Gerald F. Ragland Jr., Partner

Gerry Ragland has been trying cases for more than thirty years. He has represented clients before administrative bodies, hearing examiners, judges and juries in various state and Federal forums, principally in Pennsylvania, Washington, D.C., and Virginia. In addition to trials, he has handled numerous appeals in Federal and state courts.

Mr. Ragland's jury trial experience began in the seventies and he has now tried in excess of seventy cases before juries. His state court jury trials have been in Philadelphia, various counties in Southeast Pennsylvania, Washington, D.C., and over ten different cities and counties in Virginia. His Federal jury trials have been in U.S. District Courts in Philadelphia, Allentown, and Harrisburg, Pa.; New Haven, Connecticut; Washington, D.C.; Harrisonburg, Alexandria, Richmond, and Abingdon, Va.

In addition to trials, Mr. Ragland has been involved in negotiations, alternative dispute resolution, mediations and arbitrations all of his professional career.

The following is a brief summary of Mr. Ragland’s varied legal experience:

Healthcare Litigation: For the last five years Mr. Ragland has represented numerous nurses and nursing homes in the defense of malpractice claims. He has tried many of these cases to jury verdicts which, when not outright defense verdicts, were modest given the volatile nature of this area of litigation. In addition to the numerous jury trials, he has mediated or arbitrated many of these cases to successful resolutions.

Medical Malpractice: Mr. Ragland has represented clients in medical malpractice claims since the seventies. In the earliest cases he represented claimants, but in recent years he has represented doctors or healthcare providers. His experience includes many matters involving surgical procedures, a drug reaction case, dental malpractice and cancer misdiagnosis cases. His last plaintiff’s verdict was a half million-dollar verdict in a breast cancer case in Arlington, Va.

Products Liability: Over the years Mr. Ragland has tried or negotiated settlements in numerous products liability cases. The cases have included highway guardrail design issues, Asbestos exposure claims, adverse drug reaction matters, dump truck body design and tool design issues. He has handled products cases in Pennsylvania which has a form of strict liability and in Virginia in which products cases are based upon implied warranties.

Business Litigation: In this area Mr. Ragland has handled both business and personal Bankruptcy matters, debt collection matters, business torts including claims related to the violation of employment contracts, contact disputes, property disputes, claims for unlawful withholding of stock options and earned commissions, and one professional defamation matter. He has also represented real estate professionals in professional liability suits. In a jury trial several years ago, Mr. Ragland obtained an unusual punitive damage award against a professional individual on behalf of her former employer. In another case, he recovered more than a million dollars in real property on behalf of out-of-possession former members of a partnership. This case turned on convincing the Court (this was a non-jury trial) that a constructive trust existed in favor of his clients. In addition to litigation, Mr. Ragland has been involved in one labor union organization matter and numerous personnel employment matters.

Housing law: In the seventies Mr. Ragland represented the Philadelphia Housing Authority in numerous cases in which claims were being made for violation of implied warranties of habitability. This representation resulted in many bench (judge) trials. In many situations Mr. Ragland was called upon to represent the Housing Authority in emergency injunction hearings. He was also involved in representing the Housing Authority in negotiating contracts with planning consultants for the improvement of existing housing and he obtained funding from and negotiated contracts with the Philadelphia School Board and the Philadelphia Corporation for the Aging for the funding of programs to be provided in housing developments.

Psychological Injury: During the eighties Mr. Ragland was known nationally for his cases involving claims of psychological injury flowing from participation in the then popular weekend encounter groups. He tied many of these cases to substantial six figure jury verdicts in favor of his clients.

A Noted Will Contest: For many years in the eighties Mr. Ragland represented the disinherited son of a wealthy retired brewery owner. Prior to his death, the decedent had been married twice and Gerry’s client was the son from the first marriage. The will in this case was drafted by a former chair of the probate section of the American Bar Association. The firm which drafted the will was headed by a former President of the American Bar Association. Gerry wisely chose not to claim lack of testamentary capacity as this would have been an indirect attack upon the professionalism of two prestigious Philadelphia lawyers. Instead, the lawsuit seeking to set aside the final will was based solely on the claim of undue influence exerted by decedent’s wife.

