Nursing Home Negligence and Violating of Section 400.022 Residential Rights – Plaintiff requested $1.8M in damages -Defense Verdict

On April 29, 2025, Miami Partner, Scott Kirschbaum and Miami Senior Associate Christine Soto obtained a defense verdict in a nursing home negligence matter styled Plaintiff, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Decedent vs. Arch Plaza, Inc., a Florida Corporation, d/b/a Arch Plaza Nursing & Rehabilitation Center. The Plaintiff filed suit against defendant, Arch Plaza, alleging violation of Section 400.022 and Negligence under Chapter 400.023-400.0238. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant, a skilled nursing facility, failed to provide reasonable and adequate care to its resident, Decedent. As a result of this alleged negligence, a pressure ulcer located on Decedent’s sacral region progressed to a Stage 4 wound. The severity of the wound ultimately led to a bone infection (osteomyelitis), necessitating the surgical removal of her coccyx.

The Defense denied all allegations of negligence. At trial, the Defense presented testimony from an expert wound care nurse who testified regarding the prognosis and typical progression of a deep tissue injury (DTI) which had developed prior to Decedent’s admission to Arch Plaza. Additionally, the defense presented the testimony of an expert internal medicine physician who testified that the subsequent infection was nearly inevitable due to the wound’s anatomical location and the resident’s underlying comorbid conditions. He concluded that no additional medical intervention could have reasonably prevented the infection. The Plaintiff asked the jury to award $1.8 million in damages. After only one-and-a-half hours of deliberation, the jury returned a complete defense verdict. 

On July 1, 2025, Orlando Managing Partner Anthony Merendino and Senior Appellate Partner Daniel Weinger obtained an order granting Defendant’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment in a premises liability case in Plaintiff v. Plaza Resort & Spa Association, Inc.. The Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant alleging that Defendant was vicariously liable for the actions of its employee(s) where Plaintiff alleged that the employee(s) violently attacked the Plaintiff causing serious bodily injuries.\

Plaintiff alleged that he entered the Defendant’s hotel premises in an effort to visit with his girlfriend who had been visiting friends staying at the hotel. While inside the hotel premises, the Plaintiff alleged that he was “violently attacked” in or near the lobby area by an employee of the Defendant. Plaintiff alleged that as a result of the attack, he was thrown to the ground. Consequently, Plaintiff alleged that he sustained injuries to his neck, back, head, and internal organs, resulting in neck and low back surgeries, and a surgery to repair a hernia. Plaintiff’s claimed past medical bills were approximately $200,000.00. Despite the allegation that Defendant’s employee attacked him, the Plaintiff never could identify the alleged assailant and testified that there were two (2) unidentified individuals near him at the time of the incident who he could not identify as employees of the Defendant. Though the Defendant vehemently denied that any of its employees ever attacked or assaulted the Plaintiff, we argued that (1) an employee’s (alleged) criminal assault and/or intentional tort cannot impose vicarious liability on the employer in light of no record evidence that such conduct was within the course and scope of employment, and (2) the Plaintiff’s remaining vicarious liability count could only be supported by an impermissible stacking of inferences. The summary judgment prevented a trial scheduled to begin shortly thereafter.

Earlier in the case, we were successful in obtaining partial summary judgment on prior causes of action asserted by the Plaintiff for negligent hiring and negligent retention, as well as on Plaintiff’s wage loss claims.

Three-week Jury Trial - TBI - UM/UIM- Plaintiff Requested $3M - Plaintiff called more than 12 Experts - $175K Net Verdict

On May 7, 2025, Firm-Wide Managing Partner, Daniel Santaniello, and Stuart Senior Partner, Nora Bailey obtained a $175,000 net verdict on a TBI - underinsured/uninsured motorist claim after a 3-week trial. The claim arose out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred at an intersection. The tortfeasor failed to stop at a red light and struck the Plaintiff’s convertible on the left driver’s side, totaling both vehicles. Liability was admitted and the trial proceeded on causation and damages only. 

