Vo l u m e 1 6 I s s u e 2 , S p r i n g 2 0 0 5 www.wemed.com

While we have a global reachthrough our London office and ourFrench and German affiliates, we takegreat pride in being a national law firmthat thinks locally. With 19 officesthroughout the United States and 730lawyers, our firm has one of the mostextensive domestic networks. For ourclients, this translates into effectivenationwide service.

This domestic network providesclients with seamless representation inthe courts and the business centers ofour nation. Whether it is the financialand population centers in New YorkCity, Westchester and Long Island; ournation's capital in Washington with oursister offices in Virginia and Baltimore;the state capital in Albany; our presencein New England via Boston andStamford; the important commercialcenters in Philadelphia and Newark;our office in Chicago, the capital of ourAmerican heartland; the portals ofLatin America through Miami and ourtwo offices in Texas (Dallas andHouston); the Far East through ourthree offices in California, (LosAngeles, San Francisco and San Diego);Wilson Elser is there representing the

A letter from the Chairman…

Thomas W. WilsonChairman of the Executive Committee

ACTL inducts fifth Wilson Elser lawyer Thomas W. Hyland (Partner-New York) this spring

joined four other Wilson Elser lawyers as a fellow of theAmerican College of Trial Lawyers (ACTL), one of the pre-mier legal associations in America. Tom was inducted in aceremony during the recent 2005 Spring Meeting of theCollege in La Quinta, California.

Tom said he was “very honored” to be recognized bythe ACTL for his years of practice as a litigator. “It is recog-nition of the work of our firm because in the overwhelmingnumber of circumstances, I was assisted by incredibly talent-ed Wilson Elser partners, associates and staff. This is, Ibelieve, a very public recognition of the firm,” he said.

Since 1950, the ACTL has been composed of the best lawyers of the trial bar fromthe United States and Canada. Fellows of the ACTL must have 15 years trial experience

Philly lawyer named to panel to fight court biasKathleen D. Wilkinson (Partner-Philadelphia) has been

named to a new state intergovernmental commission that willimplement recommendations to eliminate racial, gender and ethnicbias in the Pennsylvania court system. The goal of the commissionis to enhance the trust and confidence of Pennsylvania citizens inthe judiciary and ensure everyone is getting fair justice, regardless

of their race, gender or ethnic background, according to a commission statement.

“When Michael Reed, president of the Pennsylvania Bar Association, suggestedmy name be given to the governor’s office as a candidate for the commission, I was flat-

Thomas W. Hyland

Continued on page 3

Continued on page 6

Continued on page 8Continued on page 3

Wilson ElserWilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP

WemediaWilson Elser secures precedent setting decision

Wilson Elser has won a precedent setting decisionthat extends the protection of the blood shield law to tissuebanks in New York State. In this recent case, plaintiffsattempted to have standard product liability laws prevailand permit litigation by a patient who became ill after asurgery.

New York, like most jurisdictions, has a blood shieldlaw insulating suppliers from product liability actions.These statutes recognize that there would not be an ade-quate blood supply if providers were subject to suit underproduct liability statutes. New York law states that human blood, its components and

By Thomas A. Leghorn (Partner-Westchester),Adam R. Bialek, (Partner-Westchester), and JasonA. Kotzker (Associate-Westchester)

With the expansion of electronic com-merce, U.S. trademark laws are increasinglybeing tested. As multi-billion dollar compa-nies develop faster than the law progresses,traditional trademark law principles arebeing applied to new forms of com-merce in an online environment with-out uniformity.

No example paints a clearer pic-ture of the problem than the searchengine giant, Google. The majority ofthe online search engine’s revenue isreportedly generated from its“Adwords” system, which allows com-panies to purchase advertising linkedto keywords entered into Google’ssearch field. This seemingly innocentadvertising technique immediatelybecomes more complex when a com-pany purchases a rival’s trademark asone of its “adwords.”

Ongoing litigation between GeicoInsurance Company and Google focuses onthis issue. Geico charged Google with vio-lating its trademarks by selling the ability toattract consumers who enter “Geico” as asearch term to rival insurance companies.Geico alleged that such a practice displaysrivals’ web sites and advertisements when a

consumer enters its trademark as a searchterm.

