trial court overruled the preliminary objections to venue, reasoning the act of transporting students into Philadelphia for approximately two-dozen field trips during the pertinent school year satisfied the quality-quantity venue analysis. The Superior Court disagreed. It was persuaded by the arguments raised on appeal and reversed. The court held that the field trips simply aided in the corporate defendant's main purpose of providing transportation services as directed by its clients located outside Philadelphia County, and that those field trips were not conducted regularly enough to satisfy the quantity portion of the venue analysis. The venue ruling was interlocutory and not appealable, but the Superior Court granted permission to immediately appeal the ruling so the venue issue could be resolved at the outset of the case.
Jack Slimm and Jeremy Zacharias (both of Mount Laurel) successfully defended one of New Jersey's largest and most well-respected law firms in an appeal filed by plaintiffs to the New Jersey Supreme Court. Plaintiffs were seeking to overturn the appellate division's decision which affirmed the orders and opinions of the trial court which dismissed the complex multi-party legal malpractice action against a large national developer, and our clients, a firm that represented various developers.
John Gonzales, Kimberly House, and Oswald Clark (all of Philadelphia) successfully achieved summary judgment in a case involving intentional infliction of emotional distress, abuse of process, and tortious interference. This case was brought by the plaintiff against his children's maternal grandparents. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants schemed and planned to use the judicial system to harm the plaintiff. All of the plaintiff's allegations arose out of a lengthy custody battle. After discovery closed in this matter, we moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to file any of his claims within the applicable statute of limitations. The court granted our motion and found that the plaintiff knew of the facts underlying his claims no later than November 2, 2020, which was more than two years before the action was filed. As such, the plaintiff's claims were barred by the statute of limitations and the trial court entered judgment in favor of the defendants.
Keith Andresen and Allison Snyder (both of New York) obtained a favorable decision from the Appellate Division, Second Department, compelling additional discovery in a premises liability action involving alleged knee injuries from two apartment trip-and-fall incidents. The plaintiff claimed the falls aggravated preexisting injuries, but the defense uncovered three additional motor vehicle accidents that had not been disclosed during discovery, including two that occurred before the alleged falls and one afterward. After the trial court denied the defendants' motion to compel records related to those accidents, Keith and Allison successfully appealed. The Appellate Division, Second Department reversed the lower court's decision and directed the plaintiff to provide authorizations for records related to the undisclosed accidents for in-camera review. The court agreed that the records could be relevant to the plaintiff's claims that the falls exacerbated preexisting injuries, reinforcing a defendant's right to obtain discovery concerning prior and subsequent accidents when the nature and extent of a plaintiff's injuries are at issue.
Jillian Dinehart (Cleveland) successfully obtained a unanimous defense verdict in an age discrimination/wrongful termination matter in Ohio. The plaintiff was the former clerk of courts, serving for 12 years under the same mayor. However, when the mayor won a re-election campaign in 2024, he ended her at-will employment. She alleged wrongful termination and age discrimination. To support her claim, she cited several text messages from 2021, a Facebook post, and a birthday card all containing age jokes referring to the plaintiff as older than her actual age. Additionally, she alleged that the mayor called her “a grandma" throughout her tenure. The plaintiff was replaced by an inexperienced clerk who was 20 years younger. The defense included the mutual nature of some of the jokes, the lack of supporting evidence of the alleged verbal remarks made over the years, and the political nature of the position that allowed for annual turnover. The jury of eight issued a defense verdict on all charges – wrongful termination, hostile work environment, and aiding & abetting.
John Osorio and Zipporah Ridley (both of Mount Laurel) obtained a directed verdict, dismissing all claims against a condominium association. The plaintiff, a condominium resident, sued the association alleging breach of contract; breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; breach of fiduciary duty; fraud; negligent misrepresentation; and slander. After several years of litigation proceedings, this matter went to trial in May 2026. Upon completion of plaintiff's case in chief, pursuant to R. 437-2(b), we filed a motion to dismiss based on plaintiff's own initial breach of the existing contract, failure to establish the condominium's breach, failure to substantiate her claims, failure to furnish expert testimony, and her own admittance that her only basis for her complaint was her own personal belief. The court granted our motion with prejudice.
Matthew Behr and Walt Kawalac (both of Mount Laurel) obtained an affirmation in a disability discrimination case in the New Jersey Appellate Division. The plaintiff was a custodian working for the county library. He was observed using a cane for knee issues. He was sent for a fitness-for-duty examination and the doctor determined that he was not fit for duty, and he was terminated as a result. The plaintiff alleged disability discrimination and failure to accommodate the claim under the NJLAD. We filed for summary judgment, which was granted by the trial court and affirmed by the Appellate Division.