Plaintiff asked the jury for approximately $3,000,000; more than 12 experts testified during the trial. The matter involved a 49-mph impact, with admitted liability (i.e., UM driver ran a red light), TBI claim with DTI and neuropsychology testing, a recommendation for an anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, and multiple rounds of rhizotomies, epidural injections, and medial branch blocks. The Plaintiff also underwent injections to his shoulder and was recommended for further surgery to same as well as surgeries to his lumbar spine and both hands, cognitive therapy, and ongoing treatment for PTSD.. There was zero prior treatment and no known previous accidents. We used a specific “reverse reptile” strategy for jury selection as the insurance company was the named party, focused on the plaintiff’s litigation doctors and their bias, and utilized favorable surveillance to show the jury that the claim was an overreach. The jury agreed after deliberating for approximately 2.5 hours, rendering a net verdict of $175,000.00.

On January 10, 2025, attorneys Jacob Gordon and Daniel Weinger obtained a Final Summary Judgment in a Premises Liability matter styled Plaintiff v. 932 10^th St LLC, et al. The case involves claims of negligence against our client, 932 10^th St LLC. Specifically, Plaintiff claimed our client’s negligence led to him being bit by a tenant’s dog which caused damages, including medical expenses, loss of earning capacity and income. Mr. Gordon conducted discovery which laid the record that the dog had no history of being aggressive towards humans (and was in fact not an aggressive dog), the Plaintiff had entered our client’s property as a trespasser, and Plaintiff’s intervening negligence when he allowed his dog to be off-leash and then put his hands into the dog fight to separate the dogs was the actual cause of his injuries. Mr. Weinger drafted the Motion for Summary Judgment and Mr. Gordon presented oral argument on January 10, 2025.  The Court agreed with our argument that there was no breach of any duty if Plaintiff was an invitee, there was no breach of any duty if Plaintiff was a trespasser, and the legal cause of Plaintiff’s injuries was Plaintiff’s own negligence. With the granting of summary judgment, our client is now entitled to fees/costs pursuant to a rejected Proposal for Settlement.

On December 3, 2024, Allison Janowitz, Senior Partner, obtained a final judgment in a premises liability case.  Plaintiff was leaving a grocery store, when she failed to appreciate the existence of a curb over her highly packed grocery cart.  As a result, the Plaintiff flipped over her cart landing onto the asphalt, causing claimed injuries to her neck and spine, as well as claims to pain in her shoulder.  She ultimately underwent several radiofrequency ablations and various other treatments, with claimed medical specials of over $300,000.00.

Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on the grounds that a curb is an open and obvious condition that is inherently non-dangerous, based on the argument that curbs are everywhere, and not hidden dangerous.  Further, the Plaintiff’s testimony was that the groceries were piled so high that she could not see over her purchases and did not appreciate that the curb was there.  Plaintiff filed an affidavit from an expert indicating that the curb violated a multitude of building codes, and was a dangerous condition.  However, based on the agreements between the Defendants, the Court found that the property owner had no custody or control over the subject area.  Further, the Court found that the curb is not an open and obvious condition, and was not inherently dangerous, granting Final Judgment in favor of the property owner.

Favorable Verdict – Injury Law Firm - $113K Net Verdict - $300,000 Demand – Plaintiff Found 51% Negligent

On November 7, 2024, Founding Partner, Jack Luks and Senior Partner, Allison Janowitz obtained a favorable verdict in matter styled Plaintiff v. Defendant Retail Mall.  Plaintiff alleged she tripped and fell in the mall’s parking lot over a dangerous condition that was caused by the mall’s negligent maintenance and failed to warn the Plaintiff of the hazardous condition about which Defendant knew or should have known.

Plaintiff alleged that on July 10, 2022, while she was an invitee on Defendant’s premises, she was crossing a parking lot when she fell on a raised piece of concrete near the curb of a landscape median.  Plaintiff demonstrated through the use of Google Earth that the defect had existed for over three years and the Mall had failed to maintain or repair it.

During trial, the Defense presented evidence that the Plaintiff told three different healthcare providers that she fell due to tripping over her flip flops with no mention of broken or raised concrete.  She further changed her testimony as to which defect in the parking lot caused her to fall.  Plaintiff introduced a liability expert who testified that the area was in violation of multiple codes and standards.