Geico claimed Google’s practice dilut-ed its trademarks and caused consumer con-fusion by displaying advertisements foralternative insurance carriers to those seek-ing information on Geico insurance.

In January, the U.S. District Court forthe Eastern District of Virginia partiallygranted Google’s motion for a directed ver-dict, holding that it is not trademarkinfringement to use trademarks as keywordsto trigger advertising. U.S. District CourtJudge Leonie M. Brinkema held that noconfusion was created in situations whereGeico’s trademark does not appear in the

rivals’ ads, but rather is simply a trigger foralternative advertising.

While the U.S. District Court rulingdoes not terminate the entire suit, it is clear-ly a monumental victory for Google, whichreportedly derives close to 95 percent of itsadvertising revenue through its Adwordssystem.

The issue is whether a strongerlikelihood of confusion exists whenGeico’s trademark appears in competi-tors’ ads. Whether this constitutestrademark infringement is still beforethe court.

The Google decision, however,does little to clear the already muddiedwaters of online trademark law. Forexample, in Brookfield Communications,Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment Corp., theNinth Circuit Court of Appeals ruledthat the use of a rival’s trademark as ameta-tag (a list of words hidden in aweb site’s computer code that assists

search engines in determining whether theweb page is relevant to a search query), vio-lated the trademark rights of the mark’sowner. Because a company may list a rival’strademark numerous times in its meta-tags,a search engine could theoretically list theweb site very high on the list of relevantsites – perhaps even higher than the markowner’s web site.

2

Wilson Elser was listed by the NewYork Law Journal as having one of the TopNoteworthy Defense Wins of 2004. TheWilson Elser “Top Win” was for a casewhere the firm represented an insurancecompany against a charge where plaintiffssought damages of $5 million to $17 mil-lion. The plaintiffs alleged lead poisoningwas responsible for the illness to a child.

The lead poisoning and premises lia-bility case was handled by James T.Whalen, Jr. (Partner-Westchester) and

Lucinda H. Alfieri (Associate-Westchester). Wilson Elser won a favor-able jury verdict in the case heard inWestchester County, N.Y.

The plaintiffs charged that a two yearold child was exposed to hazardous leadpaint and had the highest possible record-ed elevated blood lead reading. Also, itwas charged the alleged conditions result-ed in a stuttering problem and problemsin school for the child.

The defense successfully counteredthat the exposure to lead was not a sub-stantial factor in causing the child'salleged academic problems. The youth didwell in school after the alleged lead expo-sure and only had school problems afterbeing placed in three different fosterhomes because his mother had beencharged with child abuse. The defensesuccessfully fought back the damage claimby questioning the earning power of thechild as it entered adulthood without theuse of an economic expert.

Wilson Elser case listed among New York Law Journal “Top Wins”

Wemedia

Google’s Keyword Advertising Tests U.S. Trademark Law

Continued on page 4

Super Lawyers Magazine has named 11Wilson Elser partners from across thecountry this year as "Super Lawyers" in aprocess designed to identify lawyers whohave attained a high degree of peer recog-nition and professional achievement. Onlyfive percent of the lawyers in a given stateor region are named Super Lawyers.

The selection of the lawyers is madefrom ballots returned by actively practicingcolleagues in a particular state or regionwho have seen the candidates at work. Allof the lawyers will be featured in a supple-ment included in a regional magazine in theareas where the lawyers practice.

Partners selected from Wilson Elser as"Super Lawyers" include: Boston, WilliamT. Bogaert and Maynard M. Kirpalani;

Chicago, David Holmes, Raymond J.Jast and Daniel McMahon; Los Angeles,Howard L. Halm; San Francisco, RalphW. Robinson; and New Jersey, James C.Orr, Thomas F. Quinn, William J. Riinaand Keith G. Von Glahn.

3

New Jersey LawJournal

DPA may require Cobra-like coverage

by Kevin C. Donovan(Partner-New Jersey)

Super Lawyers Magazine taps 11 from Wilson Elser

needs of clients. This has all been enhancedby our newest office in Las Vegas which isin the center of the fastest growing regionin the United States.

