On the Pulse…Marshall Dennehey Is Happy To Celebrate Our Recent Appellate Victories*

Audrey Copeland (King of Prussia, PA) successfully defended the summary judgment obtained by trial counsel John Riddell (King of Prussia, PA) on appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court in a premises liability case involving an unwitnessed accident. The plaintiff alleged that she was injured while attempting to enter an exterior “tenants” door into a mall when she walked into a metal bar that was allegedly propping it open. The plaintiff was visiting to assist her husband who owns an electronics store located in the mall. The Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s determination that the condition of the door was “open and obvious” as a matter of law and that the defendants, the owner and manager of the property and the security guard company, were not liable for the plaintiff’s injuries. The plaintiff, who was deemed a business invitee for purpose of analysis, was also unable to prove the defendants’ actual or constructive notice of the “dangerous” condition, as she could not identify the individual who placed the metal bar and did not know how long the door had been in the condition which allegedly resulted in injury. Sciamanna v. Jager Management, 2014 Pa.Super. LEXIS 1845 (Pa.Super. April 4, 2014).

Audrey also secured the Commonwealth Court’s affirmance of a favorable decision granting an employer’s modification petition that had been obtained by Kristy Olivo Salvitti (Cherry Hill, NJ) in Sinnott v. WCAB (Temple University Hospital), 2014 Pa.Commw. Unpub. LEXIS 359 (Pa. Cmwlth. June 13, 2014). The employer had sought a modification based upon the claimant’s failure, who suffered from alleged work-related cognitive dysfunction, to respond in good faith to an available funded part-time employment position of 12 hours per week. The Workers’ Compensation Judge had credited the employer’s medical and vocational witnesses’ testimony that the claimant was capable of performing the position, and the Appeal Board had affirmed. Most significantly, the Commonwealth Court held that the Board did not err by finding that the funded employment position constituted productive employment, and that the cost of the commute and low pay were irrelevant and did not render the job unsuitable.

Defense Digest, Vol. 20, No. 3, September 2014

Defense Digest 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. Copyright © 2014 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.