Medical treatment was not contested.  Plaintiff, upon landing on the asphalt, fractured her patella and underwent a surgery and extensive therapy for one year.  Plaintiff alleges that as a result of the fracture and surgery she was unable to walk up stairs easily, work out or go for walks with her friends, walk on the beach, lift weights, run, jog, dance, or bowl.  She has difficulty bending, standing for long periods of time and bathing.  She had to add a chair in her shower and modify her toilet.  Her pain was reported to be constant and she rated it as an 8/10.

Liability and comparative negligence were contested until the very end.  Plaintiff requested $50,000 every year for the next 30 years of her life.  Defendant admitted the hard cost of the medicals and miscellaneous damages, while arguing significant comparative negligence on the part of the Plaintiff.  In addition to the undisputed medicals of $49,00, the jury awarded Plaintiff $182,000 in pain and suffering both in the past and in the future but found the Plaintiff 51% negligent resulting in a net verdict of $113,000.

Boston Junior Partner Adam C. Brandon successfully argued for dismissal of all claims asserted against our client, Pearl Holding Group, Inc. (“Pearl Holding”), following oral argument in this automobile liability action that was pending in Brockton District Court, MA.

Plaintiff, a named insured on an automobile policy issued by Pearl Holding, alleged property damages and uncompensated losses arising from a car accident in Massachusetts with an underinsured driver, who was not a party to the action.  Plaintiff alleged, in part, Pearl Holding breached the subject insurance contract by denying reimbursement for his expenses related to the accident, including the total loss of his vehicle.  In response, on behalf of Pearl Holding, we moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint on the primary grounds of improper venue pursuant to Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(3).   In sum, the Court agreed that Plaintiff’s claims could not be litigated before it as the record evidence demonstrated that Pearl Holding’s state of incorporation, principal office, the location of service of the Complaint and Summons, the state of issuance of the subject insurance contract, and  Plaintiff’s residential address, despite his claims to the contrary, all lie outside of Massachusetts.  Accordingly, the Court granted our Motion to Dismiss on grounds of improper venue.

Stuart Managing Partner, Benjamin S. Paul, Esq., prevailed on a Motion to Dismiss for Fraud Upon the Court in a personal injury, automotive accident matter styled Plaintiff v. Co-Defendant and A Great Fence, LLC. Plaintiff alleged that he sustained permanent neck and back injuries for an incident that occurred in a motor vehicle accident resulting in claiming an excess of $50,000 in damages. Plaintiff claimed that he was injured when the Co-Defendant collided with the rear end of Plaintiff’s vehicle. After propounding discovery against Plaintiff, it became apparent that this was not the first time he was involved in an accident. He had been previously involved in two separate motor vehicle accidents where he hired an attorney and claimed the same exact neck injuries. When deposing the Plaintiff, the past medical history was one of the most essential topics, and when Plaintiff falsely testified multiple times under oath to his prior litigation, medical treatment, and accidents, it became apparent that the matter was ripe for a Motion to Dismiss for Fraud Upon the Court. After drafting the motion and Plaintiff drafting a response, the Court heard the Motion to Dismiss for Fraud Upon the Court and granted it with prejudice.  

