Av. Osama Samad
Osama is a member of the firm’s Casualty Department, where he defends cases involving premises and retail liability, as well as construction and transportation matters. His strong foundation in litigation strategy guides his approach to these complex cases.
Profile Summary
About Osama Samad at a glance
Osama Samad is an Associate based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, practicing at Marshall Dennehey. They have 5+ years of legal experience, licensed to practice since 2021. Their practice focuses on construction. Admitted to practice in Pennsylvania (2021). Educated at Emory University School of Law (J.D., 2018) and Temple University (B.S., 2013). Active member of Associations & memberships Pennsylvania Bar Association, IDEI Liaison, Section Delegate, Intellectual Property Law Section. Serands clients in Philadelphia, PA and the surrounding metropolitan area.
Want to Get Service From This Attorney?
Sign up free and choose one of the two methods below.
Have a legal question? Sign up free, submit it through the Ask the Attorney module and receive a focused answer from a specialist.
- Free to ask a question
- Answers from specialist attorneys
- Optional private / anonymous question
Request an online video meeting or an in-person consultation at the attorney's office. Pick a time that works for you and share the details securely.
- Online video meeting
- In-person at the attorney's office
- Secure messaging and payment
Hakkında
- Osama is a member of the firm’s Casualty Department, where he defends cases involving premises and retail liability, as well as construction and transportation matters
- His strong foundation in litigation strategy guides his approach to these complex cases
- Before joining Marshall Dennehey, Osama honed his litigation skills by representing clients in employment cases, gaining valuable experience that now aids him in navigating challenging legal matters
- Osama is actively involved in the Pennsylvania Bar Association
- He earned his juris doctor from Emory University in 2018 and holds a bachelor’s degree in biology from Temple University
- Published Works •“Undefined Parties and the Statutory Employer Defense,” Defense Digest, Vol. 30, No. 4, December 2024 Results Delaware County Jury Awards Only $500 Each to Plaintiffs Seeking Over $500,000 Thought Leadership Defense Digest Undefined Parties and the Statutory Employer Defense December 1, 2024 Key Points: A recent Pennsylvania Superior Court decision highlights the importance of clarity in contracts for employers asserting a statutory employer defense
- Employers will not be able to successfully assert the statutory employer defense when there is ambiguity about contracting parties.Contractors should ensure they are contracted with the owner of the property to protect against liability from a workplace accident.In litigation involving workplace accidents, a common defense raised by a contractor is the statutory employer defense under the Pennsylvania’s Workers’ Compensation Act
- The Act requires an employer to pay workers’ compensation benefits to employees injured in the course of their employment regardless of the employer’s own negligence
- In return for assuming secondary liability for the payment of workers’ compensation benefits, a statutory employer is immune from suit brought by an employee for a work-related injury
- A recent Pennsylvania Superior Court case highlights issues that may arise when a subcontractor’s agreement for a construction project is not properly executed
- In Feldman v
- CP Acquisitions 25, L.P., 2024 WL 4156993 (Pa
- Super
- Sept. 12, 2024), the Superior Court agreed with the trial court’s decision that a contractor could not avoid liability using the statutory employer defense when it is unclear who the contracting parties are in a subcontracting agreement.In this case the plaintiff, Brian Feldman, suffered grievous injuries from a workplace electrocution accident during a tree removal project during the construction of an apartment building
- Cross Properties engaged Altino Concrete Construction as a contractor to build an apartment building on a property they had recently acquired
- Near the end of construction on this project, Cross Properties reached out to Vito Braccia, the owner of Altino Concrete Solutions and Braccia Construction, LLC (VBC), to remove trees on an adjacent property owned by the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA)
- Mr. Braccia then subcontracted with Colonial Tree Service, Inc., for the tree removal project.Mr
- Braccia did not carry out any safety planning before the tree removal project, even though he was aware of a high-voltage power line on SEPTA’s property
- Additionally, he failed to reach out to SEPTA for permission to enter the property or to have the power lines de-energized during the tree removal project
- On the day of the project, Mr. Feldman was electrocuted when a current arced from the power line and through a crane hoist
