The Superior Court of Pennsylvania recently affirmed the summary judgment dismissal of a multi-million-dollar legal malpractice case against a Pennsylvania attorney defended by Goldberg Segalla.

The victory — secured by partner Seth Laver with assistance from partner Daniel Strick and attorney Joseph Ross — was particularly significant in that it involved complex, underlying issues and was heard in the often-difficult Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.

The dispute stemmed from an injury suffered by a non-party who for 14 years was employed as a hotel waiter by a well-known enterprise. Shortly before the employee stopped working, the hotel changed to a new brand, and as such, a new employer.

The employee alleged he injured his back due to repetitive lifting and carrying of large trays, claiming he suffered the injury on his last day of employment. Given the recent ownership change at the hotel, he and his counsel were initially unsure which employer to target. Therefore, he filed separate claim petitions: one against the long-term employer and the other against the plaintiff which employed him for approximately two weeks.

One of those employers was represented by our client, who concluded that it was the plaintiff/employer that was exclusively responsible for the worker’s injuries under the particulars of Pennsylvania workers’ compensation law since it was the company that last employed the worker before he left due to his injuries. (During a relatively common procedure on his back, the employee endured significant and debilitating infections which dramatically increased our exposure).

Without a liability defense, the hotel’s defense counsel — our client — focused on determining the viability of a medical defense. But ultimately, such a defense was lacking as its medical expert was unable to conclude that the injury occurred during his initial employment. Out of viable options, defense counsel determined the strategy should be to explore settlement. Instead, the hotel terminated counsel and pursued a legal malpractice suit against both it and the assigned TPA.

Based on the undisputed fact that the employee was employed for 14 years by the initial employer — as opposed to the plaintiff’s employment of about two weeks — the plaintiff in its malpractice claim argued it could not be responsible for the worker’s injuries. But while this reaction seems reasonable for a layperson, at the trial level and on appeal, Goldberg Segalla’s defense team argued that the length of employment has no bearing on determining liability and the last employer is liable for reimbursement of a claimant’s injuries in a cumulative trauma scenario.

Our argument, supported by expert submissions, was successful at summary judgment and on appeal.

A ‘case-within-a-case’ analysis can be complex and daunting. But Goldberg Segalla’s defense team developed a comprehensive record of the underlying worker’s compensation case and proved there was no evidence available to the defendant attorney at the time, or that had been elicited during discovery since, which could have insulated the plaintiff from liability. The plaintiff was the proper employer, the employee’s counsel sought recovery from only the proper employer, and the judge agreed.

By virtue of a particular worker’s compensation law in Pennsylvania, in the context of a repetitive trauma scenario, the “employer” for purposes of allocating workers’ compensation benefits is the injured employee’s last employer. Thus, regardless of whether an employee worked for a dozen different employers, the only employer responsible for benefits is the one for whom the employee last works.

This point was the key issue in the underlying proceedings. The result was the proper result and the only viable one based on the facts and law — and it is a clear and decisive win for the legal malpractice defense community.