Notable Wins

View OTHER BLOGS

Aleice Jeter v. Sam’s Club and Linden Route One Associates (A-2-21)

Client: New Jersey Food Council (amicus curiae in support of Sam’s Club)

Court: Supreme Court of New Jersey

Trial Attorney: Betsy G. Ramos, Esq. (prepared and argued our amici arguments before the NJ Supreme Court)

**Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances**

Supreme Court affirmed the lower court rulings in favor of Sam’s Club, ruling that sale of grapes in closed, sealed clamshell container not subject to Mode of Operation rule; rather, injured plaintiff who fell on grape on the floor would need to prove that Sam’s Club had actual or constructive notice of the grape on the floor to be able to pursue a claim for her injuries. Without such notice, the lawsuit was dismissed.

To view the case, please click here.

Pellot v. GGB, LLC

Client: GGB, LLC

Court: Superior Court of New Jersey-Chancery Division-Burlington County

Brief Attorney: Ralph R. Smith, 3rd, Esq.

Trial Attorney: Ralph R. Smith, 3rd, Esq.

**Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances**

Former employee claimed his discharge violated company policy requiring that only appropriate discipline be issued for a workplace policy infraction. Employee argued his second violation of company safety policy did not warrant employment discharge but only a work suspension. In dismissing the employee’s claim, the court determined that employer company had the right and discretion under its discipline policy to fire employee for second safety violation, and discharge was an appropriate disciplinary measure for employee’s policy violation.

 

Sandra Martone v. Community Medical Center

Client: Community Medical Center

Court: Appellate

Brief Attorney: Michael McCaffrey, Esq.

Trial Attorney: Anne Hammill Pasqua, Esq.

**Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances**

The petitioner filed a Motion for Medical Treatment seeking a right total knee arthroplasty revision supported by the opinion of Dr. Post. Respondent opposed the Motion based upon the opinions of authorized provider, Dr. Arthur Mark, as well as a second doctor, Dr. Michael Sidor. Both doctors did not recommend further treatment as it was not likely to cure or relieve the petitioner of the effects of the injury under N.J.S.A. 34:15-15. There was the risk that further surgery would have a poor result.  Following testimony of the petitioner and all three doctors, the judge denied the motion and petitioner appealed.

On appeal, respondent maintained that the denial was appropriate as there was more than sufficient evidence to support the judge’s opinion and in finding Dr. Sidor more credible than petitioner’s expert, Dr. Post.  Respondent further argued that Dr. Mark’s opinion, as the authorized treating doctor, is entitled to greater weight than that of Dr. Post.  At Oral Argument, Respondent highlighted that the medical testimony and evidence that further treatment was not only not necessary but likely to cause more harm as explained by Dr. Sidor and Dr. Mark.   The appellate court agreed and affirmed. The appellate court also touched upon petitioner’s complaints being out of proportion to what one would expect in a typical patient.

Wirth v. Hoboken BOE

Client: Hoboken BOE (JIF)

Court: Appellate

Brief Attorney: Andrea L. Schlafer, Esq.

Trial Attorney: Andrea L. Schlafer, Esq.

**Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances**

Ms. Ryan-Wirth filed a claim petition and motion for medical and temporary disability benefits seeking an order compelling the Hoboken Board of Education to pay for her fusion surgery as well as temporary disability benefits. 

Petitioner, a full-time school nurse at the Hoboken Middle School, applied for a position as a student monitor for some extra income.  The service was known as the A.M. Care Program for students who needed to arrive early to school. Teachers and other staff who provided monitoring services received a stipend of $30 per day. Petitioner arrived on September 10, 2019 but claimed to have received very little instruction on her first day. The next day on September 11, 2019, she came to school early with the intention of participating in the A.M. Care Program.  However, she instead engaged in a Cardio Class occurring in the gymnasium.

Ms. Ryan-Wirth testified that upon entering the school she was greeted by the Principal, who was dressed in workout clothes. She claimed the Principal informed her that there was no need for any additional A.M. Care Program monitors that morning, but that she was welcome to participate in the Cardio Club. Ms. Ryan-Wirth maintained that she felt pressured to participate in the Cardio Club because the Principal was her boss. Ms. Ryan-Wirth suffered serious back injuries on September 11, 2019, while pulling a car tire in a relay race, falling backwards on her rear end. 

