Kimberly A. Boyer-Cohen

Practice Details

• Firm Information
  Position

  Special Counsel

  Firm Name

  Marshall Dennehey
• Representative Cases & Transactions
  Cases

  Significant Representative Matters: By a vote of 7-0, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court
  the trial court
  ruled that Kim's client, a general contractor, was immune from suit under Pennsylvania's statutory employer doctrine. The ruling nullified a large verdict against the general contractor. Twenty-one construction
  insurance industry groups joined together as amici to support John's appeal to the Supreme Court. Patton v. Worthington Associates, 2014 Pa. LEXIS 788 (March 26, 2014)
  The Pennsylvania Superior Court dismissed a highly-publicized death case filed against Kim's client in Pennsylvania based upon the doctrine of forum non conveniens under Pennsylvania's long-arm statute, 42 Pa.C.S. 5322(e). Jones v. Morey's Pier Inc., No. 2990 EDA 2012 (March 10, 2014)
  The Superior Court vacated a large judgment against Kim's client
  rem
  ed for the entry of judgment notwithst
  ing the verdict, finding that the plaintiff had failed to establish the store had actual or constructive notice of the allegedly defective condition. Davis v. Target Corporation, 2098 EDA 2011 (Pa. Super., March 27, 2013).
  In a case of first impression, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the en banc Superior Court's finding that a patient does have a cause of action against either a psychiatrist or a general practitioner rendering psychological care, when during the course of treatment the physician has a sexual relationship with the patient that causes the patient's emotional or psychological symptoms to worsen. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted allocatur limited to deciding Whether, for purposes of determining professional negligence, a general practitioner who provides mental health treatment to a patient is held to the same higher duty as a specialist in psychiatry or psychology? After engaging in a very exhaustive review
  analysis of the law in Pennsylvania, as well as other jurisdictions, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that as a general practitioner, Kim's client was under no specific or heightened duty in tort to refrain from sexual relations with his patient under the circumstances where he provided incidental mental health treatment. In doing so, the Supreme Court rejected the Superior Court's decision which held the doctor to a novel duty
  st
  ard. Thierfelder v. Wolfert, 52 A.3d 1251 (Pa. 2012).
  The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court vacated a large judgment against Kim's client, a township,
  rem
  ed for the entry of judgment notwithst
  ing the verdict, on the basis that the trial evidence failed to demonstrate that the township was responsible for the decedent's death. Rahman v. Falls Township, 2012 Pa. Commw. Unpub. LEXIS 126 (Pa.Cmwlth., January 6, 2012).
  The Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed the ruling of the trial court
  awarded a judgment notwithst
  ing the verdict, vacating a large verdict against Kim's client, a mutual insurance company, on the basis that the insurer's conduct in h
  ling a fire damage claim did not constitute bad faith as a matter of law. Edkin v. Brethren Mutual Insurance Co., 1331 MDA 2009 (Pa. Super., February 4, 2011)
  he Pennsylvania Superior Court vacated an adverse jury verdict
  rem
  ed for a new trial in favor of Kim's client, one of the world's leading construction firms, in its claim for contractual indemnity. Skanska USA Buildings, Inc. v. Gory Mechanical Contractors, 345 EDA 2010 (Pa. Super., January 19, 2011)
  The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court
  upheld the dismissal of all claims against Kim's client, an investigating company, on the basis that the plaintiff, who was seeking workers' compensation benefits from his employer, failed to show that he had an expectation of privacy while participating in a worship service in a sanctuary. Tagouma v. Investigative Consultant Servs., 4 A.3d 170 (Pa. Super. 2010).
  The Pennsylvania Superior Court vacated an adverse jury verdict
  rem
  ed for the entry of judgment notwithst
  ing the verdict in favor of Kim's client on the basis that the trial court failed to make the threshold determination of whether an absolute privilege applied to the hospital's use of the plaintiff's confidential personnel file at a labor relations hearing involving unionization of nurses. Moreover, the Superior Court determined that the record showed no evidence of abuse of that privilege
  made clear the purpose of the disclosure was genuine
  related to the NLRB proceedings. Doe v. Wyo. Valley Health Care Sys., 987 A.2d 758 (Pa. Super. 2009).
  Successfully argued in the Superior Court that a methadone clinic, which took steps to regulate the dissemination of methadone in accordance with federal guidelines, did not owe a duty of care to a third party who lethally overdosed after buying methadone that was stolen from a patient of the clinic. to say The Superior Court affirmed the grant of judgment in favor of Kim's client on the basis that a methadone clinic, which took steps to regulate the dissemination of methadone in accordance with federal guidelines, did not owe a duty of care to a third party who lethally overdosed after buying methadone that was stolen from a patient of the clinic. McC
  less v. Edwards, 908 A.2d 900 (Pa. Super. 2006)
  Successfully argued in the Superior Court that dismissal of a medical malpractice complaint was required when the cause of action arose outside of Pennsylvania, even if the trial court has jurisdiction to say In a case of first impression, Kim successfully arged in the Superior Court that dismissal of a medical malpractice complaint was required when the cause of action arose outside of Pennsylvania, even if the trial court has jurisdiction. Searles v. Estrada, 856 A.2d 85 (Pa. Super. 2004)
  Published Works: Pennsylvania Supreme Court Refuses to Exp
  Lawyer Liability, Defense Digest, January 2021, Vol. 27, No. 1
  Occupant In a Fleeing Vehicle Is Not an Innocent Byst
  er...Or Is He?, Defense Digest, Vol. 20, No. 1, March 2014
  Navigating The 1925(b) Minefield Of Waiver - The Pennsylvania Supreme Court's Attempt To 'Clarify The Confusion And Quell The Consternation', Defense Digest, June, Vol. 14 No. 2, 2008
  Stipulating to Cap on Compensatory Damages Limits Potential Delay Damages, Defense Digest, March, Vol. 12 No. 1, 2006
  The Trend In Construing the Ohio Employer Intentional Tort Exception -A Consistent, Workable St
  ard or Confusing, Expansive Qu
  ary?, Defense Digest, December, Vol. 9 No. 4, 2003
  Failure to Anticipate Potential Mail Delays May Result in a Party's Loss of Rights, Defense Digest, March, Vol. 8 No. 1, 2002
  A Taint of Evidence Claim of Error - It 'Taint' So Effective in Civil Cases', Defense Digest, December, Vol. 8 No. 4, 2002