Although we are a national firm, wehave a global perspective. We representsome of the largest companies from aroundthe globe. Our client base includes organi-zations from six of the seven continents(we have yet to break the ice of Antarctica).We take pride in our long-standing deeprelationships with many companiesthroughout the world. Additionally, we con-tinue to build relationships in the emergingmarkets of Eastern Europe, the MiddleEast and Latin America. Combined withour North American clients, this gives us atruly international perspective on business.

While we have offices throughout thecountry, it is our lawyers who bring experi-ence in a host of professions, includingengineering, architecture, medicine andaccounting, to name a few. The attorneys inour national network are men and womenof extensive experience, as well as beingactive members in a host of professional,legal and industrial organizations

Many of the firm's attorneys have beenrecognized for their accomplishments,examples of which are included in thisissue. None of these honors, however,would have been bestowed if we weren'tfocused on the needs of our clients. Everyday, in every way, Wilson Elser lawyersfocus on the goals of our clients and striveto provide not only quality service, but alsopositive results. And we do that across theUnited States in state and federal courts,with regulatory and legislative entities, arbi-tration panels, mediations and all levels ofbusiness transactions. It all starts and endswith the client's needs.

The United States is home to one ofthe greatest economies in the world. Whenbusinesses from around the globe, alongwith our North American clients, capitalizeon these opportunities, Wilson Elser is hereto service their legal and advisory needs. Weare global and national. But most impor-tantly we are local!

Enjoy WEMEDIA!

A letter from the Chairman...

from page 1

tered. I was very pleased toreceive the letter fromGovernor Edward G. Rendellappointing me,” Kathleensaid.

“With my experience asa senior woman litigator, Ihope to help the commissiondevelop appropriate protocolfor courtroom conductamong all parties. The workof the commission appearsto be on the cutting edge for the rest of thenation as the first state, to my knowledge,to study the issues of racial, gender andethnic fairness in the courts.”

The chairman of the 24-member com-mission during its first year will bePennsylvania Supreme Court Chief JusticeRalph J. Cappy. Kathleen will also be serv-ing on the commission’s GrievanceCommittee, chaired by Superior CourtJudge Maureen Lally-Green.

The commission will be reviewing andimplementing recommendations of areport published two years ago by theSupreme Court committee on racial and

gender bias. That commit-tee found bias in the courtsystem and declared itaffected everyone who dealtwith the system, includingwitnesses, litigants, lawyers,court employees and poten-tial jurors.

Issues that stood out inthe Committee on Racialand Gender Bias's 2003report included under-fund-

ed public defenders' offices, the poor treat-ment of domestic violence victims, the lackof translating services for litigants whospeak little English, and the unfair applica-tion of the death penalty.

Other commission members from thePhiladelphia area include Mark Segal, pub-lisher of the Philadelphia Gay News;Philadelphia Common Pleas Judge Ida K.Chen; Lazar H. Kleit, of the PhiladelphiaCommission on Human Relations; LynnMarks, executive director ofPennsylvanians for Modern Courts; andLeslie Anne Miller, former general counselof the commonwealth.

Philly lawyer named to panel to fight court biasfrom page 1

Kathleen D. Wilkinson

4

Recognizing that both web sites wouldbe listed in the search results, the NinthCircuit, nevertheless, held that meta-tagswere violative of U.S. trademark law becausethe trademark is potentially being used toconfuse and divert someone looking for aparticular vendor’s goods or services. Eventhough no actual sale may be consummated,infringement may be based on the initialinterest confusion. According to the Court’smajority, “initial interest confusion is cus-tomer confusion that creates initial interestin a competitor’s product. Although dis-pelled before an actual sale occurs, initialinterest confusion impermissibly capitalizeson the good will associated with a mark andis therefore actionable trademark infringe-ment.”