On November 15, 2024, Stuart Senior Partner Nora Bailey and Managing Partner Benjamin Pahl, as well as Associate Zoe Nelson, obtained a complete defense verdict after a four-day jury trial in St. Lucie County, Florida. Plaintiff alleged that she was severely burned due to negligent maintenance of our client, Atlantis Cove, LLC, an apartment complex in Ft. Pierce, Florida, when her stove spontaneously caught fire due to a purported defect in the right front burner. Plaintiff claimed that our maintenance team should have inspected the apartment more frequently, such that the defect would have been noted before the incident occurred. Defendant denied liability, arguing that more frequent inspections were not required and would not have caught the defect as it was a solely internal issue within the coil-top burner that would not have been identified any sooner; to the extent the defect could have been visible, Defendant argued that the tenant/Plaintiff had better knowledge of the condition of her stove by virtue of cooking with it daily as opposed to the maintenance team who could not enter without her permission. At trial, Defendant introduced 28 pages of work orders submitted by the tenant, none of which pertained to the stove, to argue that maintenance was not on notice of any concerns related to the burner. Plaintiff’s theory of liability throughout litigation was that she had been electrically shocked and lit on fire from ‘the inside out’, but changed for the first time at trial where she testified that she did not know what happened. Ms. Bailey was able to elicit testimony during the cross of Plaintiff’s electrical engineer that the pan was insulated and could not have shocked her, and that the defect was “possibly” visible prior to the incident. He further admitted that he could not testify as to how the defect in the burner caused the Plaintiff’s injuries, which were indisputably oil/liquid burns based on the testimony of her treating physicians. The defense experts testified that this was an unfortunate cooking fire unrelated to any defect in the stove and that the defect Plaintiff claimed occurred would not have been visible even with radiography of the stove, far beyond the capabilities of an ordinary maintenance team. Defense plastic surgeon testified that the burns were not electrical in nature but were rather clearly caused by oil or hot liquid, and that the Plaintiff had healed well with no neurological or functional limitations.

Over the course of four days, the jury listened to testimony that the Plaintiff suffered second-degree burns over 10% of her body, resulting in the need for transfer to a specialty burn unit and skin grafting to her arm, face, and abdomen. At issue was also a potential spoliation of evidence, as the Plaintiff failed to produce the burner, the frying pan, and other components of the stove until two years into litigation; the remaining components of the stove were never produced. Through pretrial motion practice, Ms. Bailey was successful in securing an adverse inference instruction to be given to the jury on this point. Further, during examination of the defense’s last witness, a friend of the Plaintiff’s, Mr. Pahl was able to elicit testimony that the Plaintiff had talked to the witness before her testimony about what to say on the stand. This resulted in an instruction to the jury that the Plaintiff had violated a court order, which the jury was to take into account when weighing the Plaintiff’s credibility.

Spoilation Instructions Against Plaintiff for Losing Evidence

Stuart Senior Partner, Nora Bailey, Esq., prevailed on a Motion for Valcin Adverse Inference Instruction in a premises liability/personal injury matter styled Plaintiff v. Atlantis Cove, LLC. Plaintiff alleged that she sustained permanent and disfiguring burns for an incident that occurred in her rental apartment at the Defendant’s premises on July 16, 2021, resulting in $156,000 in medical bills from burn treatment, skin grafting, and a potential neurological injury. The Plaintiff claimed that the Defendant’s cooking range was defective and “electrocuted” her, causing a fire and the resultant injuries. Defendant made numerous requests to inspect the range and its component parts, but by the time the inspection proceeded, the stove was dismantled and was missing its burners, drip pans, cord, and plug. After deposing the Plaintiff and a witness, as well as propounding targeted discovery requests as to the missing items, a hearing was held requiring Plaintiff to produce same to the Defendant. Despite this, the Plaintiff only produced one burner, the cord and plug, and a frying pan, but none of the other 3 burners or any of the 4 drip pans. Accordingly, Ms. Bailey filed a Motion for Valcin Adverse Inference Instruction, arguing that Plaintiff had a duty to preserve the evidence and failed to do so, prejudicing the defense’s ability to litigate the case. The Court agreed, and ruled that the jury will be instructed that there is a rebuttable presumption against the Plaintiff that the stove’s component parts – those produced improperly and those never produced – were harmful to her case, and Plaintiff would be required to overcome said presumption by the greater weight of the evidence.

$875K Final pretrial demand | jury awarded $27K. New England trial team convinced a jury to see things their way and deny a Plaintiff a highly inflated claim for damages.

On November 4, 2024, Boston Managing Partner Paul Michienzie and Rhode Island Partner David Maglio obtained a favorable verdict in a trucking liability matter styled Plaintiff v. v. TST Trucking, Inc., et al.

