• Phillips v. Gilbert

    Publication Date: 2019-07-15
    Practice Area: Expert Witnesses | Medical Malpractice
    Industry: Health Care
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
    Judge: Judge Lachman
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 19-0793

    Plaintiff's expert, who had never placed a dental implant during his lengthy career as a dentist, lacked the training, experience and knowledge necessary to testify regarding the standard of care applicable to the dental implant procedure performed on plaintiff. The court recommended affirmance of its order granting a compulsory nonsuit.

  • Rosenberg v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2019-07-15
    Practice Area: Products Liability
    Industry: Health Care | Manufacturing
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
    Judge: District Judge Robreno
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 19-0821

    Defendant prescription medical device manufacturer moved to dismiss plaintiff's strict liability and negligence claims and the court dismissed the strict liability claims and the negligence claim and certified for interlocutory review the question of whether Pennsylvania recognized a strict liability claim for manufacturing defect of a prescription medical device. Motion granted and interlocutory appeal granted.

  • O'Brien v. Lehigh Valley Health Network, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2019-07-15
    Practice Area: Civil Rights
    Industry: Health Care
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
    Judge: District Judge Leeson
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 19-0817

    Defendant employer moved to dismiss plaintiff's FMLA interference and retaliation claims and court found plaintiff's retaliation claim failed because she did not plead sufficient facts to show that her termination was causally linked to her requests for FMLA leave but she did sufficiently support her interference claim because her request for leave fell within the pre-eligibility protection window described in Beffert v. Pa. Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6681. Motion granted in part and denied in part.

  • Desher v. Se. Pennsylvania Transp. Auth.

    Publication Date: 2019-07-15
    Practice Area: Labor Law
    Industry: Health Care | State and Local Government
    Court: Commonwealth Court
    Judge: Judge Brobson
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 19-0811

    Summary judgment properly granted to employer on claim under the Federal Employers' Liability Act arising from employer's failure to provide defibrillators in the workplace where no party addressed the foreseeability of the risk of cardiac arrest in the workplace. Order of the trial court affirmed.

  • Dennis v. HoganWillig, PLLC

    Publication Date: 2019-07-08
    Practice Area: Contractual Disputes | Expert Witnesses
    Industry: Health Care
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
    Judge: Judge Motto
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 19-0748

    Defendant objected to the result of an arbitration, not the process, so the court denied defendant's motion to vacate the award. Plaintiff was not entitled to sanctions, but the court awarded additional attorney fees, pursuant to the parties' agreement.

  • Heraeus Med. GMBH v. Esschem, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2019-07-08
    Practice Area: Trade Secrets
    Industry: Chemicals and Materials | Health Care | Manufacturing
    Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
    Judge: Circuit Judge Krause
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 19-0775

    District court erred in granting summary judgment to defendant on statute of limitations grounds in plaintiff's misappropriation of trade secrets action under the Pennsylvania Uniform Trade Secrets Act because the separate accrual rule applied under PUTSA. Reversed in part.

  • In re: Estate of Gallo

    Publication Date: 2019-07-08
    Practice Area: Trusts and Estates
    Industry: Health Care
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Monroe County
    Judge: Judge Williamson
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 19-0745

    The court granted objections to a subpoena which sought production of material that was not relevant to this will contest proceeding, but petitioner was entitled to an order compelling the production of medical records.

  • BouSamra v. Excela Health

    Publication Date: 2019-07-01
    Practice Area: Civil Procedure
    Industry: Health Care | Legal Services
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Mundy
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 19-0739

    The high court concluded that remand was necessary for application of a newly articulated work product waiver analysis providing that the attorney work product doctrine is not waived by disclosure unless the alleged work product is disclosed to an adversary or disclosed in a manner that significantly increases the likelihood that an adversary/anticipated adversary will obtain such disclosure. The high court affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.

  • Finamore v. Saber Healthcare Group, LLC

    Publication Date: 2019-07-01
    Practice Area: Medical Malpractice
    Industry:
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
    Judge: Judge Cox
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 19-0738

    Plaintiff established the elements to support a claim for punitive damages, but the court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment as to one of the parties, because plaintiff failed to establish a prima facia case of direct corporate liability.

  • Commonwealth v. UPMC

    Publication Date: 2019-06-24
    Practice Area: Contracts
    Industry: Health Care | State and Local Government
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Wecht
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 19-0662

    The commonwealth court erred in sustaining defendant's demurrer to the attorney general's request to extend indefinitely consent decrees governing the relationship between the two rival health care providers where the modification provision the AG relied upon was ambiguous, necessitating a remand for evidentiary development of the parties' intent. The high court reversed and remanded.