There, are, however, dissenters withrespect to this ruling. Justice Marsha S.Berzon of the Ninth Circuit Court ofAppeals recently criticized Brookfield andthe breadth given by other courts to the ‘ini-tial interest confusion’ doctrine. Specifically,Judge Berzon opined “I do not think it is

reasonable to find initial interest confusionwhen a consumer is never confused as tosource or affiliation, but instead knows, orshould know, from the outset that a productor web link is not related to that of thetrademark holder because the list producedby the search engine so informs him.” Ineffect, Judge Berzon has called for areassessment of the seminal case in theapplication of trademark law online.

Perhaps, the Google decision is evi-dence that the broad scope of online trade-mark rights is slowly being narrowed. TheGoogle Court apears to be bringing theonline application of trademark law in linewith its traditional application.

Clearly, there is difficulty harmonizingthe various rulings, and with regional courtsruling differently on similar issues, a quag-mire is quickly developing. With the contin-ued explosion of e-commerce, protectingone’s trademark, not only in traditionalforms but also in cyberspace, is becomingincreasingly more important to a company’ssuccess.

Presented by:Anjali C. Das

To: Chicago Bar Association Date: March, 2005

Topic: D&O insurance issues

Wemedia

Google’s Keyword Advertising Tests U.S. Trademark Lawfrom page 2

RIMS ConferenceRobert Weber (Partner-New York) and Lawrence Lum (Partner- New York) attended the 2005 Riskand Insurance Management Socierty (RIMS) Conference in Philadelphia and are pictured here with afew clients.

The Supreme Court of New York,Appellate Division, Second Department,agreed with a Wilson Elser defense that aplaintiff's expert opinion was inadmissible,reversing a lower court. The expert opin-ion concluded the plaintiff developedacute myelogenous leukemia (AML), ablood disorder, as a result of exposure tobenzene in gasoline. The court determinedthere was an absence of quantification ofthe alleged exposure level.

The case was tried by Richard E.Lerner (Partner-New York) Robert J.Kelly (Partner-New Jersey), and Suna Lee(Associate-New Jersey).

Wilson Elser argued that the failure toquantify the alleged exposure does notcomply with the generally acceptedmethodology in determining medical cau-sation as set forth by the World HealthOrganization and the National Academyof Sciences. The court agreed that in theabsence of such quantification, any con-clusions as to plaintiff's alleged exposurewere purely speculative and therefore inad-missible under the test for admissibility ofexpert testimony.

The reversal marks the first time NewYork State has addressed the issue ofquantification of the alleged exposure intoxic tort litigation. The reversal alsomarks the first time New York State hasaddressed the scientific reliability of expertopinion in gasoline exposure cases. TheAppellate Division has now made clearthat in order to establish a prima case ofmedical causation, a plaintiff must quanti-fy the alleged exposure to the toxin inquestion, among other factors, rather thansimply speculating that it was of a suffi-cient level.

Reversal won by firm in gasoline case

(Partner - Chicago)

5

New Partners & Of CounselsThomas L. Appler has been named

Of Counsel in the McLean office. Tomgraduated from Princeton University andGeorge Washington University, NationalLaw Center. He is a member of the VirginiaBar Association and is admitted to practicein Virginia; the Virginia Supreme Court; theU.S. District Court, Eastern and WesternDistricts of Virginia; and the U.S. Court ofAppeals, Fourth Circuit. His practice focus-es on commercial and tort litigation, as wellas professional liability including healthcare,lawyer and accountant malpractice defense,product liability and insurance coverage.

Michael K. Brisbin has been namedOf Counsel in the San Francisco office.Michael graduated from St. Mary's Collegeof California and McGeorge School of Law.He is admitted to practice in California andthe U.S. District Court, Northern, Southern,Central and Eastern Districts. His practicefocuses on defense of life, health and dis-ability claims.

Michael J. Cawley has been nameda partner in the Philadelphia office. Michaelgraduated from the University of Scrantonand Villanova University School of Law. Heis a member of the American BarAssociation and the Pennsylvania BarAssociation, and is admitted to practice inPennsylvania. His practice focuses on insur-ance coverage litigation, including the repre-sentation of insurers and reinsurers in badfaith claims.