In 2017, the Plaintiff suffered a disc herniation while participating in a CrossFit workout and underwent a surgery (L 4/5 discectomy and laminectomy) to repair the injury. Subsequently, in 2018, she was rear ended by a fully loaded tractor trailer driven by the insured driver/Defendant. Despite being diagnosed with a lumbar strain as a result of the accident, Plaintiff claimed the accident caused further, permanent injury to her back. Adding further complexity to the matter, Plaintiff injured her back two more times after the accident: once in 2019 and once in 2020, ultimately undergoing a second surgery in 2020 to repair a further disc herniation. 

Plaintiff claimed medical bills of $92,000 for the second alleged surgery and related care, and projected future medical costs of over $310,000 for treatment and for a spinal fusion. Her claims also included requests for compensation due to pain and suffering, leading to a final pretrial demand of $875,000. The Defendant conceded liability for the motor vehicle accident, but denied that it caused the extent of injury that the Plaintiff claimed. To the contrary, our attorneys and medical expert successfully demonstrated to the jury that the Plaintiff’s own timeline proved her reherniation was caused by the additional injuries that happened after the motor vehicle accident. Any additional costs therefore were not the responsibility of the Defendant.

Through careful analysis of Plaintiff’s injury history combined with compelling testimony of the Defense medical expert, our team successfully limited the damage award to compensate Plaintiff only for the actual cost of treatment related to the motor vehicle accident. Significantly, the jury did not award damages for any further treatment or surgery.

 Importantly, as a result of pre-trial Motions in Limine, the Court excluded all evidence of liability related to the cause of the accident and limited Plaintiff’s introduction of medical bills. In the end, the jury award totaled $27,000 or less than 5% of the amount sought by Plaintiff in the trial.

Favorable Verdict | Morgan & Morgan | $266K Net Verdict | $2.5 Million Demand | Admitted Liability  

On October 25, 2024, Tampa Partners, Jeff Benson and Tony Petrillo obtained a favorable verdict for a big box store in matter styled Plaintiff v. Defendant Retail Big Box Store.  Plaintiff was struck and orthopedically pinned by an allegedly overloaded industrial freight cart. Liability was admitted and there was no comparative fault defense.  

Plaintiff claimed the incident aggravated significant prior degenerative disc disease resulting in a laminectomy at L4-5 as well as other substantial chiropractic and pain management treatment.  Plaintiff also claimed she would require a future SI joint fusion and future cervical surgery.  Trial involved several experts on complex medical issues, the most notable being pre-existing undiagnosed neurogenic claudication.

The jury returned a verdict of $166K for past medical expenses (exact amount claimed) and only $100k for past pain and suffering.  The jury made no award for Plaintiff’s claimed future medical expenses and future pain and suffering.  The gross verdict was remarkably close to the pretrial offer and a substantial victory given Plaintiffs demand of $2.5M. 

On October 16, 2024, after having heard oral argument, the Third District Court of Appeal rendered a per curiam opinion affirming the trial court’s order granting involuntary dismissal after a non-jury trial in the matter styled PAJ Investment Group, LLC v. El Lago N.W. 7th Condominium Association, Inc. The case arose out of a dispute over easement rights to access and fill adjoining submerged lands which had been under contract for over $30 million dollars. The Plaintiff sought to sell the submerged property to a developer, fill in the lake, and build over 600 condominium units. To do so, the Plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment from the Court that the easements were appurtenant and granted them unfettered access to the easements on our client’s land for the purposes of developing their adjoining property, along with an injunction which would have our client tear down their gates and surrender large portions of their parking lot to the Plaintiff. Senior Partner Luis Menendez-Aponte and Senior Associate Lucas Gargaglione successfully defended the condominium complex against the adjoining landowner/developer by establishing that the easements were in gross. The issue on appeal was whether the easements are appurtenant or in gross. On appeal, PAJ argued that the easements were appurtenant because they are perpetual, non-exclusive, granted ingress and egress, and allowed for other permissible uses, all of which would be essential to development of the property. While Senior Appellate Partner, Edgardo Ferreyra, Jr., on behalf of the Association maintained that the easements were in gross, because the prior easement holder did not own any property, and therefore, not attached to an estate, as well as that the language of the easements did not reference any dominant estate. The appellate court agreed with the Association, finding that the easements were not connected to a dominant and the prior easement holder did not own the dominant tenement. Thus, an easement appurtenant never comes into existence. Although easements in gross are not favored by the common law the Third District noted that it could not ignore the fact that the necessary elements of easements appurtenant were missing. Accordingly, it affirmed the trial court’s involuntary dismissal of this case.

