Chad G. Goebel, Esq.
Chilton (Chad) G. Goebel, III is a trial lawyer with significant experience in litigating complex medical malpractice, product liability and casualty matters involving catastrophic injuries. Chad has a reputation for his aggressive yet pragmatic approach to every case to ensure the best results possible for his clients. When justified, Chad uses alternative approaches to reach resolutions outside the courtroom, including mediation and binding arbitration.
Prior to joining Saxton & Stump, Chad was a partner at Philadelphia-based German, Gallagher & Murtagh where he practiced in the professional liability, casualty litigation, products liability and commercial liabilities groups. Earlier in his legal career, he defended large, self-insured companies against products liability and general negligence claims. Chad has also represented small businesses, real estate clients, Credit Unions, Credit Union Service Organizations (CUSOs) and provided advice on matters such as business organization and formation, non-traditional investment and insurance related financial products and services, loan participations and compliance.
Chad was born and raised in the greater Philadelphia area where he still resides with his family.
Widener University School of Law, J.D., 2003
LaSalle University, B.S. Biology and Philosophy, 1997
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Third Circuit Court of Appeals
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania Bar Association
Philadelphia Bar Association
Super Lawyers – 2019, 2020
Super Lawyers – Pennsylvania Rising Stars – 2010, 2013, 2014
“Erosion of Attorney-Client Privilege,” American Law Firm Association (ALFA) International Products Liability and Complex Torts Seminar Panel, September 27, 2019
Defense verdict for emergency medicine physician after a two-week trial, where it was alleged that the defendant physician failed to monitor a patient with secondary post-partum hemorrhage and failed to properly and timely obtain a consult with an OB/GYN specialist. The defense proved that the defendant met the standard of care in his assessment, plan and follow up which led to a lifesaving procedure by the OB/GYN who had promptly responded when the patent became hemodynamically unstable.
Defense verdict after nine-day binding hi/low AAA arbitration for a urologic surgeon who allegedly failed to diagnose and follow up a mixed epithelial stromal tumor (MEST), which he had removed during a robotic laparoscopic procedure. The defense proved not only that the physician met the standard of care but through the use of experts, established that the tumor was misdiagnosed by plaintiff’s pathology expert. Despite the best care and follow up the tumor, which was actually a sarcoma arising in a MEST, would always have recurred and had a very poor prognosis.
Defense verdict in a premises liability case submitted to binding hi/low arbitration where it was alleged that the landowner failed to inspect and maintain the premises leading to a slip and fall which resulted in permeant spinal damage disability. The defense proved the landowner had no notice of the alleged hazardous condition.
Defense verdict in Philadelphia County in a product liability case for a manufacturer of floor finish products where it was alleged that the floor finish had created a hazardous condition leading to a slip and fall causing catastrophic injures including partial paralysis. The defense proved that the product had no defect.
Summary Judgment based on a favorable Daubert ruling on a complex fire origin and cause issue in Federal Court for homeowners in an action involving a fire that destroyed four properties
Successful defense of Lanham Act claims on a Motion to Dismiss between business competitors in Federal Court
Defense verdict for a nationwide roadside assistance network on a negligent entrustment claim
Successful dismissal of violation of Civil Rights claims against physicians in Federal Court
Summary Judgment in favor of retail business on Premises Liability claim in Federal Court
Defense verdict for motor vehicle operator and his employer whom plaintiff alleged had caused a motorcyclist to crash while driving in the course and scope of his employment. Defense on liability despite two eyewitnesses for plaintiff who testified against the defendant driver. The defendants’ case was established in part through accident reconstruction and human factors analysis which proved the motorcyclist was inexperienced, failed to operate his vehicle in a safe manner, failed to brake properly, failed to pay attention to his surroundings and likely was exceeding the speed limit, thereby causing the accident
Stay In Touch
Stay informed with firm updates, legal news, and industry resources sent directly to your inbox.
280 Granite Run Drive, Suite #300
Lancaster, PA 17601
Phone: (717) 556-1000
Fax: (717) 441-3810
4250 Crums Mill Road, Suite #201
Harrisburg, PA 17112
Phone: (717) 216-5505
Fax: (717) 547-1900
100 Deerfield Lane, Suite #240
Malvern, PA 19355
Phone: (484) 328-8500
Fax: (484) 713-5241