Loren S. Cohen has been named OfCounsel in the Chicago office. Loren grad-uated from the University of Illinois andDePaul University College of Law. He isadmitted to practice in Illinois and the U.S.District Court, Northern District of Illinois.His practice focuses on representing variouscorporations, not-for-profit organizationsand individuals in defense of premises,automobile, products, employment, medicalmalpractice and other general liability matters.

Domenick L. D'Angelica has beennamed Of Counsel in the New York office.Domenick graduated from VillanovaUniversity and St. John's University Schoolof Law. He is admitted to practice inConnecticut and New York, as well as the

U.S. District Court, Southern and EasternDistricts of New York. His practice focus-es on general tort liability defense in federal,state and appellate courts.

Michael C. Douglass has beennamed Of Counsel in the San Franciscooffice. Michael graduated from JacksonvilleState University and Texas SouthernUniversity School of Law. He is admitted topractice in Arizona and California; the U.S.District Court of Arizona; the U.S. DistrictCourt, Eastern and Northern Districts ofCalifornia; and the U.S. Court of Appeals,Ninth Circuit. His practice focuses ondefense litigation, including real estate,insurance agent and broker errors and omis-sions, personal injury and commercial litiga-tion.

Herbert J. Gilles has been named OfCounsel in the Dallas office. Herb graduat-ed from Michigan State University andMichigan State University College of Law.He is admitted to practice in Michigan andTexas, as well as the U.S District Court,Southern, Eastern, Northern and WesternDistricts of Texas. His practice focuses oncommercial collection litigation, creditor'srights, insolvency, and loan workout andbankruptcy reorganization representingcreditors.

Charan M. Higbee has been namedOf Counsel in the San Francisco office.Charan graduated from University ofCalifornia, Los Angeles and the Universityof San Diego School of Law. She is admit-ted to practice in California; the U.S. Courtof Appeals, Ninth Circuit; and the U.S.District Court for the Northern, Eastern,Central and Southern Districts ofCalifornia. Her practice focuses on thedefense of disability and life insurance com-panies in both California and federal courts.She is experienced in analyzing and handlingbad faith claims against insurers, and indefending claims involving agent miscon-duct.

John J. Immordino has been pro-moted to Of Counsel in the Los Angelesoffice. John graduated from California StateUniversity at Northridge and SouthwesternUniversity School of Law. He is admitted to

practice in California; the U.S. DistrictCourt, Central, Southern, Eastern andNorthern Districts of California; and theU.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Hispractice focuses on surety and fidelity bondsand construction litigation in state, federal,bankruptcy and appellate courts.

Nancy Quinn Koba has been namedOf Counsel in the Westchester office.Nancy graduated from ManhattanvilleCollege and Pace University School of Law.She is a member of the New York BarAssociation and is admitted to practice inNew York State, the U.S. District Court,Southern and Eastern Districts of NewYork. Her practice focuses on insuranceagents and broker error and omissionsclaims.

Peter A. Lauricella has been namedOf Counsel in the Albany office. Petergraduated from the State University of NewYork at Albany and Albany Law School. Heis a member of the New York BarAssociation and is admitted to practice inNew York, the U.S. Supreme Court and theU.S. District Court, Northern, Southern,Eastern and Western Districts of NewYork. His practice focuses on commercialand construction litigation, creditors' rights,general liability defense and state andmunicipal government administrative law.

William Lee has been named OfCounsel in the San Francisco office.William graduated from Occidental Collegeand the University of San Francisco LawSchool, and is admitted to practice inCalifornia. His practice focuses on life,health and disability claims.

Cary Maynard has been named OfCounsel in the New York office. Cary grad-uated from the State University of NewYork at Albany and St. John's UniversitySchool of Law. She is admitted to practicein New York and the U.S. District Court,Eastern and Southern Districts. Her prac-tice focuses on products, professional, gen-eral and premises liability.

Charles W. Planek has been namedOf Counsel in the Chicago office. Charlesgraduated from the University of Chicago

Continued on page 8

derivatives are not subject to suit, and themanufacturer, processing, procurement anddistribution of these do not constitute a sale.