Defense Verdict - Rubenstein Law - Premises Liability

On October 22, 2024, Senior Partner Dorsey Miller and Managing Partner William Peterfriend obtained a compete defense verdict in a premises liability matter styled Plaintiff v. Defendant Retail Store. The Plaintiff claimed Defendant Retail Store negligently allowed a 10-foot down spout to fall out of its display, thereby striking Plaintiff on the head. The Plaintiff subsequently claimed that she suffered a neck injury which resulted in surgery. The court bifurcated liability and damages. At trial, Plaintiff argued that the display dangerously allowed a downspout to be 14 feet off the ground with inadequate protection from falling and striking customers. The Defense was able to elicit testimony from Plaintiff and her partner that they never saw the down spout before it hit her, had no idea where it fell from, have no idea where it was before it hit her and admitted there were two other customers within the vicinity of the display. During closing arguments, Defense argued Plaintiff’s case was solely based upon speculation with no direct evidence of negligence. The jury returned a verdict finding no negligence within 15 minutes.

Defense Verdict  - Trip and Fall – Morgan & Morgan – Plaintiff demanded Approx. $600K

On September 26, 2024, Managing Partners Frank Sato and William Peterfriend obtained a compete defense verdict in a premises liability matter styled Plaintiff v. Versailles at Wellington Association.  The Plaintiff claimed she tripped and fell on a raised sidewalk located within her community.  The Plaintiff subsequently claimed she suffered a partial rotator cuff tear in her right arm.  At trial, Plaintiff’s liability expert testified that the sidewalk violated various building codes.  Her orthopedic surgeon testified she would need a surgery to her right shoulder. During closing arguments,  Plaintiff demanded close to $600,000 for her pain and suffering, after dropping her past and future claim for medical bills.  The defense was able to have Plaintiff admit on cross examination that the only reason for her trip and fall was that she wasn’t watching where she was walking.  The defense was also able to show that her conditions pre-dated the date of the fall.  The jury returned a verdict finding no negligence. Read More.

On September 17, 2024, Miami Partners Otto Espino and Karma Hall obtained a defense verdict in a First-Party Property matter styled Jesus Guerra v. Defendant Insurance Company. The plaintiff filed suit against defendant alleging breach of contract in failing to pay benefits for a Hurricane Irma claim. 

Plaintiff alleged he suffered roof damages and ensuing rain water leaks at his home as a result of the hurricane on Sept. 10, 2017. However, the first notice of the claim was provided to Defendant on Mar. 20, 2019, about 18 months later. During Defendant’ s inspection, the water damages inside the home were significant and advanced. However, the roof inspection did not find any wind-related damages. Defendant contended plaintiff let the damages worsen since the date of loss and had failed to properly protect the property from continued water damages. Prejudice from the failure to protect the property and mitigate damages was Defendant’s first affirmative defense.

At trial, the defense presented testimony from Ryon Plancer, P.E. while plaintiff presented testimony from Chris Thompson, P.E. The experts agreed as to the general weather conditions related to the storm. Both agreed the continued rain water intrusions would worsen damages.

The experts disputed whether there were any storm damages. At the close of the defendant’s case, the Court entered a partial directed verdict finding that notice was deemed late as a matter of law. The Court instructed the jury that they were only to consider whether plaintiff had removed defendant’s presumed prejudice from this late notice. The jury deliberated for one hour before returning a defense verdict on the issue of prejudice. Post trial motions are pending. The defense is entitled to prevailing party costs and will be seeking recovery of attorney fees based on a proposal for settlement. Read More.

