Matthew D. Joss
Matthew Joss has an active practice covering all areas of civil litigation, defending physicians, hospitals, and other health care providers from medical malpractice claims, and has won defense verdicts for his clients in courts throughout Virginia.
Matthew has also been deeply involved in the defense of corporate clients in personal injury, toxic tort, and product liability cases in both state and federal court. His clients frequently call on him to travel across the country to take depositions and conduct videotaped trial cross-examinations of terminally ill plaintiffs in high-risk multimillion dollar lawsuits pending in courts around the nation. In addition, he has deposed hundreds of opposing parties' experts, including pathologists, occupational medicine experts, industrial hygienists, and epidemiologists.
Matthew has successfully briefed, argued, and prevailed on motions for summary judgment, motions to dismiss, and motions to exclude opposing experts as well as mediated cases to resolution before both private mediators and federal magistrate judges.
Matthew is a member of the Virginia bar, and is admitted to practice in the state and federal courts of Virginia as well as the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Distinctions and Affiliations
- Board of Editors, Journal of Civil Litigation of the Virginia Association of Defense Attorneys
- Dorman v. State Indus., 292 Va. 111 (2016) (on brief). Supreme Court of Virginia upheld defense verdict for manufacturer of gas water heater in products liability action brought by five plaintiffs. The appeal involved whether the defense was entitled to put on evidence that its product was (1) not defective, including evidence that the design of the water heater at issue was used in tens of millions of other water heaters without objection in the trade, (2) improperly installed by a third party, and (3) improperly maintained by a third party, entitling the manufacturer to a jury instruction on superseding cause.
- Darnell v. K Mart Corp., et al., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34641 (W.D. Va., 2005). U.S. District Court for Western District of Virginia granted Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ emotional distress claims based on loss of home in fire allegedly caused by defective consumer electronics.
- Lambert v. Javed, et al., 273 Va. 307(Sup. Ct. Va., 2007) (on brief). Supreme Court of Virginia upheld dismissal of Plaintiff’s wrongful death medical malpractice action against multiple health care providers with prejudice on bar of res judicata, where Plaintiff filed two actions, one of which was barred by the two-year statute of limitations. The time-barred case was dismissed with prejudice while the remaining case was still pending. The Court ruled that the dismissal of the time-barred case with prejudice on statute of limitations acted with the same effect as an adjudication on the merits, precluding any further litigation on that cause of action.
- Budd v. Punyanitya, 643 S.E.2d 180 (Sup. Ct. Va., 2007) (on brief). Supreme Court of Virginia unanimously affirmed defense verdict obtained by Mr. Joss in favor of orthopedic surgeon in medical malpractice action against orthopedic surgeon. Appeal involved whether the plaintiff was entitled to introduce medical literature during cross-examination of defense experts after the plaintiff had attempted to establish that literature as reliable authority through his own experts on direct examination.
- Ripley v. Foster Wheeler LLC, 841 F.3d 207 (4th Cir. 2016) (on brief). Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed longstanding practice of Virginia federal district courts remanding asbestos cases removed to federal courts on federal officer jurisdiction. Appeals court held that manufacturer of navy boilers was entitled to present evidence to support a government contractor defense against failure to warn claims.
- In Re All Asbestos Cases, 64 Va. Cir. 190 (Newport News Circuit Court, 2004). Circuit Court for City of Newport News reversed longstanding rule in asbestos cases in Virginia treating review of pathology materials as equivalent to an independent medical examination requiring disclosure of findings of non-testifying experts. Mr. Joss successfully argued that review of pathology and tissue samples is correctly considered a review of inanimate and tangible materials, and therefore reports of consulting experts need not be disclosed to opposing counsel.
- Presented “Legal Issues in Behavioral Health in Virginia,” MEDS-PDN, Richmond, April 2004
- Presented “Medical Records Update: Confidentiality, Release of Information; & HIPAA,” MEDS-PDN, Richmond, March 2004