The New York legislature has not yetamended the blood shield statute to includehuman tissue and bone, now commonlyused in orthopedic surgery cases. WilsonElser, however, argued the same public pol-icy reasons for such protection would seemappropriate to apply to this emerging area.

In the case of Glasgow v. Alamo Tissue, aplaintiff developed an E-coli infection fol-lowing spinal fusion surgery performed atthe defendant hospital by the defendant sur-geon. The plaintiff claimed that the bonechips used in the procedure were either con-taminated in the operating room, or werecontaminated from the time that they wereharvested from a cadaver, or were contami-nated sometime in between. Alamo pur-chased the bone chips from another busi-ness entity that harvested the specimenfrom a cadaver, and in turn sold the bone

chips to the hospital that used them in thesurgery.

Justice Laura Jacobson agreed withWilson Elser's arguments in its representa-tion of Alamo. Patrick Brennan (Partner-New York) crafted the argument in such away that it relied upon decisions in otherstates that extended their blood shield lawsto tissue suppliers but, like New York, hadnot amended its legislation. Accordingly, thecause of action against the defendant assert-ing these claims was dismissed.

Wilson Elser was able to demonstrateits client's full compliance with applicablestandards of the U.S. Federal DrugAdministration and the AmericanAssociation of Tissue Banks, the leadingorganization in the tissue transplant field.The evidence of compliance with thesestandards was not refuted, and the courtdismissed the negligence theories againstAlamo as well.

The Glasgow decision is significantbecause there are so few reported decisions

on this subject in the United States. The leg-islature may be compelled at some point toamend the New York Public Health Law toinclude human tissue in the protectionsafforded by the blood shield law. Until thathappens, Glasgow serves as authority toshield individuals or entities involved in theuse of human tissue or bone in surgical pro-cedures from claims under strict product lia-bility or implied warranty theories.

6

Presented by:Presented by:John Flannery, JeanneA. Barry , Richard T.Mermelstein and PeterKolbert(All Partners - Westchester)

To: Hebrew HomeDate: Spring 2005

Topic: Nursing Home Litigation

Wemedia

The Syracuse Industrial DevelopmentAgency has hired Wilson Elser to lobbystate officials on behalf of a $600 millioncity school renovation plan. The work isexpected to be completed by July.

The agency wanted to hire a lobbyistin Albany because it is planning to issuebonds for planned school renovations. Thecity is seeking state legislation supportingthe renovations.

Alan Kaminsky (Partner-New York)was listed in the "Best Lawyers" feature ofNew York Magazine this spring as one of thetri-state area's top lawyers in the area ofPersonal Injury Law. The magazine articleis designed to help educate consumers.

Anjali C. Das (Partner-Chicago) wasappointed to serve as co-chair of theChicago Bar Association's Securities LawCommittee for 2005-2006.

Lawyer Briefs ... Lawyer Briefs ...

Seth Ptasiewicz(Associate-New Jersey)was awarded the 2005Pro Bono Award by theNew Jersey State BarAssociation (NJSBA) forhis commitment toVolunteer Lawyers forJustice, a program thatprovides free legal ser-vices to the poor. VLJhandles family, housing,consumer, and educationlaw matters.

Seth has been a vol-unteer with VLJ since2002 and has spent several hundred hourshandling complicated and difficult divorcecases for VLJ. Additionally, he has recruitedmany other attorneys to volunteer with theprogram and help the organization grow.

Currently an associatewith Wilson Elser, he joinedthe firm after he ascertainedit was supportive of probono work. The NJSBA saidSeth deserved the 2005 ProBono Award for his com-mitment to pro bono work,his time volunteered han-dling difficult cases, and forthe professional and courte-ous manner in which he hasrepresented pro bonoclients.

Seth is a member of thefirm's Labor, Employment

and Immigration group. Prior to joiningWilson Elser, he was senior litigator in theGeneral Litigation Division of the NewYork City Housing Authority.