Chris Woodward (Harrisburg) obtained dismissal with prejudice for all claims against an auto insurer. The insured had sued the insurer for an alleged non-renewal of her policy and asserted claims for breach of contract, insurance bad faith, and violation of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. The Western District agreed with all of Chris's arguments that the insured had failed to state any claim under any of her theories.
Sam Cohen (Philadelphia) and Jeremy Zacharias (Mount Laurel) obtained summary judgment on behalf of their client, a life insurance agent, who sold a disability policy to the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed that the policy was misrepresented to him, and that he was led to believe that if he was ever disabled, he could collect full benefits on the sold policy, as well as another supplemental disability policy he owned through another insurance carrier. When the plaintiff became disabled (nearly two decades after purchasing the initial policy), he discovered that the policies would offset each other to avoid over-recovery. He then filed a lawsuit against the insurance agent, as well as the insurance company, and the referral insurance agent was joined as a third-party defendant in the case. The plaintiff's demand was in excess of policy limits, and Sam and Jeremy successfully argued a lack of causation and damages to substantiate his claims that an offset would not apply in this case.
Josh Byrne and Megan Bershefsky (both Philadelphia) received summary judgment in Philadelphia on a matter where the plaintiff, a company and its owner, had accused an attorney of conspiring with their clients who were co-owners of the business to defraud the business. The court determined the plaintiffs were unable to support their bald allegations against the attorney and that any action taken by the attorney was protected by the judicial privilege doctrine.
Josh Byrne and Megan Bershefsky (both of Philadelphia) received dismissal of a disciplinary matter against an attorney who was accused by another attorney of improperly trying to solicit a client. They crafted a response to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel's Request For Statement of Position which established the attorney had previously been engaged by the victim's family, and that the complaining attorney had only reported half the story.
Josh Byrne (Philadelphia) received summary judgment in a Dragonetti action in Chester County where the court reconsidered a prior opinion denying summary judgment. The court determined that based upon the facts of the underlying matter and the fact that it survived dispositive motions and ended with a split jury verdict meant that probable cause existed as a matter of law.
Josh Byrne (Philadelphia) received a dismissal with a letter of concern of a 100+ paragraph Request for Respondent's Statement of Position (DB-7) issued by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. The DB-7 listed six alleged violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct and generally asserted that the attorney failed to respond to the client causing a major commercial transaction to be delayed. Josh and his client established that the delay was caused by the complaining client and his siblings' own disputes and normal transactional delays, and established that the attorney was very responsive in the face of a demanding client. A “letter of concern" does not constitute formal discipline.
Seth Altman (Fort Lauderdale), secured a voluntary dismissal with prejudice in a first-party property insurance coverage dispute arising from alleged Hurricane Ian damage. The plaintiff sought $195,000, claiming the hurricane caused extensive damage to the insured property. The defense demonstrated that the claimed losses stemmed from pre-existing conditions, including unrepaired damage from prior claims, roof deterioration, rot, and structural issues that existed before the storm. After aggressively defending the case, deposing the plaintiff, and presenting extensive documentary and photographic evidence, the plaintiff agreed to dismiss the case with prejudice prior to mediation. The matter was resolved with no payment made on behalf of the client.
Aaron Moore, Jeffrey Chomko , Kimberly Boyer Cohen , and Kerry Rodgers (all of Philadelphia) secured a mutual walk-away discontinuance after two years of contentious litigation on behalf of a homeowners association and members of its board of directors. The plaintiffs, who owned a unit within the development, asserted multiple claims and pursued an aggressive litigation strategy throughout the case. A pivotal victory came when Kimberly successfully obtained summary judgment dismissing all claims against the individual board members, significantly narrowing the case and eliminating the plaintiffs' leverage. Following that ruling, the parties agreed to a mutual walk-away discontinuance, bringing the litigation to a complete resolution without further proceedings.
WORKERS' COMPENSATION DEPARTMENT
Michele Punturi (Philadelphia) and Alana Staniszewski (Pittsburgh) successfully obtained the grant of a termination petition in a Pennsylvania workers' compensation case involving a hospital employee who claimed ongoing disability following a shoulder injury and multiple surgeries. The defense presented expert medical testimony establishing that the claimant had fully recovered from the work-related sprain/strain and that many of her ongoing complaints were unrelated to the work injury. Surveillance footage further contradicted the claimant's allegations of disability by showing her performing everyday activities without difficulty. The Workers' Compensation Judge found the defense evidence credible, granted the termination petition, and ended the claimant's entitlement to benefits.
