Silvagni, P. v. Shorr, J., 113 A.3d 810

Plaintiff Phillip Silvagni was injured at work and retained Dashevsky/Horwitz firm and Jeffrey S. Shorr to represent him in workers’ compensation and a related third‑party action handled by another firm.
On December 16, 2008 Silvagni executed a Compromise and Release in the workers’ compensation matter settling for a lump sum; the agreement contained an attorney‑representation certification.
At the approval hearing Judge Baldys conducted a detailed colloquy with Silvagni (counsel questioned him, opposing counsel cross‑examined, and the judge asked follow‑ups), during which Silvagni acknowledged understanding the settlement’s consequences and waived his appeal rights.
Silvagni later sued his workers’ compensation counsel for malpractice/breach of contract, alleging negligent legal advice caused him to enter an involuntary or uninformed settlement that diminished his third‑party recovery.
The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants under the Muhammad doctrine; Silvagni appealed, arguing Muhammad was misapplied and that earlier denial of preliminary objections foreclosed summary judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Applicability of Muhammad rule barring malpractice claims after client‑approved settlement	Silvagni: settlement was not voluntary; advice was negligent and caused an involuntary, prejudicial settlement	Defendants: Silvagni knowingly signed and affirmed understanding the settlement in writing and on the record; no fraud alleged	Court: Muhammad bars negligence claims after an agreed settlement absent specific fraud or proof counsel failed to explain effects; summary judgment for defendants
Whether trial court erred by granting summary judgment after earlier denial of preliminary objections	Silvagni: earlier denial of preliminary objections found Muhammad inapplicable, so summary judgment was improper	Defendants: preliminary objections and summary judgment are different procedural vehicles; later record (deposition, hearing transcript) supports summary judgment	Court: No error — a different judge may grant summary judgment later if the fuller record warrants it

Muhammad v. Strassburger, McKenna, Messer, Shilobod and Gutnick, 587 A.2d 1346 (Pa. 1991) (establishes rule barring malpractice suits after a client‑agreed settlement absent fraudulent inducement)
Sokolsky v. Eidelman, 93 A.3d 858 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard and burden rules for summary judgment review)
McMahon v. Shea, 688 A.2d 1179 (Pa. 1997) (distinguishes Muhammad where attorney failed to advise client of legal ramifications of settlement)