- As a result, Mr. Feldman suffered extensive and severe burns, and spent the next six weeks recovering in a hospital burn unit
- Mr. Feldman filed and prevailed in a personal injury suit against the general contractor, developer, and related entities
- VBC, the contractor for the tree removal, appealed the trial court’s decision in favor of Mr. Feldman
- One argument raised by VBC on appeal was that, as the plaintiff’s statutory employer under section 302(b) of the Workers’ Compensation Act, they were immune from a personal injury suit brought by Mr. Feldman
- The longstanding test to determine whether a person or entity qualifies as a statutory employer under this section was set forth by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in McDonald v
- Levinson Steel Co., 153 A. 424 (Pa. 1930)
- The McDonald test requires an employer satisfy each of the following elements to be considered a statutory employer under section 302(b):an employer who is under contract with an owner or one in the position of an owner
- the premises occupied by or under the control of such employer
- a subcontract made by such employer
- part of the employer’s regular business entrusted [sic] to such subcontractor
- and an employee of such subcontractor.It was undisputed that VBC was the contractor for the tree removal project
- However, the respective representatives from Cross Properties and Colonial testified at trial that they believed they had an oral agreement with Altino Concrete Construction for the tree removal project, not VBC
- As a result, the court determined there was no mutual understanding between the parties regarding who they were contracting with, which is essential for any contract
- Therefore, the court held that VBC could not meet the first element of the McDonald test.The court went further and noted that, even if a valid contract existed between Cross Properties and VBC, it would not help their case
- They would still be unable to prove they had a contract with the property owner or someone in a similar position
- This is because SEPTA was the actual owner of the property in question, not Cross Properties
- As VBC never attempted to reach an agreement with SEPTA for the tree removal, they could not establish they were a statutory employer under Section 302(b)
- In conclusion, Feldman v
- CP Acquisitions 25, L.P. underscores the importance of clearly defining contractual relationships in construction projects
- The court’s ruling emphasizes that a lack of mutual understanding among contracting parties prevents the successful use of the statutory employer defense under the Pennsylvania’s Workers’ Compensation Act
- Contractors should ensure that subcontracting agreements clearly identify all parties involved and confirm ownership of the work site
- By doing so, they can better protect themselves against liability in workplace accidents and minimize potential legal disputes.*Osama is an associate and a member of our Casualty Department
- He works in our Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, office
- Defense Digest, Vol. 30, No. 4, December 2024, is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers
- This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship
- ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. 2024 Marshall Dennehey
- All Rights Reserved
- This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm
- For reprints, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com
Practice Areas Explained
Osama Samad's Areas of Practice
Each practice area below reflects the types of cases Osama Samad handles, with a brief overview of what that area of law covers.
Osama Samad is one of 4,144 construction attorneys indexed nationally. Browse construction attorneys in Pennsylvania →
Jurisdictional Context
Why local counsel matters in Pennsylvania
Practicing law in Pennsylvania. Legal matters in Pennsylvania are governed by state-specific rules of civil and criminal procedure, statutes of limitations, and substantive law. Cases originating in Philadelphia are typically filed in the local municipal court or the appropriate Pennsylvania state district court, depending on subject matter and amount in controversy. An attorney licensed in Pennsylvania brings working knowledge of local procedural deadlines, judicial practices in this andnue, and the substantive law that applies to cases brought here. Out-of-state attorneys generally cannot represent clients in Pennsylvania courts without local counsel or pro hac vice admission.
Looking for additional Pennsylvania attorneys? Browse all attorneys in Philadelphia or all attorneys in Pennsylvania.
Frequently Asked
Common questions about Osama Samad
Where is Osama Samad's law office located?
What practice areas does Osama Samad handle?
How long has Osama Samad practiced law?
Where did Osama Samad go to law school?
How can I contact Osama Samad for a consultation?
Uzmanlık Alanları
Eğitim
Bar Admissions
Değerlendirmeler
Henüz değerlendirme yapılmamış.