On cross examination, petitioner admitted that she had a personal motive for wanting to participate in the Cardio Club.  She said that six weeks after giving birth, her doctor cleared her to exercise.  She went for walks and she went to the gym twice a week. After giving birth, she participated in a weight loss challenge to lose 30 pounds by Christmas for a cash prize.

Petitioner’s attorney maintained that petitioner was on school grounds on a work day when she was injured, and she felt pressured to participate in the Cardio Club.  The Judge of Compensation ruled against petitioner and held that petitioner’s injury did not arise from work.  Petitioner appealed.  The Appellate Court first reviewed the recent decision in Goulding where a cook volunteered to participate in a Family Fun Day and was injured while cooking for guests and employees. In that case the Supreme Court ruled that Ms. Goulding’s injury was not a recreational activity because she was doing the same work she always did during the week and because she did not participate in any of the games or activities.

The Appellate Division believed that Ms. Ryan-Wirth was not participating in a recreational activity under N.J.S.A. 34:15-7 because the Cardio Club was not really a social or recreational activity given its emphasis on learning for students.  But as to petitioner the Appellate Division held that the activity did not arise out of work. 

Franklin Township Board of Education v. V.A. and C.H. on behalf of A.H.

Client: Franklin Township Board of Education

Court: Office of Administrative Law

Brief Attorney: Lauren E. Tedesco, Esq.

Trial Attorney: Sanmathi (Sanu) Dev, Esq.

**Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances**

The school district sought emergent relief for the removal of a special education student to an interim alternative educational placement due to dangerousness. Parents opposed and contended that the child remain in the general education setting. Judge Catherine A. Tuohy concluded that the school district met all of the elements for emergent relief and placed the student on home instruction pending the outcome of an underlying due process petition.

Hunter Sacco v. Nordstrom

Client: Nordstrom

Court: Workers’ Compensation 

Brief Attorney: John H. Geaney, Esq. and Keith E. Nagy, Esq.

Trial Attorney: Keith E. Nagy, Esq.

**Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances**

The petitioner filed a Claim Petition alleging that he punched a wall and injured his hand after being yelled at by his manager. The matter was denied from the outset as the injury was not compensable given that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment and the petitioner’s injury was intentionally self-inflicted.

The parties proceeded to a bifurcated trial on the issue of compensability with the respondent relying on the binding precedent of Klein v. New York Times Co., 317 N.J. Super. 41 (App. Div. 1998).

During trial, the petitioner testified that he did not intentionally punch the wall but that he was “gesticulating” after he had a verbal altercation with his manager when his hand accidentally hit the wall. The respondent presented the witness of the manager who testified that the petitioner stated that he punched the wall. The respondent also presented the witness of a co-worker who testified that they often joked about the petitioner being a “boxer” and never denied punching the wall.

Following post-trial briefs, the Court found that the petitioner was not credible and that his story lacked logic. The Court further noted that the petitioner’s Claim Petition was a judicial admission binding the petitioner to the description that he punched the wall. The Court also found that the respondent’s witnesses were credible and logical. The matter was dismissed with prejudice.

In the Matter of the Tenure Hearing of Greg Janicki and the Washington Township School District, Gloucester County

Client: Washington Township Board of Education

Court: Tenure Arbitration Hearing 

Brief Attorney: Joseph F. Betley, Esq.

Trial Attorney: Joseph F. Betley, Esq.

**Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances**

Tenure charges against Gregory Janicki, a High School Music Teacher, were successfully prosecuted by the Washington Township Board of Education. In an award issued on August 31, 2021 Arbitrator Gary Kendellen sustained several charges against Mr. Janicki and ordered that he be removed from his teaching position with the District. As the Board Solicitor, Mr. Betley established that Mr. Janicki engaged in a pattern of intolerance and antagonism against individuals based on their sexual orientation as well as their gender identity and expression. The District showed that Mr. Janicki surreptitiously distributed a document at the High School main office that was offensive to the LGBTQ community, and lied about it when school officials investigated the incident. The evidence also supported the charge that Mr. Janicki had a pattern of intentional misrepresentations to administrators during investigations of misconduct. Finally, the arbitrator sustained the charge that Mr. Janicki intentionally recorded a private conversation that Mr. Betley had with administration regarding the underlying investigation. The District sustained its burden that the unbecoming conduct justified Mr. Janicki’s dismissal as a tenured teacher.

Mr. Betley expresses his thanks and appreciation to the administrative staff and teachers who testified truthfully and courageously at the arbitration hearing.