Associate receives NJSBA Pro Bono award

Seth Ptasiewicz

Wilson Elser secures precedent setting decision from page1

7

Presented by:Robert W. Goodson(Partner-Washington)

To: Crittenden InsuranceConference Date: May 2005

Topic: Innovations inMedical Technology

Wilson Elser Victories

Attorneys: James F. O'Brien Office: WestchesterOutcome: Dismissal

In an architectural malpractice case inWestchester County, Wilson Elser wasgranted a motion to dismiss the case againsta nationally known golf course architect.The client was charged with being negligentin not preparing or recommending thepreparation of an erosion control plan toprevent sediment, etc., from migrating fromthe golf course into streams/ponds onplaintiffs' property.

Attorneys: Julie R. Evans &Edward K. Low

Office: New YorkOutcome: Summary judgment

Wilson Elser won a summary judgmentin favor of a major shipyard corporationagainst a plaintiff that claimed to beexposed to asbestos. Wilson Elser main-tained that the plaintiff failed to show thathis asbestos exposure was caused by workdone under the company’s supervision andcontrol.

Attorneys: Catherine A. HanrahanOffice: Washington, D.C.Outcome: Defense verdict

The firm won a defense verdict follow-ing an eight-day jury trial in United StatesDistrict Court for the District of Marylandagainst a sergeant in the U.S. Army whoclaimed wrongful death and survival dam-ages under Georgia law for the death of hisspouse due to the failure of timelychemotherapy and radiation therapy.Wilson Elser represented the healthcare ser-vices company that contracts with the gov-ernment for the management of healthbenefits to dependents and retirees of the military.

Attorneys: Howard L. HalmOffice: Los AngelesOutcome: Appellate win

The California Court of Appealaffirmed a defense verdict in a legal mal-practice case involving an underlying realestate loan guarantee action for an insured.

The plaintiff rejected an offer before trial inJuly 2002 valued at $740,000 and demanded$990,000. After trial Wilson Elser achieved adefense verdict and an award of attorneyfees and costs totaling more than $400,000.

Attorneys: Brian Del Gatto & Ephraim J. Fink

Offices: Stamford and WestchesterOutcome: Summary judgment

The firm successfully represented aNew York hospital against an action leveledby an 83-year-old female who sustained afractured hip when she was knocked over byan automatic revolving door at an owner'sproperty in 2000. Along with general alle-

gations of premise liability, the plaintiffalleged that the door malfunctioned in vari-ous ways. Wilson Elser moved for summaryjudgment on the basis there was no proof thatthe door was defective and that there was nonotice of the conditions that the plaintiffalleged. The court determined the plaintiff didnot raise any issues that required a trial.

Attorneys: Kym S. CushingOffice: Las VegasOutcome: Dismissal

Wilson Elser won a dismissal for amajor corporation in a premises liabilityaction where a plaintiff was disabled for lifeand sought damages in excess of $2 million.The plaintiff tried to show "control" inorder to get around the language of thefranchise agreement. Wilson Elser was suc-cessful in countering attempts to expandfranchisee/franchisor law.

Attorneys: Michael N. StevensOffice: New YorkOutcome: Defense verdict

Wilson Elser won a defense verdictwhere a plaintiff, who could not afford pri-vate surgery, claimed to have been aban-doned and improperly referred to a publicclinic. The plaintiff was diagnosed but nottreated by the defendant retinal surgeon.

Attorneys: Lee L. Cameron, Jr. & M. Lane Lowrey

Offices: Dallas, HoustonOutcome: Defense verdict

The firm won a defense verdict in a jurytrial in a products liability case in MatagordaCounty, Texas, a notoriously plaintiff-orient-ed venue. The plaintiff contended a boatveered suddenly, ejecting him, and the acci-dent resulted from a design defect in thesteering system. The last pretrial offer was$1.2 million. The jury returned a verdictcompletely exonerating Wilson Elser’sclient. The jury found that the company’sproduct was not defective and the companywas not negligent.

