.

John J. Hare

Member, Executive Committee

Chair, Appellate Advocacy & Post-Trial Practice

Portrait of John J. Hare

John is a member of Marshall Dennehey's three-person Executive Committee, which is responsible for the firm’s daily operations and management of more than 500 attorneys across 19 offices in seven states. He also serves on the firm’s Board of Directors and as chair of the fifteen-attorney Appellate Advocacy & Post-Trial Practice.

As appellate counsel, John has litigated more than 500 appeals in state and federal appellate courts, representing individuals, corporations, and insurers in many of Pennsylvania’s highest-profile civil appeals. As amicus curiae counsel, John has represented a diverse clientele, including the United States Chamber of Commerce, the Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry, the American Medical Association, the Pennsylvania Medical Society, the Pennsylvania Defense Institute, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, other Pennsylvania lawyers, and academics interested in the outcome of appellate litigation.

John is actively involved in the Pennsylvania legal community. He has edited and co-authored two books on Pennsylvania appellate courts. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania; Life and Law in the Commonwealth, 1684-2017, was published by the Pennsylvania State University Press in 2018. Keystone of Justice: The Pennsylvania Superior Court, 1895-1995, was published by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in 2000.  

John serves by appointment of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania as the co-chair of the Court’s Historical Commission and on the Commission on Judicial Independence, a group of state and federal judges, academics, and attorneys who promote public awareness of the importance of a strong and independent judiciary. He also spent six years on the Supreme Court’s Civil Procedural Rules Committee, the last two years as chair, and served on the Board of Governors of the Bar Association of the Third Federal Circuit and as co-chair of the Amicus Curiae Committee of the Pennsylvania Defense Institute. He also serves on the advisory board of Ohlbaum on the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence (Lexis-Nexis) and regularly speaks at appellate court events and continuing legal education seminars.

Pennsylvania Super Lawyers magazine has repeatedly recognized John as a Top 100 lawyer in both Philadelphia and Pennsylvania based on a peer selection and evaluation process. He has also been selected as a Super Lawyer in the area of appellate practice every year since 2008. He has been repeatedly selected to The Best Lawyers in America and is a Fellow of the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers, a member of the International Association of Defense Counsel, and has an AV Preeminent (5.0/5.0) rating by Martindale-Hubbell, the highest rating for professional competence.

John is regularly called upon by the media to provide insight and commentary on significant legal issues. To view recent articles in which John is quoted, click the Media Commentary section below.