Melissa and Patrick Markhorst v. Liberty Mutual Mid-Atlantic Insurance Company

Client: Liberty Mutual Mid-Atlantic Insurance Company

Court: Superior Court of New Jersey, Burlington County

Brief Attorney: Edward F. Kuhn, III, Esq.

**Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances**

Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in Montgomery County, PA for injuries she suffered in a car accident. Plaintiff agreed to a binding arbitration with high/low parameters. The high was the defendant’s liability policy limits of $100,000. Plaintiff then filed a separate lawsuit for underinsured benefits from Liberty Mutual in Burlington County, NJ.

Plaintiff was awarded less than the defendant’s policy limits in the Montgomery County binding arbitration. Liberty then moved for summary judgment arguing that Plaintiff should be collaterally estopped from further pursing her underinsured claim against Liberty Mutual since the defendant’s policy limits were not exhausted.

The trial court agreed with our position that Plaintiff was barred by the collateral estoppel doctrine as Plaintiff has a full and complete opportunity to present her case to the arbitrator and the amount of Plaintiff’s damages were found below the defendant’s policy limits. As such, Plaintiff’s underinsured claim against Liberty Mutual was dismissed.

Linda Keeler v. George Puckhafer, Index No. 65847/2020

Client: Ameritrust Group

Court: New York Supreme Court, Westchester County 

Brief Attorney:  Alyson L. Knipe, Esq. 

**Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances**

Plaintiff alleged personal injuries from exposure to carbon monoxide in her apartment and commenced a law suit against the superintendent of the building.  In a decision dated November 18, 2021, Hon. Alexandra D. Murphy, J.S.C. found that the defendant established, as matter of law, that he did not cause the plaintiff’s juries, was not on actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition in the apartment, and that plaintiff’s medical records did not show any evidence of carbon monoxide toxicity.

ADINA MCAULAY v. BLASKO LEASING SERVICE INC and “JOHN DOE”

Client: Ameritrust Group

Court: New York Supreme Court, Kings County, Index No. 520203/2020

Brief Attorney:  Alyson L. Knipe, Esq. 

**Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances**

Blasko Leasing Service Inc (BLS) is a New Jersey car dealership that sold a vehicle to a New York resident.  That vehicle was subsequently involved in an accident in New York.  The police accident report indicated that BLS was the registered owner and as such, Plaintiff commenced a lawsuit against BLS arguing that BLS was subject to vicarious liability under New York Vehicle and Traffic Law Section 388.

Defendant BLS submitted an Affidavit of its owner with supporting documents to establish that it did not own the vehicle on the date of the accident and that it verified proof of financial security when the vehicle was sold.

On November 4, 2021, Honorable Loren Baily-Schiffman granted Defendants BLS’s summary judgment motion, dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint against BLS.

Capehart Blogs

Insurance
Insurance Carrier Not Required to Provide to Injured Employee UM Coverage Under Employer’s Policy in Same Amount of Third-Party Liability Limits
Litigation Blog
Power Company’s Regulation-Mandated Duty to Maintain Trees Near Its Power Lines Does Not Extend to a Motorist
Litigation Blog
Homeowner Not Responsible for Exploding Pool Filter Solely Maintained by Outside Contractors

Insurance Carrier Not Required to Provide to Injured Employee UM Coverage Under Employer’s Policy in Same Amount of Third-Party Liability Limits

Power Company’s Regulation-Mandated Duty to Maintain Trees Near Its Power Lines Does Not Extend to a Motorist

Homeowner Not Responsible for Exploding Pool Filter Solely Maintained by Outside Contractors

Subscribe to Blog Updates

Choose the blogs and newsletters you would like to receive.

Subscribe

Categories

Tags
Alternative Energy Alternative Energy - Solar Alternative Energy - Wind Appellate Division automobile accident automobile insurance Burlington County Bar Association Cannabis Law Charity constructive notice coverage data privacy discovery dismissal Diversity & Inclusion Committee duty of care employees employers Employment Law evidence insurance Labor & Employment Liability Litigation Litigation Quarterly Lorman Millennium Seminars NBI negligence New Jersey Workers' Compensation Act New York Law NJ Law notice Pennsylvania Law personal injury Public Entity Newsletter Real Estate and Land Use school law slip and fall statute of limitations summary judgment Tort Claims Act trip and fall Workers' Compensation Workers' Compensation Newsletter