Plaintiff asked the jury for damages of approx. $14 million -  Jury Returned Verdict of $307K

On August 23, 2024, Jacksonville Partners, Zach Brewer and Deana Dunham prevented a nuclear verdict, in a premises liability matter styled Plaintiff v. VyStar Financial Group, LLC. The plaintiff filed suit against defendant, VyStar Financial Group, alleging that Defendant failed to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition and failed to warn Plaintiff of a hazardous condition about which Defendant knew or should have known.

Plaintiff alleged that, on June 3, 2019, while she was an invitee on Defendant’s premises, Plaintiff entered an elevator which malfunctioned, causing the Plaintiff to fall and sustain injuries. Plaintiff maintained that she was going to the 14^th floor and, as she ascended, the elevator started to experience mechanical malfunctions, and then started to descent at a rapid, freefall pace, and suddenly stopped near or on the main level.  As a result of this incident, Plaintiff claimed injuries to her neck and back, problems with her memory, and mental health conditions including depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder.

At trial, the defense presented testimony from three elevator technicians who had worked in the building and inspected the elevator to establish that it would have been impossible for the incident to have occurred as Plaintiff claimed. Specifically, that it would have been impossible for the elevator to have free fallen. The defense also offered testimony from mechanical engineer and Qualified Elevator Inspector, Lawrence Marley, to establish that the elevator came to a controlled stop. Biomechanical engineer, Ming Xiao, established that the force involved in the controlled stop would have been equivalent to the force felt in a half-inch hop off the ground.   

During closing arguments, Plaintiff asked the jury for damages of approximately $14 million. The jury deliberated for 4 hours before returning a verdict of $307,000 against Defendant. Read More.

Senior Associate Carissa Gangemi, Esq., obtained a dismissal with prejudice on March 7, 2024, in a Premise Liability and Security Negligence action styled Plaintiff v. Miami-Dade County, Co-Defendant, & Feick Security Corporation. The lawsuit arose out of a shooting incident, possible homicide, that allegedly occurred on January 30, 2021, at the Edison Courts Housing Unit Development in Miami, Florida. Per the Incident Report, Plaintiff suffered a gunshot wound to the knee when her vehicle was struck by gunfire in the intersection of NW 4th Avenue and NW 64th Street in Miami, Florida.  Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant was negligent, as a security company for the property, in failing to keep the property in a reasonably safe condition against foreseeable criminal activity. Plaintiff also asserted that Defendant was negligent in their hiring, supervision, and retention as to their security guards and, as a result, was the direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff’s injuries. Miami-Dade County and Feick Security Corporation, entered into a Contract for Security Guard Services for Miami-Dade County Public Housing Facilities on April 1, 2020, and the contract provided specific Guard Locations. Security services for the Edison Courts property was not included in the contract’s initial Guard locations. Furthermore, discovery revealed that Feick’s services were not requested by Miami-Dade County for that specific Housing Development prior to the shooting. Documentation was obtained confirming that Feick had not been contracted until months after the shooting incident.  This key information aided Defendant in dismantling Plaintiff’s theory that Feick was negligent in its security services and hiring, supervising, or retention of their guards, with Co-defendant’s counsel eventually confirming that Feick had not been contracted for the Edison Court property at the time of, or prior to, the subject shooting incident.  Following this confirmation, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice as to Feick Security Corporation. Read More

Defense Verdict - 4-Day Jury Trial - Plaintiff asked the Jury for $19.3M 

On July 18, 2024, Orlando Partners, Juan A. Ruiz and Michael H. Kestenbaum obtained a defense verdict, in a wrongful death auto liability matter styled Personal Representative of the Estate of Decedent v. Marley. The plaintiff filed suit against defendant, Marley, alleging negligence in the wrongful death of Decedent. 

Plaintiff alleged that the defendant was operating his vehicle on eastbound Interstate 4 in an unsafe manner leading to a motor vehicle accident, which caused his vehicle to spin and flip. As a result of the vehicle flipping, the decedent, an unbelted rear seat, passenger, was ejected, and killed. The defense, unable to rebut the allegations of negligence, chose to defend this matter on causation as a result of the plaintiff not wearing his seatbelt.  

