Results

In this case the plaintiff, after receiving legal invoices from our client, filed a legal malpractice complaint alleging fraudulent billing. At trial, the legal malpractice claims against our client were dismissed, leaving the fee claim we asserted in the counterclaim to be decided by the jury. The jury rendered a verdict in our favor within 15 minutes for the full amount of the invoices owed to the firm, $244,759.59.

We prevailed on a motion for summary judgment with respect to the applicability of a UIM “step down” clause. Following an accident with an underinsured tortfeasor, the underlying plaintiff sought UIM recovery under three policies, including one issued by our client with limits of $500,000. The defense successfully argued that our client’s UIM limits of $500,000 “stepped down” to the $100,000 UIM limits of the plaintiff’s own policy, pursuant to our client’s policy language. The Superior Court of New Jersey, Morris County, granted our motion. 

The plaintiff alleged she had been removed from her position as the Township Building Code Official and demoted to a lesser position in retaliation for testifying before a grand jury investigating allegations of misconduct involving a mixed-use apartment complex being developed within the Township.

We successfully defended a surgical center in a case involving the death of a 56-year-old woman after shoulder surgery. The plaintiff claimed that the procedure should not have been performed at the surgical center due to the decedent’s comorbidities. The plaintiff also claimed that the decedent was post-operatively given an overdose of opioids, which caused respiratory distress and death. The defense argued that the decedent was appropriately monitored after having been given pain medication and that her death was not a result of an opioid overdose.

We successfully prosecuted a suspension petition in a case of first impression in Pennsylvania. The claimant sustained a compensable mental injury while employed with the employer. Thereafter, he refused to attend an Impairment Evaluation after receiving 104 weeks of indemnity benefits due to his injury. The court initially issued an order compelling the claimant’s attendance. Nevertheless, the claimant maintained his refusal to attend the evaluation, citing the fact that he was COVID-19 positive and required to quarantine.

We obtained a favorable decision dismissing all claims and cross-claims brought against a car rental company in a motor vehicle accident case in Philadelphia. The plaintiff’s complaint alleged several injuries, and she sued several defendants, including our client, the rental car company that owned one of the vehicles involved in the accident.

The claimant was hit by a forklift while operating a forklift, and alleged the accident caused a back injury. Through employer witness testimony and medical testimony, we showed that the claimant did not sustain a back injury, and that her medical issues were pre-existing and unrelated to the accident. The judge found that the evidentiary evidence presented by the employer established that, even though the claimant was involved in a forklift incident, the claimant did not sustain a work injury, and her ongoing medical issues are unrelated to the forklift accident. 

The decedent died of a heart attack after a three-day, over-the-road run for the trucking company. The decedent’s dependents argued that the heart attack was caused by the rigors of the job. Although the decedent died as he was about to execute paperwork denoting his employment status as an independent contractor—he never signed the document. The case, therefore, proceeded to litigation in the Workers’ Compensation forum. Expert evidence was presented on the issue of whether the decedent’s job duties had any contribution to the death.

The petition was filed by the claimant before an administrative judge. The claimant alleged he was entitled to reinstatement of indemnity benefits after he voluntarily stopped working due to hand pain. We argued the light-duty position available and offered to the claimant was a one-handed position, and presented employer fact witness testimony and video of the light-duty job in rebuttal.

The parties were litigating a motion for medical treatment in which a physician was recommending an additional spinal surgery. The physician moved forward without authorization and performed spinal surgery on the petitioner. In order to complete the surgery, the physician brought in several ancillary services, including a vendor to perform diagnostic monitoring during the surgery. Following the surgery, the medical provider submitted its bills to the carrier, which were rejected based upon the lack of authorization.