by Joe Quirk | Jul 17, 2026 | Community
True leadership means lifting others up.
O’Brien & Ryan, LLP is blessed to have had partner and owner Daniel F. Ryan as its leader for more than 40 years. As we congratulate and honor Dan Ryan in his retirement, we reflect on what a tremendous leader and brilliant litigator he was throughout his career. Not only was Dan a highly skilled, intelligent, and intuitive lawyer, but he was also a gifted, lead-by-example mentor and kind person who was respectful to all those he encountered. We are fortunate to have had Dan leading the way all these years and we wish him the very best that life has to offer in retirement!
by Joe Quirk | Jul 15, 2026 | Community
The Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (PHRC) recently announced the appointment of seven new commissioners, including O’Brien & Ryan, LLP Partner Carolyn Bohmueller, Esq. who will help guide the agency’s ongoing work to promote accountability, fairness, service to Pennsylvanians, and institutional improvement across the Commonwealth.
Read the press release HERE.
by Joe Quirk | May 22, 2026 | Community
Each year, on a state-by-state basis, Super Lawyers selects attorneys using peer nominations and evaluations along with third party research. Each candidate is evaluated on 12 indicators of peer recognition and professional achievement, and those selected represent the top five percent of the total lawyers in each state.
In 2026, eight OBR attorneys were selected to the PA Super Lawyers and PA Rising Stars lists.
by Joe Quirk | Apr 23, 2026 | Medical Malpractice, Philadelphia, Successes
Mary Kay Plyter-Eigner and Emily A. Giradi obtained a defense verdict on behalf of a urology group in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas. The matter involved a patient who was diagnosed with adenocarcinoma of the prostate following a biopsy. The urologist recommended active surveillance but additionally counseled the patient that a radical prostatectomy would be a reasonable treatment option given the patient’s young age. After monitoring the patient’s prostate cancer for approximately six months, an MRI and repeat biopsy revealed that the cancer had progressed to an intermediate grade for which active surveillance was no longer a good option. The urologist recommended surgical treatment to which the patient agreed.
The patient underwent a laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, bilateral lymph node dissection, lysis of adhesions, and cystoscopy with no noted complications. At the conclusion of the procedure, the urologist inspected the entirety of the bowel and found no perforations. There were several locations with serosal tears which were reapproximated using interrupted 3-0 Vicryl.
Following the surgery, the patient experienced persistent abdominal pain. The Plaintiff alleged that the robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy was improperly performed resulting in a bowel perforation. Plaintiff further alleged that Defendants failed to promptly diagnose and treat the bowel perforation, resulting in the need for multiple corrective surgeries. The defense argued that the urologist properly and carefully performed the surgery. Prior to placement of the necessary trocars, Plaintiff had numerous adhesions that required removal and lysis through a tedious process. Several serosal tears were noted and repaired. The bowel was inspected at the beginning, middle, and end of the case with no perforation noted.
After deliberating, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the urologist and urology group, finding that their care and treatment of the patient was not negligent.
by Joe Quirk | Mar 21, 2025 | Bucks County, Medical Malpractice, Successes
A defense verdict was recently received by partners Michael O. Pitt and Mary Kay Plyter-Eigner on behalf of an orthopedic surgeon in Bucks County. Plaintiff claimed that the surgical management of a spontaneous prosthetic joint infection was improper. Plaintiff’s experts argued that a resection arthroplasty or Girdlestone procedure should have been done as the initial management of a prosthetic joint infection despite the fact that the patient had less than 72 hours of symptoms. Defense experts offered testimony that defendant’s management of the condition with a DAIR (debridement and implant retention) was the standard of care and the remainder of the surgical treatment was successful in eradicating the infection. The jury found no negligence on the part of the orthopedic surgeon.