    • Princeton University (1999)
      • coursework completed for Ph.D.
    • University of California, Berkeley (M.A., 1998)
    • Thomas R. Kline School of Law of Duquesne University (J.D., 1993)
      • Editor Duquesne Law Review
    • Indiana University of Pennsylvania (B.A., magna cum laude, 1990)
    • Pennsylvania, 1994
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • U.S. Court of Appeals 3rd Circuit
    • U.S. Court of Appeals 4th Circuit
    • U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • U.S. District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • U.S. District Court Western District of Pennsylvania
    • Chambers USA, Pennsylvania: Litigation: Appellate, Band One (2025-2026)
    • Legal 500 Philadelphia Legal Elite, Commercial Disputes (2025-2026)
    • AV® Preeminent™ by Martindale-Hubbell®
    • The Best Lawyers in America©, Appellate Practice (2024-2026)
    • Pennsylvania Super Lawyers (2008-2026; Top 100 in Pennsylvania, 2018-2026; Top 100 in Philadelphia, 2018-2026)
    • Philadelphia Business Journal, Best of the Bar Award, 2023 and 2018
    • The Philadelphia Inquirer, Influencers of Law Award, 2019
    • American Academy of Appellate Lawyers, Fellow, 2016
    • Bar Association for the Third Federal Circuit
    • International Association of Defense Counsel, 2018
    • Pennsylvania Bar Association
    • Pennsylvania Defense Institute, 2008
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Civil Procedural Rules Committee, 2015-2021; Chair, 2019-2021
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Historical Commission, Co-Chair, 2023
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Commission on Judicial Independence, 2024
    • Combatting Nuclear Verdicts in Plaintiff-Friendly Jurisdictions, A.M. Best Insurance Law Podcast, October 30, 2025
    • New Voir Dire Rule  Pa.R.C.P. 220.3, Philadelphia Bar Association Live Webcast CLE, March 19, 2025
    • Speak Easy and Write Stuff: Effective Communication Techniques for Appellate Courts, CLE presented to Superior Court of Pennsylvania judges, law clerks, and legal staff, September 22, 2023
    • The Chief Justices of Pennsylvania, CLE presented to Supreme Court of Pennsylvania at The Lawyers Club of Philadelphia, September 14, 2023
    • The Transformation of Pennsylvania Law, CLE presented for Pennsylvania Coalition for Civil Justice Reform, September 11, 2023
    • Annual Civil Litigation Update 2023, Pennsylvania Bar Institute, August 31, 2023
    • Litigation Update Seminar, Pennsylvania Coalition for Civil Justice Reform, May 29, 2023
    • The Development of Our Supreme Court, Tricentennial Anniversary of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, National Constitution Center, May 21-22, 2022, Moderator and Speaker
    • Civil Litigation Update 2022, Pennsylvania Bar Institute, March 4, 2022
    • Civil Litigation Update 2021, Pennsylvania Bar Institute, March 4, 2021
    • Judicial Engagement and the Pennsylvania Constitution, Institute for Justice, Center for Judicial Engagement, October 16, 2020
    • The “New” Pennsylvania Supreme Court; Reflections on the Last Three-Plus Years, Pennsylvania Bar Institute, September 9, 2019
    • Your Case is in the News; Handling High-Profile Litigation, Moderator, American Academy of Appellate Lawyers, 2019 Spring Conference, April 13, 2019
    • The Pennsylvania Constitution: An Independent Source of Rights and Judicial Power, Pennsylvania State Trial Judges Conference, February 21, 2019
    • The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania: Life and Law in the Commonwealth, 1684-2017: A Conversation, hosted by Duquesne University for Pennsylvania Supreme Court, October 24, 2018
    • "What Lawyers Can do to Protect and Promote Judicial Independence,” Pennsylvania Bar Association Quarterly, January 2026
    • "Chief Justice Baer and the Supreme Court’s Tricentennial Anniversary," 62 Duquesne Law Review 1, Winter 2024
    • "Medical Malpractice Venue Un-Reform," Claims Judicial and Legislative Affairs Quarterly Update (CJLA), Spring 2023
    • The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania; Life and Law in the Commonwealth, 1684-2017 (Hare ed., Penn State, 2018)
    • "What’s New In 2017? Filing Trends and Developments In Asbestos Litigation," Mealey's Litigation Reports, August 16, 2017
    • "Sunlight is the Best Disinfectant; Solutions to the Concealment of Asbestos Trust Filings in Tort Litigation," For The Defense, April 2016
    • "Uncloaking Bankruptcy Trust Filings In Asbestos Litigation: Refuting the Myths About Transparency," Mealey's Asbestos Bankruptcy Report and Mealey's Litigation Report Asbestos, April 2016
    • "Uncloaking Bankruptcy Trust Filings In Asbestos Litigation: A Survey Of Solutions To The Types Of Conduct Exposed In Garlock's Bankruptcy," Mealey's Asbestos Bankrupcty Report, August 28, 2015
