Results

We successfully defended a Claim Petition on behalf of a national trucking company where the claimant alleged a disabling aggravation of a pre-existing cervical condition from a fall at work. Our thorough review of the medical records and the presentation of the evidence convinced the judge that the claimant did not meet his burden of proof on causation.

We secured a defense verdict on behalf of an extended care facility in a medical malpractice case. The plaintiff alleged negligence regarding the development and progression of certain wounds that the plaintiff’s decedent developed throughout her treatment at various medical facilities. The evidence presented to the jury supported the argument that the decedent’s wounds occurred prior to her arrival at the insured’s facility and that, while at the facility, the wounds were properly treated. 

We successfully defended a claim on behalf of our client where the answer was late without a reasonable excuse. However, we persuaded the workers’ compensation judge that the claim petition was not well-pled as to the main allegation. We further convinced the judge that the claimant did not meet his burden of proof on causation.

We obtained a defense verdict in a case involving medical and property damages. While riding a bicycle through a shopping center parking lot, the plaintiff collided with our client, who was driving a vehicle, at an intersection that did not have stop signs. The plaintiff alleged that our client was responsible for his medical damages, as well as property damage to his bike and clothing.

We secured a positive outcome for our client in a construction site-related personal injury case in New Jersey. After a month of trial, we successfully placed the entirety of the plaintiff’s $4.2 million jury verdict against the remaining co-defendant. We also succeeded in placing all of our client’s costs and attorney’s fees on the co-defendant. In total, the judgment against the co-defendant was in excess of $7 million.

In our successful appeal to the Commonwealth Court, the workers’ compensation judge had awarded a closed period of benefits and then terminated all benefits, despite the employer’s late answer. The judge found that the description of injury was not well-pled and, therefore, not deemed admitted. The Appeal Board reversed the judge on the full termination of benefits, saying that, since our IME physician did not acknowledge a work-related psychiatric injury, his testimony was in conflict with the admitted injury due to the late answer.

We successfully defeated the claimant’s appeal on a hotly-debated issue surrounding course and scope of employment in a case involving a motor vehicle accident during a paid lunch hour, which resulted in extreme medical treatment costs. We were able to convince the underlying court that the claimant was not in the course and scope of employment at the time of injury due to her deviation to run personal errands. The claimant appealed alleging the fact that, as her lunch hour is paid, she was certainly in the course and scope of employment and the underlying court erred.

We received a complete defense verdict in favor of our client in an equity action involving property rights in the client’s public safety building. The plaintiff, a volunteer fire company, moved its operation into a public safety building space constructed for it by the Borough, our client. Instead of accepting a lease that provided it with occupancy for 100 years, the fire company was made a tenant at will. The fire company was a tenant for 10 years, during which it brought a for-profit ambulance service into its space without the Borough’s consent.

• Justin Johnson and Lynne Nahmani (New Jersey) secured a directed verdict in a subacute rehab case. At the close of plaintiff’s case, three motions for directed verdict were made. The court agreed that the plaintiffs had not met their burden on causation with the expert testimony.

We obtained a defense jury verdict in a legal malpractice action arising from two wrongful termination trials. This matter included the two trials, an appeal, in addition to involving aspects of intellectual property law. There we numerous evidence issues as a result of the two underlying trials. However, we were successful on pretrial hearing in limiting plaintiff’s proofs and in barring significant damages claims asserted by the plaintiff’s expert. The jury rejected these claims and awarded all of our client’s fees, with interest and costs.