by Mark Bauman | Feb 18, 2023 | SUCCESSES
Jeffrey P. Brien obtained a defense finding on behalf of a nursing home at arbitration in Passaic County, New Jersey. The plaintiff fell on a puddle in the nursing home’s employee cafeteria. She broke her wrist, missed time from work, and is permanently disabled. She argued that the nursing home was negligent for failing to maintain its premises in a safe manner.
After hearing testimony and listening to arguments presented by Mr. Brien, the arbitrator held that the nursing home did not have actual or constructive notice of the puddle and therefore was not liable for any damages related to plaintiff’s fall. The arbitrator did find that the co-defendant vending machine company, which created the puddle, was negligent. The vending machine company was found responsible for 90% of the plaintiff’s injuries, while the plaintiff herself was found responsible for 10%.
by Mark Bauman | Feb 18, 2023 | SUCCESSES
Michael O. Pitt and Jeffrey P. Brien obtained a defense verdict in favor of an otolaryngologist following a five day jury trial in Bucks County, Pennsylvania. At issue was surgery to remove a polyp from the plaintiff’s sphenoid sinus. Plaintiff had alleged that the surgery performed was not necessary given her condition and that the physician was negligent in his performance of the surgery. The plaintiff alleged that the surgery caused her to suffer from continuous, debilitating sinus infections and migraine headaches. Through expert testimony and the plaintiff’s medical records, Mr. Pitt argued that the surgery was appropriate given the plaintiff’s lengthy history of sinus infections and headaches, and was performed by the defendant in accordance with the applicable standard of care.
by Mark Bauman | Feb 18, 2023 | SUCCESSES
Marshall L. Schwartz and Brett M. Littman obtained a defense verdict in favor of a surgical oncologist in Philadelphia County. Plaintiff, who had previously been diagnosed with breast cancer, claimed that after undergoing a mastectomy and concurrent breast reconstruction, the defendant-physician negligently performed a biopsy on the radiated skin of her breast, causing the loss of a saline breast expander. Plaintiff further alleged that with the loss of this expander, she was deprived of the possibility of a meaningful reconstruction of her breast. The defense maintained that the biopsy was a necessary procedure to rule out a recurrence of cancer. Further, the loss of the expander was an accepted risk of the procedure, which could occur in the absence of negligence.
After a four day trial and a brief deliberation, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of the defendant.
by Mark Bauman | Feb 18, 2023 | SUCCESSES
Daniel F. Ryan, III and Amanda A. O’Dea recently obtained a defense verdict at trial on behalf of a cardiologist in Philadelphia County, PA. Plaintiff’s decedent was on anticoagulants for several years because of atrial fibrillation and was hospitalized for treatment of an infection. Plaintiff alleged that the defendants negligently managed plaintiff’s decedent’s anticoagulation during the hospital admission causing him to suffer a subarachnoid hemorrhage and ultimately his death. After two and a half days of trial and two days of deliberation, the jury returned a verdict in favor of all of the defendants.
by Mark Bauman | Feb 18, 2023 | SUCCESSES
Anthony P. DeMichele obtained summary judgment for an insurance company in a coverage dispute involving one of its insureds. The insured, an attorney, was sued in two separate state court actions based upon his involvement in several real estate investments.
In the underlying litigation, two individuals had filed separate actions against the insured claiming he misrepresented information about the investment opportunities. After the investments were made, the individuals alleged that the insured misappropriated the money for his personal gain. The insured alleged that he provided legal services for the real estate holding company that was involved in the investments, and therefore, his malpractice insurance covered the claims. As a result, the insured submitted the claims to his insurance company for coverage.
Mr. DeMichele, on behalf of the insurance company, initiated a declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania seeking a declaration from the court as to the parties’ rights under the insurance policy at issue. At the conclusion of extensive discovery, Mr. DeMichele moved for summary judgment arguing, among other things, that exclusions in the insurance policy precluded coverage of the claims. Based upon the language of the exclusions, Mr. DeMichele argued that the insurance company did not have a duty to defend or a duty to indemnify its insured with regard to the claims that were asserted in the underlying state court actions.
The insured responded by filing a motion for summary judgment and argued that the policy exclusions did not apply, and therefore, a duty to defend and a duty to indemnify existed.
The district court agreed with Mr. DeMichele’s position and granted the insurance company’s motion for summary judgment while at the same time denying the insured’s motion for summary judgment. Based upon the court’s decision, the insurance company did not owe a duty to defend or indemnify its insured for the claims that were asserted in the state court actions.