    • "Keystone of Justice: The Pennsylvania Superior Court, 1895-1995," Pennsylvania Press, 2000
    • "Pa. Supreme Court justices rarely lose seats in retention elections, so why is this year's race so important?", Philly Voice, September 29, 2025
    • "Monsanto Takes Roundup Preemption Defense to Pennsylvania Supreme Court,"The Legal Intelligencer, August 15, 2025
    • "Where Did All of Philadelphia's Big Verdicts Go?"The Legal Intelligencer, July 31, 2025
    • "Key Issue in Roundup Litigation Gets First-Time Review From Pa. Appeals Court,"The Legal Intelligencer, March 28, 2025
    • "Justices Wary of Overturning Longstanding Precedent on Tort Immunity for General Contractors,"The Legal Intelligencer, March 6, 2025
    • "Diving Into a Judicial Hellhole – A look at ATRF’s latest list and examining the top jurisdiction,"CLM Magazine, January 7, 2025
    • "Philly and the Pa. Supreme Court Are Top 'Judicial Hellholes,' A Tort Reform Group Says. Trial Attorneys Aren't Happy."The Philadelphia Inquirer, December 12, 2024.
    • "Judge Orders New Trial in Temple Health Medical Malpractice Case with $45 Million Jury Verdict,"The Philadelphia Inquirer, December 11, 2024
    • "Turning the Tables: Defense Litigators Embrace Lawsuits, Alleging Fraud at Plaintiffs Shops,"The American Lawyer, October 7, 2024
    • "Pa. High Court Reversal Rate of Superior Court Rulings Has Plummeted, Report Shows,"The Legal Intelligencer, April 23, 2024
    • "As Stakes Escalate, Kline & Specter Begin Stepping in to Defend Phila.’s Largest Verdicts Post-Trial,"The Legal Intelligencer, January 31, 2024
    • "Parties Clash Over Jury Instruction in Hearing on $976M Defective Seatbelt Verdict,"The Legal Intelligencer, April 2, 2024
    • "Unanimity Is Rare on Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Data Reveals," The Legal Intelligencer, February 15, 2024
    • "Pennsylvania Litigation To Watch In 2024" Law360, January 1, 2024
    • "Top Pennsylvania Cases of 2023," Law360, December 21, 2023
    • "'Passion and Prejudice': Mitsubishi Seeks to Overturn Nearly $1B Defective Seatbelt Verdict,"The Legal Intelligencer, November 15, 2023
    • "Superior Court Breaks String of Plaintiff-Side Forum Rulings, Upholding Case's Move From Phila." The Legal Intelligencer, November 1, 2023
    • "Could Proposed Changes to Civil Jury Selection Rules Slow Down Pa.'s Courts?" The Legal Intelligencer, September 21, 2023
    • "Pa. Civil Law Has Developed Pro-Plaintiff Slant, PCCJR Panelists Say," The Legal Intelligencer, September 11, 2023
    • "Jury Verdicts Like the $183 Million Award Against Penn Medicine Can Be Tied Up for Years, But Usually Stand," The Philadelphia Inquirer, May 2, 2023
    • "PA Budget, Political Appointment Decisions for Gov. Josh Shapiro," GoErie.com, January 3, 2023
    • "Defense Attorneys Brace for Impacts as Medical Malpractice Venue Rule Changes Loom," The Legal Intelligencer, October 5, 2022
    • "Pa. Legal Community Remembers Chief Justice Baer as a Consensus Builder, Family Law Icon," The Legal Intelligencer, October 3, 2022
    • "Lawyers Argue for New Trial, Reduction of $19 Million Verdict for Pool Injury," The Tribune-Review, August 8, 2022
    • "Woman Gifted Groupon Massage Must Arbitrate Assault Claims: Court," Pennsylvania Law Weekly, August 2, 2022
    • "Guns, Abortion & Voting Rights: 5 Critical PA Supreme Court Cases to Keep an Eye on in 2022," Pocono Record, July 18, 2022
    • "Plaintiffs Seek to Narrow Pa. High Court's Ruling Axing Jurisdiction by Business Registration," The Legal Intelligencer, February 1, 2022
    • "Pa. Justices: Defense Attorney's Question During Ex-NFL Player's Med Mal Trial Was Not Improper," Pennsylvania Law Weekly, December 28, 2021
    • "Pa. Justices Say Two Disputed Words Don't Warrant New Trial," Law360, December 22, 2021
    • "Pa. Justices Split Over Whether Two Words Warrant Retrial," Law360, September 21, 2021
    • "'Even Bad People': Legal Community Divided on Unpopular Decision That Freed Cosby," The Legal Intelligencer, July 1, 2021
    • "Pa. Cases to Watch in 2021: Midyear Report," Law360, July 9, 2021
    • "Pa. Atty Off Hook for Extended Interest on Malpractice Award," Law360, March 31, 2021
    • "Pa. Justices Snub Appeal Over Axed $40M Spinal Injury Award," Law360, March 30, 2021
    • "Pennsylvania Cases to Watch in 2021," Law360, January 3, 2021
    • "Pa. Court Scraps $40M Suburban Phila. Jury Verdict Over Birth Injury," The Legal Intelligencer, July 20, 2020
    • "Measure to Split Pa. Court Seats Seen as Political Play," Law360, July 17, 2020
    • "Pa. Panel Wipes Out $40M Award for Baby's Spinal Injury," Law360, July 16, 2020
    • "Top Pennsylvania Cases of 2020: A Midyear Report," Law360, July 2, 2020
