Aggressive Legal Representation Fighting to Help You & Your Business SCHEDULE A FREE CONSULTATION

Case Results

Summary Judgment Granted to Firm Client:
A Quasi-governmental State Agency responsible to administer higher education student loans, received Summary Judgment in its favor and against a physician who claimed, alternatively, that he did not ask for, or receive any loans in order to consolidate 5 older student loans, that perhaps the signatures that were tele-faxed from his office covering his multiple deferment requests on this loan were not his; and/or that if he paid the subject loan, that those 12 years of payments must have been his own oversight or mistake. These defenses were asserted despite evidence that the 5 older student loans were paid by this subject consolidation loan; the physician could not explain why he suddenly no longer had to pay the 5 older student loans after the consolidation and instead paid just one loan - the subject loan; and he had identified the subject loan in bankruptcy filings. (New Jersey Superior Court, Mercer County, NJ)

Firm Client Dismissed After Jury Selection and On Motion from An Employee's Mesothelioma Fatality Suit:

Our Client, a leading specialty manufacturer serving global aerospace and defense markets, was sued by the employee of a former wholly owned subsidiary after the employee developed and passed from a mesothelioma. The employee had been employed by the wholly owned subsidiary in the 1970's. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has authorized employee civil suits against former employers since its 2013 ruling in Touey v. AK Steel, 81 A. 3d. 851 (2013) when employees manifest symptoms of diseases with long latency periods, like mesothelioma (20-40 year latency). Firm Client was dismissed from the case after jury selection despite other party claims that Firm Client was the actual employer, and that Firm Client was directing the subsidiary's activities in the use and production of alleged asbestos-containing products and that the corporate veil should be pierced. Our Client was dismissed as a result of our multiple pre-trial Motions in limine. The Trial Judge has permitted an interlocutory appeal of the ruling. (Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia, PA)

Workers' Compensation - Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution Granted:

Over Petitioner's objection, ALJ agreed that Petitioner was unreasonable delaying the litigation of their claim, requiring Respondent engage in unnecessary costs, and dismissed their Claim Petition against Petitioner. (NJ)

Workers' Compensation - Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Meet Burden of Proof Granted:

ALJ dismissed Petitioner's Application for Modification (reopener) after Respondent demonstrated that the medical evidence and expert testimony did not support an increase in disability. (NJ)

Workers Compensation - Suspension Granted:

ALJ orders compensation payments suspended after evidence, expert opinions and cross exam of Claimant's physician demonstrated that Claimants upper extremity disability was not based on credible evidence and that Claimant should have returned to work 2 years pursuant to a legitimate and available job offer. (PA Workers Compensation)

Claim Dismissed - Lack of Jurisdiction Over Firm Client Republic of China Product Manufacturer:

After our Motion to Dismiss followed by extended jurisdictional discovery, the claims asserted against our client, a Republic of China product manufacturer, were dismissed when we demonstrated that our client did not subject itself to the jurisdiction of any Pennsylvania Courts, either by general jurisdiction; or by any specific acts, including the manufacture and sale of the product that allegedly contributed to the cause of a parent's wrongful death and her child's brain damage. (USDC, EDPa. Rodriguez v. City of Philadelphia, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180661; CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. P20,192)

Settlement Enforced:

Plaintiff attempted to back out of a settlement with a Firm client. After considering the evidence and arguments, Judge enforced the settlement, despite Plaintiff's claim that he had been coerced into the settlement and that he did not agree to a full and final release of the claims or to keep the settlement confidential. (USDC, EDPa., Gelzinis v. Just 4 Wheels, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19291)

Defense Verdict:

In a left turn/intersectional case, the jury returned a verdict of no negligence; no causal conduct on behalf of our client, a tractor trailer operator; and held the co-defendant driver 100% negligent for his passenger’s injuries after a 24 minute deliberation. Plaintiff had claimed that our client commercial driver was negligent by causing a collision that injured him - a passenger in a vehicle at an intersection during the tractor-trailer’s left turn. The passenger’s vehicle struck the left front of the tractor with sufficient force to push the tractor laterally 4-5 feet. Co-defendant’s accident reconstruction expert claimed that the truck driver pulled out in front of the passenger’s vehicle; but evidence demonstrated otherwise. Plaintiffs damages for facial fractures, permanent nerve injuries, chronic pain and spiral leg fractures were capped by agreement. Only liability was tried. (Court of Common Pleas, Monroe County, PA)

