The COVID-19 pandemic has affected everyone in many ways over the past year. In the hopes of returning to some sense of normalcy, Philadelphia’s court system has implemented a number of changes to its operations to create a safe environment where the public can once again conduct business. Below, I discuss how this has impacted asbestos and talc litigation pending in Philadelphia.

In April 2020, Governor Cuomo signed the Emergency Disaster Treatment Protection Act (hereinafter “EDTPA”) which granted broad, and retroactive, immunity to certain healthcare providers and facilities for good-faith actions or omissions taken in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Though the EDTPA was amended in August 2020 to allow healthcare providers to be held both civilly and criminally liable for care-related claims unrelated to the ongoing pandemic, it has still continued to afford healthcare providers immunity for liability related to COVID-19 virus treatment/care up to this time.

Although Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-549aa provides that a litigant has an “absolute right” to a trial de novo of an arbitration award, the Connecticut Appellate Court in Pascola-Milton v. Millard, et al., 2021 Conn.App. LEXIS 72 (2021) recently clarified that this right only applies to compulsory arbitrations.

On February 17, 2021, New Jersey’s Supreme Court handed down a much-awaited decision in the matter of Maison v. New Jersey Transit Corporation, a personal injury suit filed against New Jersey’s public transit corporation and one of its employees.

Effective on February 1, 2021, New York’s Uniform Rules for the Supreme Court and the County Court were revised, by order of Chief Administrative Judge Lawrence Marks. The changes incorporate certain rules that the Commercial Division of New York’s Supreme Court had earlier adopted, in an effort to streamline litigation. These rule changes will now apply to all civil cases in the Supreme Court and County Court, including tort actions. As these rules are interpreted by trial courts across the state, MKCI’s attorneys will continue to monitor and advise our clients of any impact these changes will have on their pending legal matters.

On February 1, 2021, attorneys Lawrence McGivney and Jonathan Lee obtained a judgment from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Union County, on behalf of the firm’s client, a roofing contractor.

In a recent published decision in the matter of Cruz v. Dougherty, A-1276-19T3 (App. Div. Jan. 11, 2021), New Jersey’s Appellate Division affirmed a trial court’s dismissal of a New Jersey Civil Rights Act lawsuit against a detective employed by the Camden County Prosecutor’s Office. The basis of the claim was the arrest and subsequent acquittal of the Plaintiff on murder charges, after he spent two years in jail awaiting and during trial. Plaintiff had filed suit as to the investigating detective, focusing his claims primarily on the detective’s grand jury testimony. Plaintiff alleged that the detective omitted testimony, particularly concerning the witness who had identified Plaintiff out of a photo array. The witness was fourteen years old, had only seen the side of the shooter’s face, and her identification was not always confident.

Jose M. Jara is a Partner in MKCI’s New York City and Florham Park, NJ offices and Director of the firm’s ERISA Department. His practice focuses on ERISA and employment litigation and counseling and includes representing clients under investigation by the Department of Labor (“DOL”) and Employee Benefits Security Administration (“EBSA”), and defending clients from lawsuits filed by the DOL’s Office of the Solicitor regarding civil and/or criminal violations of ERISA. Jose has defended plan fiduciaries and boards of directors against ERISA litigation alleging breach of fiduciary duty in connection with imprudent investments, excessive fees, and delinquent employee contributions.

It is our privilege to name Richard Fennelly as a Partner at McGivney, Kluger, Clark & Intoccia Richard has been with MKCI since 2017 and has been a pivotal part of the growth and success of the Hartford office.

In the recent decision of Francis Ross Clark v. David Nenna, M.D., New Jersey’s Appellate Division reiterated the jurisdiction’s well-established rule that a plaintiff alleging that she has sustained emotional distress due to another’s negligence must support that claim with expert evidence. In Clark, the Court was confronted with a plaintiff who had undergone an orthopedic surgery to remove orthopedic screws. During the procedure, the physician removed the screws, but left washers within the Plaintiff’s body, finding that they were embedded in scar tissue. The physician failed to tell Plaintiff of this decision.