    • "3rd Circ. Punts Amazon Seller Liability Case to Pa. Justices," Law360, June 2, 2020
    • "Panel Axes $10M Award in Surgery Patient's Drug Death Suit," Law360, April 9, 2020
    • "Pa. Appeals Court Slashes Award; Finds Jury Went Too Far With $10 Million Verdict," The Legal Intelligencer, April 9, 2020
    • "Pennsylvania Cases to Watch in 2020", Law 360, January 3, 2020 
    • "Drifting Away From Precedent?: Some See Pa. Supreme Court Upending Established Case Law," Pennsylvania Law Weekly, December 23, 2019
    • "The Biggest Pa. Appellate Rulings Of 2019: Midyear Report," Law360, July 3, 2019
    • "Pa. Jurisdiction in Grenfell Tower Suit May be Tested by Evolving Case Law," The Legal Intelligencer, June 12, 2019
    • “Law Firms Going ‘Old School’ as Phila. Court System Struggles to Recover From Computer Virus,” The Legal Intelligencer, May 31, 2019
    • "At Last, Unpublished Superior Court Opinions Can Be Cited. Now What?," The Legal Intelligencer, March 29, 2019
    • "This Pennsylvania Committee Is Proposing Changes That Benefit Five Of Its Members' Law Firms," Forbes and Pennsylvania Record, February 19, 2019
    • "Tough Sell On Cancer Link Awaits At 1st Philly Talc Trial," Law360, February 5, 2019
    • "CBS Tells Justices No Liability For Asbestos Added By Others, Law360, September 20, 2018
    • "The Biggest Pa. Appellate Rulings Of 2018: Midyear Report," Law360, July 12, 2018
    • "Judge Says Pa.'s Corporate Registration Law Doesn't Create Jurisdiction," The Legal Intelligencer, June 11, 2018
    • "Superior Court Throws Out $32M Wrongful Death Award," The Legal Intelligencer, May 3, 2018
    • "Pa. Tort Ruling Highlights Discrepancies in Jury Instructions," Law360, February 23, 2018
    • "Commonwealth Court: Philly Beverage Tax is Legal," WHYY's Keystone Crossroads, June 14, 2017. John's interview about the soda tax also aired on WHYY's Morning Edition program on June 16, 2017.
    • "Changes to PA Tort Law Not Coming Fast Enough, Attorneys Say," Law360, April 20, 2017
    • "Justices' 'Abnormal' Requests Pose Legislative Challenges," The Legal Intelligencer, October 7, 2017
    • "Attorneys Agree Ban on Citing Nonprecedential Opinions is a Hurdle," The Legal Intelligencer, September 1, 2016
    • "The Biggest PA Appeals Court Decisions So Far in 2016," Law360, August 4, 2016
    • "Appellate Courts Prepare to Transition Interim Appointees," The Legal Intelligencer, July 11, 2016
    • "Zimmer Win May Force Harder Look at Runaway Verdicts," Law360, June 10, 2016
    • "'When in Doubt, Appeal' in Consolidated Cases," The Legal Intelligencer, May 31, 2016
    • "Superior Court's 2016 Output Low on Civil Rulings," The Legal Intelligencer, May 27, 2016
    • "Revamped PA High Court Looks To Make Mark on Tort Law," Law360, February 4, 2016
    • "Supreme Court Orders Reargument in 26 Cases From 2015," The Legal Intelligencer, January 22, 2016.
    • "Intermediate Courts Must Weather Vacancies," The Legal Intelligencer, January 9, 2016
    • "Supreme Court Justice J. Michael Eakin Tearfully Apologizes, Defends Reputation in Porn Email Hearing," Allentown Morning Call, December 21, 2015
    • "Eakin, 'Bruno' and the State of Judicial Discipline in PA," The Legal Intelligencer, December 18, 2015
    • "JCB Faces Challenges in Proving Violations by Eakin," The Legal Intelligencer, December 11, 2015
    • "Litigants May Test High Court After Turnover," Pennsylvania Law Weekly, November 17, 2015
    • "Dems' PA High Court Sweep Could Shake Up Enviro, Tort Law," Law360, November 4, 2015
    • "Report: Supreme Court Should Defer to JCB on Eakin Emails," The Legal Intelligencer, November 3, 2015
    • "Zimmer Ruling Continues Pa. Justices' Pro-Plaintiff Trend," Law360, October 28, 2015
    • "Lawyers Say Discipline, Not Removal, Likely for Eakin," Pennsylvania Law Weekly, October 20, 2015
    • "Rekindled Email Scandal Tests State Supreme Court, Again," The Legal Intelligencer, October 6, 2015
    • "Saylor's Comments Raise More Questions Over AG Kane's Fate," The Legal Intelligencer, September 30, 2015
    • "Fee Sanctions Must Be Filed Soon After Final Order," Pennsylvania Law Weekly, September 28, 2015
    • "Rule Changes Clear Up Legal Gray Area in Post-Trial Motions," Legal Intelligencer, July 14, 2015
    • "Raising Pa. Supreme Court Output Easier Said Than Done?," Pennsylvania Law Weekly, March 31, 2015
    • "Police Owe No Duty to Unknown Passengers in Fleeing Car," The Legal Intelligencer, January 5, 2015
    • "Pennsylvania Cases To Watch In 2015," Law360, January 2, 2015
    • Amagasu v. Mitsubishi, 2025 WL 3708201 (Pa. Super. 2025) (vacating $1.09 billion jury verdict and remanding for new trial)
    • Yoder v. McCarthy Constr., Inc., 345 A.3d 668 (Pa. 2025) (vacating $5.6 million judgment and remanding for further proceedings)