Summary Judgment Granted:

The Father of a murdered 12 year-old girl sued the convicted killer’s Mother, seeking to hold her responsible for the killing. Appearing on behalf of that Mother, we demonstrated that Mom’s parenting skills and care could not be challenged by the evidence presented and that the killing was not forseeable - even considering expert opinions proffered by Plaintiff. Additionally, imposing liability on a parent, based on the evidence presented, would expose most parents to liability for their children’s torts - something that, as a matter of law, would not be an acceptable result in our society. (Pasquale, et al. v. Saunders & Robinson, NJ Super. Gloucester County, NJ)

Dismissal on 12(b)(1) Motion of Military Employment, Discrimination, Harassment and Conspiracy Claims:

Plaintiff, an Army physician, claimed that he was repeatedly given less than optimum reviews which led to his loss of rank and discharge for essentially whistle-blowing about improprieties in the military use of nuclear radiation therapy. Plaintiff also claimed that supporting records were destroyed and that his workplace was hostile as retaliation for his whistle-blowing. Plaintiff also claimed that the retaliation continued to the present with military officers contacting current and prospective employers to prevent his employment or advancement. The Court found that our Firm’s client was immune from suit and that Feres Doctrine - providing immunity to the United States for military decision making - barred Plaintiff’s remaining claims. (USDC, ED Pa. 2015).

Firm Clients Win Half Million Dollar Verdict in Commercial/business Dispute:

Our Clients - Partners who purchased a majority interest in a business - were ousted from that business by the Defendant minority partner. The minority partner then claimed that our Clients were not only not owners (he claimed that our Clients never paid him for the majority share of the business) but that our Clients had actually stolen more than $100,000 in company inventory and revenue. After trial, our Clients prevailed and the minority owner’s counterclaims were found to be meritless. In addition, our Clients recovered a separate $25,000.00 deposit that defendant had converted from the in another business opportunity. (Philadelphia County, PA)

Defense Verdict - No Cause:
Client leased a storage trailer to Plaintiff's employer. 48 year old male Plaintiff allegedly injured requiring 3 massive lumbar surgeries, implantantion of a dorsal column pain stimulator, total disability and approximately $475,000.00 in special damages when he broke through the trailer floor while operating a forklift. The case involved alleged destruction/spoliation of logs and vehicle condition reports. After a res ipsa and spoliation charge, a re-reading of Plaintiff's liability engineering testimony, the jury agreed that our client was not negligent and that the Plaintiff had caused the floor failure by his own conduct. (Middlesex Cty., NJ)

Judgment in Favor of Government Loan Guarantor of Professional Student Loans After Bench Trial:

Judge determined that physician-debtor was not credible at all in his defenses to repayment of his student loans and entered judgment in favor of our client. (Bergen Cty., NJ)

$1.7 Million Fraud Judgment :

Acquired on behalf of Firm Client from collection agency who skimmed those amounts from Firm Client's consumers during legitimate consumer collection activities. (Philadelphia, PA)

Premises liability case against Firm Client

Dismissed with prejudice upon discovery of fraud that essentially staged the accident. (Philadelphia, PA)

Defense Verdict/no Cause in Rear End Collision:

Liability was not contested. Plaintiff asserted that he had suffered permanent injuries - multiple herniated cervical discs - in a moderate energy rear-end collision. The jury returned with a no cause verdict after deadlocking at 4-2. No offer was made. NJ Superior Court, Camden County, NJ

Verdict Returned at The Pre-Trial Offer Amount in Rear-End Collision:

Liability was not contested. The jury had one question "How much money ($)?" and then entered a verdict at the precise amount that had been on the table throughout the trial. PA Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County

Directed Defense Verdict:

When Plaintiff was unable to demonstrate with credible expert testimony that his alleged injuries were related to the car collision caused by our client, a Philadelphia County Judge directed a verdict in our client's favor and against the Plaintiff on damages. Plaintiff had claimed that his spinal injuries and herniations resulted from the collision. Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas.