At trial, the defense presented testimony from, John F. Abercrombie, M.D., MS, FACEP, a biomedical expert, who testified that the failure to wear a seatbelt was the approximate cause of the ejection, which was the approximate cause of death. The jury deliberated for 2.5 hours before returning a complete defense verdict. Post trial motions are pending. The defense is entitled to prevailing party costs.  Read More.

Four-day jury trial; Plaintiff requested millions in damages - the Jury returned a complete Defense Verdict 

On May 17, 2024, Partners, Benjamin Pahl, Esq. and Nora Bailey, Esq., obtained a complete defense verdict after a four-day jury trial in a premises liability matter styled Plaintiffs v. South Florida Fair and W.G. Wade Shows. The lawsuit arose out of a claim by the Plaintiff, an older female, wherein it was alleged that Defendants acted negligently in allowing a stair handrail leading to a portable restroom trailer to exist in a dangerous condition – specifically, Plaintiff claimed there was a paint chip on the railing that poked her left hand, causing her to startle and fall backwards down the stairs, resulting in a tibia/fibula fracture and two surgeries as well as extensive rehabilitation and ongoing attendant care.   The Defendants denied liability and asserted that Plaintiff had acted negligently by using the stairs instead of an ADA-accessible restroom next to the trailer, given her left-sided deficits after a stroke approximately eight months prior to the fall at the Defendants’ premises, and further asserted that there was no paint chip or dangerous condition.

At trial, testimony from Defendants’ employees was that there were never any complaints or concerns related to the railing, nor were any repairs or inspections ever requested as to same; an Emergency Medical Technician who had worked at the Fair for 20+ years testified that the Plaintiff’s incident was the only fall at that location to which she had ever responded.  The defense was also able to elicit testimony and introduce evidence that the Plaintiff had been in ongoing therapy for difficulties related to the left hand and deficits therein as recently as two weeks before the fall, and was receiving 36 hours per week of attendant care related thereto up through the day of the incident.  The Plaintiff admitted she had arrived at the Fair on the day of the incident in a wheelchair and had used a cane when ambulating, but did not utilize either when she chose to take the stairs to the restroom. She relied on a photograph she took of her left pinky several days after the incident to suggest that a cut on the finger was caused by a ‘sharp’ paint chip that felt like ‘an ice pick’ in her hand.

Plaintiffs retained no liability expert but utilized Craig Lichtblau, M.D., as their life care planner. Despite preparing a nearly 300-page “Comprehensive Report,” Dr. Lichtblau admitted on cross-examination by Ms. Bailey that he did not consider the pre-existing stroke related deficits to be relevant to his evaluation of the Plaintiff. He further testified that his own evaluation of the Plaintiff indicated that she could not feel pins or pick up small objects with her left-hand due to weakness and numbness therein, undercutting Plaintiff’s contention that she was poked in that hand which caused her to fall. Nonetheless, Dr. Lichtblau recommended nearly $1.34M in future care for the Plaintiff, which was supported by the testimony of economist Frederick Raffa, Ph.D.

Defendants’ CME physician, Mark Rubenstein, M.D., testified at trial that the Plaintiff was a fall risk with left-sided weakness and numbness and should not have used the stairs that day; he further testified that any need for ongoing care was related to the sequelae from the previous stroke, and not any consequences from the fall. Dr. Rubenstein also walked the jury through multiple notes in the medical records after the fall wherein Plaintiff told her treating physicians she had missed the grab rail and fell, but never made any mention of a dangerous condition.

Over the course of four days, the jury listened to the Plaintiff testify about the devastating impact of the incident and the injuries on her life, as well as to her husband’s testimony in support of his consortium claim, and the testimony of their adult son.  Mr. Pahl emphasized in closing that the jury had to use common sense to evaluate the evidence and that the Plaintiffs simply had failed to meet their burden of proof.

Plaintiffs’ counsel asked the jury in closing for an award of $4.67 – $4.91M ($576,854 in past medical expenses; $1,337,633 in future medical expenses; $500,000 past pain and suffering; $2M future pain and suffering; $250-500K consortium claim). After deliberating for about three hours, the jury rendered a complete defense verdict in favor of South Florida Fair and W.G. Wade Shows. Read More.