This case was tried before a judge, as there was no right to a jury trial. After a successful trial, the matter was reheard before the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, en banc, all the judges sitting together. Since the court, en banc, reversed the trial judge, Gerry appealed the matter to the Pennsylvania Superior Court and obtained a reversal of the en banc court. The matter was then appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court which declined to hear the case. Upon remand to Common Pleas Court, Gerry successfully settled the matter to his client’s benefit. This is one of only a handful of reported cases in all of America in which a will has been set aside on the basis of the undue influence of a wife. See, Estate of Cooper, 351 Pa. Super. 482, 506 A.2d 451 (1986). The lesson learned from this case was: "Don’t make every possible claim; just make the one right claim that fits the case."

Miscellaneous Trials: Mr. Ragland has also tried premises liability, automobile accident and legal malpractice cases.

Biographic Information: Mr. Ragland graduated from Temple University’s School of Law in Philadelphia in 1975. He was born and raised in Virginia and received his Bachelor’s degree from Longwood University with a major in English and Dramatic Arts. He is widowed and has three grown children. Prior to law school, he taught high school for a few years and acted in plays, experiences which helped develop his teaching and oral communications skills.

Bar Admissions: Gerald F. Ragland, Jr., is a member of the bar in Pennsylvania, Washington, D.C., and Virginia. He is admitted to the bar of Federal Courts in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the Middle District of Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia, the Eastern District of Virginia, the Western District of Virginia, the Circuit Courts of Appeal for the Second, Third, Fourth, and District of Columbia Circuits and the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

Reported Cases: Mr. Ragland was counsel of record and lead or sole counsel in the following reported (in some instances officially unreported) cases: Haga v. L.A.P. Care Services, F.Supp.2d, 2002 WL 1754485 (2002); John v. Im, 263 Va. 315, 559 S.E.2d 694 (2002); Hendel v. World Plan Executive Counsel, 705 A.2d 656, D.C. (1997); U.S. v. Spriggs, 30 F.3d 132, 1994, Unpublished Disposition, C.A.4 (Va.) (1994); Ney v. Landmark Educ. Corp., 16 F.3d 410, 1994, Unpublished Disposition, C.A.4 (Va.) (1994); U.S. v. Spriggs, 827 F.Supp. 372, E.D.Va.(1993); Burger v. Bartlett, F.Supp., 1990 WL 99025, E.D.Pa. (1990); Shamloo v. Lifespring, Inc., 713 F.Supp. 14, D.C.C. (1989); Ellett v. Johnson, 236 Va. 190. 372 S.E.2d 153 (1988); Kropinski v. World Plan Executive Counsel, 853 F.2d 948, 272 U.S.App.D.C. 17, 13 Fed.R.Serv.3d 335, 26 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 792, C.A.D.C. (1988); Smith v. Erhard, 715 S.W.2d 707, Tex.App.-Austin (1986); John Does I-VI v.Yogi, 110 F.R.D. 629, 34 Ed. Law Rep. 137, D.D.C. (1986); Doe v. Yogi, 652 F.Supp. 203, D.D.C. (1986); Roehling v. National Gypsum Co. Gold Bond Bldg. Products, 786 F.2d 1225, 54 USLW 2514, Prod.Liab.Rep (CCH) P 10,946, C.A.4 (Va.) (1986); Estate of Cooper, 351 Pa. Super. 482, 506 A.2d 451 (1986); Estate of Nathaniel F. Cooper, Deceased, 1985 WL 384492, 12 Phila.Co.Reptr. 202, Pa.Com.Pl. (1985); Simpson v. Lifespring, Inc., 572 F.Supp.1251, E.D.Pa. (1983); Large v. Bucyrus-Erie, Co., 707 F.2d. 94, C.A.4 (Va.) (1983); Large v. Bucyrus-Erie, Co., 524 F.Supp. 285, E.D.Va. (1981); and Com. v. Stewart, 248 Pa.Super. 615, 374 A.2d 711 (1977).