    • Gustafson v. Springfield, Inc., 333 A.3d 651 (Pa. 2025), cert. denied, 25-120, 2025 WL 3620464 (U.S. Dec. 15, 2025) (reversing Superior Court and holding that federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) was constitutional)
    • Smith v. CMS W., Inc., 305 A.3d 593 (Pa. Super. 2023) (applying forum non conveniens to transfer litigation out of Philadelphia County)
    • Johnson v. Toll Bros., Inc., 302 A.3d 1231 (Pa. Super. 2023) (rejecting challenge to Pennsylvania’s construction statute of repose)
    • Doe v. Hand & Stone Franchise Corp., 283 A.3d 391 (Pa. Super. 2022) (enforcing arbitration provisions in online marketing agreement)
    • Steltz v. Meyers, 265 A.3d 335 (Pa. 2021) (reversing lower courts and reinstating defense jury verdict for physician and practice group improperly blamed for ending NFL player’s career)
    • Charlton v. Troy, 236 A.3d 22 (Pa. Super. 2020), reargument denied (Sept. 23, 2020), appeal denied, 251 A.3d 772 (Pa. 2021) (vacating $40.2 million jury verdict and remanding for new trial)
    • Ramsey v. Buchanan Auto Park, 2021 WL 5165823 (M.D. Pa. 2021) (vacating $500,000 jury verdict and remanding for new trial)
    • Roverano v. John Crane, Inc., 226 A.3d 526 (Pa. 2020) (reversing Superior Court and holding that juries may apportion liability to nonparty bankruptcy trusts) (amicus counsel for defense organizations)
    • Kimble v. Laser Spine Institute et al., No. 2016-00569 (Chester Cty., 2019) (vacating $10 million jury verdict and granting judgment n.o.v.)
    • Straw v. Golon et al.,187 A.3d 966 (Pa. Super. 2018), appeal denied, 2019 Pa.LEXIS 950 (Pa. 2019) (vacating $35 million judgment and remanding for new trial)
    • Commonwealth v. Muniz, 164 A.3d 1189 (Pa. 2017) (reversing Superior Court and holding that retroactive registration under Pennsylvania’s Megan’s Law violates ex post facto clauses of the United States and Pennsylvania constitutions) (amicus counsel for 22 individuals)
    • Rost v. Ford Motor Co., 151 A.3d 1032 (Pa. 2016) (invalidating Philadelphia’s mandatory consolidation of asbestos cases for trial) (amicus counsel for defense organizations)
    • Keith v. Commonwealth ex rel. Pa. Dep't of Agric., 151 A.3d 687 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (invalidating Department of Agriculture regulations permitting commercial dog breeders to restrict nursing mothers' access to exercise areas and use wire flooring in cages) (amicus counsel for American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals)
    • Nertavich v. PPL Elec. Utilities, 124 A.3d 734 (Pa. 2015) (vacating $4.6 million jury verdict and granting judgment n.o.v.) (amicus counsel for defense organizations)
    • Nelson v. Airco Welders Supply, 107 A.3d 146 (Pa. Super. 2014), appeal denied, (Pa. 2017) (vacating $14.5 million jury verdict and remanding for new trial)
    • Sellers v. Twp. of Abington, 106 A.3d 679 (Pa. 2014) (upholding lower court rulings that police officers ow no duty to unknown passengers in fleeing vehicles)
    • Patton v. Worthington Associates, Inc., 89 A.3d 643 (Pa. 2014) (vacating $1.5 million jury verdict and granting judgment n.o.v.)
    • Vanderhoff v. Harleysville Ins. Co., 78 A.3d 1060 (Pa. 2013) (holding that showing of prejudice due to insured’s untimely notice did not require proof of what insurer would have found had notice been timely)
    • McGarvey v. Penske Auto Grp., Inc., 486 Fed.Appx. 276 (3d Cir. 2012) (holding that warranty for auto theft system did not violate New Jersey Truth–in–Consumer Contract, Warranty, and Notice Act (NJTCCA)).
    • Edkin v. Brethren Mut. Ins. Co., 24 A.3d 444 (Pa. Super. 2011) (vacating $2 million verdict and granting judgment n.o.v.)
    • Griffin v. Harrisburg Prop. Servs., Inc., 421 Fed.Appx. 204 (3d Cir. 2011) (affirming district court ruling that employer’s adequate remedial action precluded liability for harassment)
    • State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Estate of Mehlman, 589 F.3d 105 (3d Cir. 2009) (reversing district court and holding that insurer had no duty to provide coverage for victim’s lawsuit based on insured’s intentional conduct)
    • Urbach v. Kentile, 915 A.2d 159 (Pa. Super. 2006) (vacating $5 million jury verdict and remanding for new trial)
    • Toogood v. Rogal, 824 A.2d 1140 (Pa. 2003) (vacating $465,000 jury verdict and granting judgment n.o.v.)
    • Philadelphia Owners Association v. City of Philadelphia et al., 57 Fed. Appx. 961 (3d Cir. 2003) (reversing district court and ruling that municipal ordinance did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution)
    • Van Zandt v. Holy Redeemer Hosp., 823 A.2d 145 (Pa. 2003) (vacating $323,000 jury verdict and granting judgment n.o.v.)
    • Smith v. Rao, No. 2899 EDA 2001 (Pa. Super. 2002) (vacating $3 million jury verdict and remanding for new trial)