A. Judd Woytek (King of Prussia) and John Abda (Scranton) successfully had a workers' compensation claim petition granted for medical benefits only for a close period with no wage loss awarded. The claimant alleged multiple injuries as the result of a very minor motor vehicle incident where a co-worker's delivery van rolled down an incline of approximately six feet, and bumped into the rear of the claimant's delivery van. He claimed he was thrown forward and suffered head and neck injuries, along with aggravating a pre-existing ankle injury. The claimant was also terminated following the accident for having a large hunting knife in his van, which was against the employer's workplace violence policy. The judge granted the claim for a mild concussion and an ankle contusion, but terminated medical benefits as of the date of our IME's. The judge found that no wage loss benefits were payable as the claimant was terminated for cause and work remained available to him. The judge found our medical experts to be more credible than the claimant's, along with finding our four employer witnesses to all be credible.
Ben Durstein (Wilmington) obtained a favorable decision in a workers' compensation matter in which the claimant fractured his patella in a work accident and required two surgeries. The IAB rejected the claimant's medical expert's opinion that he sustained a 25% permanent impairment to the right lower extremity. Instead, the board accepted the opinion of the employer's medical expert that the appropriate permanency was 13% utilizing the 6th Edition of the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment.
Eric Scott Thompson (Wilmington) successfully defended a Delaware workers' compensation claim involving allegations that a claimant's left knee condition and subsequent total knee replacement resulted from overuse caused by a compensable right knee injury. The Industrial Accident Board accepted the employer's medical evidence, finding the claimant failed to establish a causal connection between the left knee condition and the work injury. The Board also agreed that the claimant was capable of returning to sedentary work and that suitable employment opportunities were available. As a result, the claimant's entitlement to total disability benefits ended, and benefits were limited to partial disability.
Tony Natale III (King of Prussia) had a termination petition granted in a workers' compensation matter. The claimant sustained a lower back injury during his employment. He was treated by a physician who immediately referred him for a $6,500 per month steady diet of TENS unit and supplies. The employer filed a termination petition based on a full recovery opinion from an orthopedic surgeon. The claimant continued to treat during the litigation with the electronic supplies. Expert testimony demonstrated that the claimant had no reproducible lower back problems and had fully recovered from the work injury. We filed a termination petition, which the court granted for a complete defense verdict.
Tony Natale III (King of Prussia) successfully had a termination petition granted by the Berks County Workers' Compensation Court. The claimant suffered multiple upper extremity injuries which relegated him to light duty paper work. Several years later, the employer was able to retrieve a full recovery opinion on the hand/wrist and shoulder injuries. A termination petition ensued. The claimant presented testimony that he could not even raise a glass of water without pain. Medical expert testimony was presented by the employer, which shrouded the claimant's allegations of disability in serious doubt. The claimant's hands and arm had no muscular atrophy and were covered in dirt and callouses, demonstrating that he was working and using his hands. The court granted termination for a full defense verdict.
Tony Natale III (King of Prussia) successfully had a workers' compensation termination petition granted in a matter in which the claimant had an adjudicated right elbow injury. A termination petition was prosecuted, alleging full recovery. The claimant’s expert attempted to allege a different elbow injury than what had previously been adjudicated in order to defeat the termination petition. Res Judicata objections were sustained since the same expert tried to amend the nature of injury in previous litigation and was unsuccessful. The court then granted the employer's termination petition for a complete defense verdict.
Alana Staniszewski (Pittsburgh) successfully defended a claimant's appeal before the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (WCAB) following the denial of the claimant's petition for benefits. The Workers' Compensation Judge found the employer's surveillance footage and witness testimony more credible than the claimant's account and concluded that the claimant failed to establish a work-related injury. On appeal, the claimant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence and the WCJ's credibility determinations. Through briefing and oral argument, Alana successfully argued that the appeal improperly sought to overturn the WCJ's role as the sole arbiter of credibility. The WCAB agreed and affirmed the decision in its entirety, preserving the employer's complete defense victory.
Tony Natale (King of Prussia) successfully had a termination petition granted in a workers' compensation matter. The claimant sustained a work injury in the form of a “fractured back" when he slipped and fell on concrete during the course and scope of employment. Based on the opinions of a board-certified orthopedic surgeon, the claimant's condition improved to the point where it was clear that no objective findings on exam or diagnostic testing corroborated ongoing subjective complaints. The claimant pursued actions in both Pennsylvania and New Jersey. The claimant thumbed his nose at the court in Pennsylvania at two hearings and ultimately, expert testimony was presented on behalf of the carrier. The court found that the preponderance of the evidence supported full and complete recovery and the termination was granted in its entirety for a full defense verdict.
Tony Natale (King of Prussia) obtained a defense verdict in a workers' compensation case in Pennsylvania. The claimant sustained a work-related injury in the form of a bilateral knee strain during the course and scope of employment. She continued to treat for these injuries without cessation. She originally refused a job offer to return to work and continued treatment. A board-certified orthopedic surgeon who specializes in knee injuries examined her and found that despite the varied and somewhat bizarre subjective pain complaints, there were no objective corroborative findings to support ongoing injury or disability. Medical expert testimony was proffered and accepted by the court as credible, resulting in a full defense verdict.
