Results

We obtained a defense verdict in a wrongful death claim in Northampton, Massachusetts. ​This case involved an OB/GYN who allegedly was negligent in his use of a medical device to extract a fibroid uterus. The device spread cancer throughout the peritoneum, which then metastasized throughout the body for a long, drawn-out demise. With a demand close to $20 million, Marshall Dennehey was brought into the case to evaluate whether any defense was possible. The matter went to trial and lasted several weeks.

We prevailed at the trial court level and on appeal in a medical malpractice action filed against a Florida hospital and three of its trauma/critical care physicians. ​It was alleged that the patient was overmedicated with narcotics during her 64-day hospital stay, resulting in acute respiratory failure and other complications, which caused her death. The plaintiff’s sole expert on liability and causation was a retired internal medicine physician.

In this medical malpractice action, the defendant, a New York doctor with no connection to New Jersey, was sued in New Jersey by a former patient who was a New Jersey resident. The court first found that the defendant did not waive consideration of the issue by waiting until after a dispute concerning the sufficiency of the affidavit of merit was resolved. The court then found that the evidence presented by the plaintiff was simply insufficient to establish either general or specific jurisdiction.

We obtained summary judgment on behalf of a commercial tenant in a premises liability case. The plaintiff brought suit against our client, the commercial landlord and the City of Newark. The plaintiff alleged that the parties failed to maintain a condition of the sidewalk that caused a trip and fall.

We obtained summary judgment in a complex New York Labor Law case. Our client was the construction manager on the site of a library construction. ​The plaintiff, a painter, fell when the ladder upon which she was working allegedly twisted. Our client argued it was not a “contractor” under the Labor Law and its contract specifically stated he was not responsible for the method and means of work performed by prime contractors.

We obtained a defense verdict in a Bucks County case on behalf of a driver despite his conviction for driving at the time under the influence of alcohol and drugs. The accident occurred at an intersection controlled by a flashing traffic light. The defendant was traveling in the direction of the yellow flashing light. The plaintiff testified that he stopped at the painted stop block for the red flashing light.

Prevailed at trial in Broward County in defense of a property management company of a tax-credit housing community in Lauderhill. The plaintiff, the corporate owner of the property, brought claims for negligence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and statutory breaches in the management and operation of the property. The case was litigated over seven years, and the plaintiff had sought millions of dollars in damages. After a week of the plaintiff’s testimony, and eviscerating cross-examinations, we were successful in obtaining a directed verdict.   

​The petitioner was seeking permanent and total disability, including lifetime medical and indemnity benefits, with a potential value of approximately $600,000. As part of his written opinion, the workers’ compensation judge indicated that he placed considerable weight upon the petitioner’s social media postings, which were procured through the defense’s efforts and successfully entered into evidence over the petitioner’s counsel’s objections.

The claimant had established that he had worked in the coal mining industry and was exposed to coal dust for a period over 17 years. ​Medical evidence also established that the miner did indeed have coal workers’ pneumoconiosis (Black Lung).

The plaintiff, a suspended high school principal, claimed that the Pennsylvania Sunshine Act had been violated when the doors to the administration building had been locked at the start of the first day of her termination hearing. The court considered the issues of whether a plaintiff is denied a right under the Pennsylvania School Code when access to the hearing room by the public is barred, and whether a public hearing qualifies as “official action” within the meaning of the Sunshine Act.