The Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Howard (Est. of John C. Ravert) v. Pecora Corporation, et al, 2013 Pa. LEXIS 2199, has issued a ruling reaffirming several core principles of causation in Pennsylvania asbestos cases, avoiding the creation of bad law that would allow plaintiffs to defeat summary judgment with underdeveloped and unreliable evidence.   

Jennifer Stern, Esquire argued this appeal for Marks, O’Neill, O’Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on behalf of Pecora Corporation.  Ms. Stern and David Helwig, Esquire drafted the appellate briefs. Co-Appellants were Ace Hardware and Monsey Products.  Plaintiff/Appellee was represented by Paul, Reich & Myers.

The appeal originated from the Court of Common Pleas grant of defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment.  Upon appeal, the Superior Court in Howard initially held that the defendants’ motion for summary judgment could be defeated by the submission of expert affidavits establishing the presence of “invisible dust,” without concern for the particular facts of the plaintiff’s case, despite the plaintiff’s own testimony that no dust was created when he used the products in question.  The Superior Court also held that a plaintiff bears a diminished burden of meeting a frequency, regularity, and proximity threshold of exposure in cases of mesothelioma, since the disease may be caused by limited exposure to asbestos. Defendants/Appellants petitioned for, and were granted allocatur.

In a unique sequence of events, at oral argument the plaintiff conceded the factual insufficiency of the case in a transparent effort to preserve the Superior Court’s incorrect interpretation of the law. Recognizing that the Superior Court’s decision could have created confusion in the trial courts, and per the request of the defense, the Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court’s ruling and issued a ruling reaffirming several key principles of causation in asbestos matters.

The Philadelphia Office of Marks O’Neill O’Brien Doherty and Kelly once again supported the efforts of the Support Center for Child Advocates’ Annual Toy Drive. The Support Center for Child Advocates provides legal assistance and social service advocacy for abused and neglected children in Philadelphia County. Each year, they collect and distribute toys for over 1,000 children throughout the Philadelphia area.

2013 Toy Drive

2013 Toy Drive

After a five day jury trial in the United States District Court of Connecticut, on August 29, 2013, a jury returned a full defense verdict finding for defendant, a manufacturer of corrugated stainless steel, on all counts and against plaintiff, as subrogee of the homeowners.  Dawn Courtney Doherty, Esquire of Marks, O’Neill, O’Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., serving as national counsel, successfully defended against claims arising under the Connecticut Product Liability Act. The jury rejected Plaintiff’s arguments that the design of the corrugated stainless steel tubing was unreasonably dangerous and that they did not provide adequate warnings and instructions of the risks associated with the product.  Defendant was able to show that its product was improperly installed in the residence in contravention of its installation instructions. The jury awarded the plaintiff nothing in damages notwithstanding Plaintiff’s claim of approximately $1,500,000 in damages.  Currently pending before the Court is defendant’s application to tax costs.

Mark Merlini successfully argued a Motion for Summary Judgment on behalf of a hospital before the Honorable Sandra Mazer Moss in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. Plaintiff, a 40 year old male, claimed that he was negligently discharged from the Emergency Room after sustaining a tibial plateau fracture and that he developed a serious medical condition, compartment syndrome, as a result. Plaintiff’s demand was $10 million. Plaintiff’s counsel took the position that he did not require standard of care expert testimony in the case because the alleged negligence was obvious.

Therefore, Plaintiff’s counsel intended to rely upon the testimony of a neurologist to establish that the failure to admit the patient resulted in the claimed damage to the patient’s leg, which ultimately resulted in several surgeries. The Court agreed with the defense position and ruled that expert testimony on liability was required and that the Plaintiff’s neurology expert was not qualified to offer expert testimony regarding emergency room care. All claims against the hospital and Co-Defendant ER Physician were dismissed with prejudice following oral argument.