Results

Favorable Precedential Decision Obtained in High-Stakes Construction Defect Case

We prevailed in a unanimous, precedential decision in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, which reconciled conflicting case law in the state. The plaintiffs were joined by 55 amici, and our client was joined by numerous construction organizations as amici. The court eventually applied Pennsylvania’s statute of repose to bar construction defect claims brought by homeowners.

Pennsylvania Appellate Courts Uphold Nonsuit Obtained By Jack Delany In $11.5 Million Construction Death Case

By Order dated April 5, 2023, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania refused to review the Superior Court’s affirmance of a 2021 nonsuit obtained by Jack Delany in hotly contested litigation stemming from the death of a construction worker. John Hare and Shane Haselbarth handled the appeal along with Jack. The Supreme Court’s ruling ends more than five years of litigation that arose from the construction worker’s death while he was involved in the Pier 78 renovation project on the Delaware River in Philadelphia. The plaintiff sued the general contractor and others involved in the project and ultimately settled with the general contractor for $10.5 million. The general contractor then pursued a contractual indemnification claim against Jack Delany’s concrete subcontractor client on the Pier 78 project. The indemnification claim included the $10.5 million settlement plus approximately $1 million in attorneys’ fees.   The case proceeded to trial in 2021 and, at the close of the general contractor’s case-in-chief, Jack moved for and was granted a nonsuit on the basis that the general contractor was the deceased construction workers’ statutory employer pursuant to the five-element test set forth by the PA Supreme Court in McDonald v. Levinson Steel, 153 A. 424 (Pa. 1930). The case was especially notable because, rather than retaining an attorney to address the reasonableness of the amount of the underlying settlement, which is typical, Jack retained an economist to explain that, based upon his analysis of comparable cases, the settlement amount was excessive. The general contractor appealed the nonsuit. In an unanimous decision dated September 30, 2022, the Superior Court affirmed. The Supreme Court denial of allowance of appeal brings the lengthy litigation to an end.    