Summary Judgment Granted in Favor of Bakery Entity on Premises Liability Claim:

Plaintiff asserted that our client's deliveryman made the retail premises where she was shopping unsafe. When we demonstrated that there was no evidence to support Plaintiff's claim after her depositon, a Middlesex County Superior Court Judge agreed and entered judgment in favor of our client, a international baking entity. Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County.

Defense Verdict in Binding Arbitration of Fire and Smoke Damage Causation Claim:


Claim Petition Dismissed, with Prejudice:

We argued that Claimant's Petition seeking workers compensation benefits (wage and medical) was barred by the Doctrine of Collateral Estoppel. Claimant had claimed that his date of injury was actually the date of an exacerbation of his prior injury in order to defeat a six figure compensation lien. (Pennsylvania)

Summary Judgment Granted:

National Casual Dining establishment received summary jugdment in it's favor on Plaintiff's slip and fall claim when Plaintiff could not satisfy the notice requirement detailing the length of time the substance that she slipped upon was present on the floor or the source of the substance.(USDC, Eastern District of Pennsylvania)

Summary Judgment Granted:

Firm client, a self-insured national retailer/credit provider, received summary judgment in it’s favor and against a Plaintiff who claimed that she fell in front on their Philadelphia location on a broken sidewalk. Plaintiff claimed that the sidewalk defect was large, long-standing and easy to see. She further claimed that the retailer knew of the condition's existence. We asserted that this logically meant the she "knew or should have known" of it's presence. A Philadelphia County Judge agreed and dismissed this long-running action, with prejudice. (Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County - PA)

Summary Judgment Granted:

Firm client, a self-insured global food manufacturer, received summary judgment in it’s favor and against it’s vendor, a regional convenience store chain. The chain store sought complete common law indemnity and contribution; contractual indemnity and contribution and additional insured status under the self-insured food manufacturer’s insurance coverage. This claim arose after our client’s deliveryman fell at the chain store while working. In ruling entirely in the manufacturer/client’s favor, the Superior Court Judge agreed with our analysis that while the store chain actually was an additional insured, it could not acquire coverage under any of the policy endorsements; the contractual claim was held to be unenforceable under New Jersey law and the remaining common law claims were barred by the exclusive remedy of the workers’ compensation statute. (New Jersey Superior Court, Camden County)

Voluntary Dismissal of Fatality Suit Against Furnace Service Provider:

After a year of litigation pressure and a final threat of sanctions, a claim that Plaintiff's decedent's death due to exposure was caused by the furnace service provider was voluntarily dimissed at the close of discovery. Defense expert pathologist and nephrologist opined that there was no causal connection, based on the physical findings at and prior to the death. Plaintiff's decendent's representative, a nephrologist as well, could offer no contrary opinion to prove a prima facie claim. (USDC, EDPA.)

Defense Verdict in Slip/fall Down Claim Against Nationwide Hospitality/restaurant Proprietor:

40 year old female Plaintiff with claimed injuries including a multiple level lumbar fusion/laminectomy and six figure medical bills. The Jury found no negligence. (Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, PA)

Workers Compensation Claim Defeated and Coverage Denial Upheld Based on Geographic Exclusion in Workers Compensation Policy:

Petitioner injured in another State; employed in another State and coverage limited to the geographic area of that other State. Only connection with New Jersey was location of alleged injury and cancelled paychecks from a defunct employer. (New Jersey Department of Labor)

Case Dismissed, with Prejudice, During Plaintiff's Deposition:

Adversary proceeding seeking discharge of student loans was dismissed completely and with prejudice during a break in Plaintiff's deposition after Plaintiff was confronted with prior years of financial information that seemed to demonstrate that the claim of inability to re-pay the loans was wildly inaccurate. (USDC, Eastern District of Pennsylvania)