Attorneys: Keith Von GlahnOffice: New Jersey

Outcome: Jury verdict

A defense verdict was returned by ajury after an eight-day trial in favor of a doc-tor represented by Wilson Elser. The defen-dant, an OB-GYN, was accused of medicalmalpractice when during labor the plaintiffexperienced a four-centimeter separation ofthe pubic bone. The verdict was 7-1 in favorof Wilson Elser's client.

and DePaul College of Law. He is admittedto practice in Illinois. His practice focuseson insurance defense, catastrophic injuryand medical malpractice defense, includingthe transportation and aviation areas.

Adrienne C. Publicover has beennamed a partner in the San Francisco office.Adrienne graduated from the University ofCalifornia at Berkeley and the University ofCalifornia at Davis, King Hall School ofLaw. She is a member of the American BarAssociation and the California BarAssociation, and is admitted to practice inCalifornia, as well as various federal courtsthroughout the Ninth Circuit. Her practicefocuses on the representation of insurers inmatters involving bad faith and punitivedamages, ERISA, class actions, agent mis-conduct, and other insurance claims andcoverage issues.

Dennis J. Rhodes has been namedOf Counsel in the San Francisco office.Dennis is a graduate of Yale University andthe University of the Pacific, McGeorgeSchool of Law. He is a member of theAmerican Bar Association, the CaliforniaBar Association and the San Francisco BarAssociation. He is admitted to practice inthe U.S. District Court, Northern, Central,

Eastern and Southern Districts ofCalifornia; the U.S. Court of Appeals; theCalifornia Court of Appeals and theCalifornia Supreme Court. His practicefocuses on defense of life, health and dis-ability claims, as well as ERISA and broker-dealer litigation.

Marie V. Russo has been named OfCounsel in the Westchester office. Mariegraduated from the State University of NewYork at Albany and Boston College LawSchool. She is admitted to practice in NewYork, as well as the U.S. District Court,Southern and Eastern Districts of New

York. Her practice focuses on commerciallitigation, product liability and securities liti-gation.

William J. Taylor, Jr. has beennamed Of Counsel in the Philadelphiaoffice. Bill graduated from Mount St.Mary's College and Georgetown UniversityLaw Center. He is admitted to practice inPennsylvania; the U.S. District Court,Eastern District of Pennsylvania; and theThird Circuit Court of Appeals. His practicefocuses on products, premises, motor vehicle,construction and toxic tort litigation.

8 Wemedia

This is a quarterly publication of Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLPWilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP. All Rights Reserved 2005

www.wemed.comAlbany(518) 449-8893Baltimore(410) 539-1800Boston(617) 422-5300Chicago(312) 704-0550

Dallas(214) 698-8000Garden City(516) 228-8900Houston(713) 353-2000London[44] 20-7553-8383

Las Vegas(702) 382-1414Los Angeles(213) 624-3044McLean(703) 245-9300Miami(305) 374-4400

New Jersey(973) 624-0800New York(212) 490-3000Philadelphia(215) 627-6900San Diego(619) 321-6200

San Francisco(415) 433-0990Stamford(203) 564-1900Washington, D.C.(202) 626-7660Westchester(914) 323-7000

AFFILIATESBerlin [49] 30 8862 6929Cologne[49] 221-944-027-0Frankfurt[49] 69 920 740 0

Munich[49] 89 54 58 77-0Paris [33] 1 44 43 88 88

WEMEDIA

and a professional career marked by thehighest standards of ethical conduct, pro-fessionalism, civility and collegiality. TheACTL strives to improve and elevate thestandards of trial practice, the administra-tion of justice and the ethics of the trialprofession.

Membership in the ACTL neverexceeds one per cent of the total lawyerpopulation of any state or province.

Other Wilson Elser members of theACTL include Thomas L. Appler (OfCounsel- McLean), inducted in 1996; James

S. Brown (Partner-New York), inducted in2001; John J. Brandt (Of Counsel-McLean), inducted in 1981; and the Hon.Samuel G. Fredman (Of Counsel-Westchester), former Supreme Court judge,inducted in 1984.

ACTL inducts fifth Wilson Elser lawyer from page 1

New Partners & Of Counselsfrom page 5

Chairman of the Executive Committee Thomas W. Wilson, left, and HoustonManaging Partner Martin S. Schexnayder at the opening of the firm’s expandedoffices in May.