Thought Leadership

Events

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

SIDEBAR: News and Happenings

We are pleased to share that attorneys from our health care team have been selected to the 2026  New Jersey and Pennsylvania Super Lawyers and Rising Stars lists. Their dedication to clients and commitment to high-quality work continues to strengthen our firm! Please join us in congratulating: NJ Super Lawyers: Robert T. Evers and Justin F. Johnson NJ Super Lawyer Rising Stars: Nataliana A. Guida  2026 Pennsylvania Super Lawyers: Alyson J. Kirleis and Gary M. Samms 2026 Pennsylvania Rising Stars: Holli K. Archer and Daniel Dolente Victoria Scanlon (Scranton) was a faculty presenter at the 2026 American Roentgen Ray Society (ARRS) Annual Meeting in Pittsburgh. She participated in the “Resident Symposium: Producing Quality Reports,” focusing her presentation on “How to Write a Great Report: Malpractice Lawyer’s Perspective.” Vicky, the only attorney presenter for this two-hour segment, was joined by several health care professionals including diagnostic radiologists, an interventional radiologist, an internal medicine physician, and a radiologist turned AI entrepreneur expert.  Matthew Keris (Scranton), President of the Pennsylvania Association for Health Care Risk Management (PAHCRM) and shareholder in our Scranton Health Care Department, presented an important and timely session titled “Keynote Address: A Conversation with RaDonda Vaught on Criminalizing Errors” at PAHCRM’s Annual Meeting in April. RaDonda is a former Tennessee nurse widely known for being criminally convicted in 2022 of negligent homicide and gross neglect after a 2017 fatal medication error at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. Her case gained national attention because she was criminally prosecuted rather than just facing licensing board action, sparking debate over blaming individual nurses for systemic healthcare failures. Matt and RaDonda’s conversation explored one of the most consequential issues in health care risk management today—how systems respond to human error, and what it means for patient safety, accountability, and the professionals who serve on the front lines. Gary Samms was a panelist for a podcast hosted by the Medical Liability Monitor, “From Outliers to Pattern: The Increasing Predictability of Megaverdicts in the Med-Mal Industry – and How to Reduce the Likelihood of Getting Hit with One.” Gary discussed the changing megaverdict landscape and why “outlier” verdicts are becoming structural, in addition to how plaintiffs turn weaknesses into megaverdicts (including building emotional narrative and jury psychology). Thank you to our clients who joined us for our Trends in Health Care & Health Law seminar on May 14. Led by our Health Care Department Director and Assistant Director, Robin Snyder and Donna Modestine, the session explored key issues that are currently shaping outcomes in health care litigation. We owe a debt of gratitude to our esteemed guest speaker, Mary Ellen Nepps, Esq., Senior Counsel, University of Pennsylvania, who presented “Medical Malpractice Litigation: Driving Another Health Care Crisis in Pennsylvania.” And special thanks to our attorneys who presented and shared their insights, including John J. Hare and Holli Archer who discussed “Highlights in PA Medical Malpractice Law;” David Drake for his presentation, “From Claims to Courtroom: Key Trends in NJ Medical Malpractice Litigation;” and Matthew Keris with an “Update on Health Care Tech Discovery.” Thank you to all of our clients for entrusting us with your health care litigation. We are proud to partner with you as we defend your interests and navigate legal landscapes together.

News

Marshall Dennehey’s John J. Hare Brings Home Attorney of the Year Honors; Firm Named Litigation Department of the Year in Two Categories

Marshall Dennehey took home top honors in three categories at the The Legal Intelligencer’s 2026 Pennsylvania Legal Awards, held June 11 in Philadelphia. The first place awards include: Attorney of the Year: John J. Hare, Chair of the firm’s Appellate Advocacy & Post-Trial Practice Group and Executive Committee member, together with Charles “Chip” Becker of Kline & Specter Litigation Department of the Year, Appellate – Third Win in a Row! Litigation Department of the Year, Product Liability/Mass Torts “There is no one more deserving of Attorney of the Year honors than John. This award is a testament to his exceptional skill, dedication, and leadership—qualities that truly exemplify the very best of our firm,” said G. Mark Thompson, Marshall Dennehey’s President & CEO. “These honors also reflect the strength and depth of our product liability, mass torts, and appellate practices across Pennsylvania and beyond, underscoring our ongoing commitment to delivering outstanding results for our clients.” Attorney of the Year – John J. Hare, Marshall Dennehey, together with Charles “Chip” Becker, Kline & Specter Over the past year, John and Charles were opposing counsel in many of the highest-profile civil appeals in Pennsylvania. John is renowned as a preeminent appellate lawyer on the defense side, and Chip on the plaintiff's side. They have opposed each other repeatedly, exhibiting peerless professionalism and exceptional civility, while zealously litigating under the unremitting pressure of high-profile litigation and record-setting verdicts totaling more than $3.5 billion. They have also collaborated, outside of litigation, on many commissions, committees, and projects of importance to the Pennsylvania judiciary and legal community. Litigation Department of the Year – Appellate Law, Winner (previous winner, 2025 and 2024) 2025 was another standout year for the firm’s Appellate Advocacy & Post‑Trial Practice Group, led by John J. Hare, which was retained to challenge many of Pennsylvania’s “nuclear” verdicts—awards exceeding $10 million. Notably, the department persuaded the Pennsylvania Superior Court to reverse a Philadelphia judgment of $1.09 billion, the largest judgment ever overturned by a Pennsylvania appellate court. The group’s 11 full‑time Pennsylvania‑based appellate lawyers are at the center of Pennsylvania’s most high-profile matters, bringing more than 150 years of combined appellate experience. They routinely handle post‑trial and appellate matters and are frequently engaged to participate in and monitor trials in high‑exposure cases to ensure that critical legal issues are properly raised and preserved for appeal. Litigation Department of the Year – Product Liability/Mass Torts, Winner This marks the first win for the firm’s Pennsylvania Product Liability and Mass Torts practices, which operate within our Casualty Department, managed by Matthew Schorr and Jeff Rapattoni. For almost five decades, Fortune 500 product manufacturers/distributors and their insurers have turned to these groups to defend their litigation. Led by Bradley D. Remick and Vlada Tasich, our Product Liability group’s success can be attributed to its commitment to keeping abreast of ever-changing legal theories, judicial viewpoints, and evolving technology impacting the product liability landscape. Our attorneys have successfully handled thousands of product liability matters in all jurisdictions across the state. Likewise, our mass tort litigation practice – divided into Asbestos & Mass Tort, and Environmental & Toxic Tort Litigation –  has defended manufacturers, distributors, contractors, and premises owners in thousands of personal injury and other claims. Led by Kevin E. Hexstall and Patrick T. Reilly, most attorneys in these groups have more than 20 years of experience, and our seasoned trial team has tried hundreds of cases to verdict, consistently achieving strong results through both trials and settlements. In addition to these awards, Marshall Dennehey was a Litigation Department of the Year finalist for Professional Liability.

Thought Leadership

Casual Care, Serious Consequences: How Informal Prescribing Can Trigger Medical Board Scrutiny

The lesson for health care practitioners is that regular review of the regulatory requirements can ensure compliance and that casual prescribing may be in violation of state regulations if the necessary components are not met. Consider the following scenario: in December 2025, a medical provider renewed a prescription for a long-standing telemedicine patient receiving a Schedule II controlled dangerous substance. This was not a violation of the New Jersey Administrative Code. Another provider doing the same action for an equally situated patient in March 2026 would be in violation. The casual prescriber who is not aware of newer regulatory requirements may have a more difficult time responding to a medical board complaint. Medicine is a highly-regulated helping profession. Without addressing the merits of this regulatory burden, the practice of medicine continues to see drastic changes impacting the everyday life of patient and provider. Telemedicine, COVID-19, and other advances and roadblocks, present a challenge to those saving lives while attempting to comply with the rules of practice. Physicians often discover—through real cases and the lens of regulatory expectations—that even well-intentioned informal help can be reinterpreted as stepping outside mandated professional boundaries, and seemingly harmless actions can be construed as deviations from required practice standards specifically outlined in Title 13, Chapter 35, Subchapters 7.1A of the New Jersey Administrative Code. Title 45, "Professions and Occupations," of the New Jersey code governs the practice of medicine, nursing, optometry, pharmacy, and many other professional occupations. Section 9 specifically addresses the state board of medical examiners and allows for the creation of rules and regulations in Section 45:9-5.3. These regulations can be found in the New Jersey Administrative Code Title 13, Chapter 35. While broad in scope, Chapter 35 contains a subchapter dedicated to the administration and dispensing of prescription drugs. Such knowledge will arm physicians with the tools they need to prevent a negative outcome if a medical board complaint is filed. Likewise, attorneys must be familiar with these regulatory requirements when advising and defending providers. In New Jersey, N.J.A.C. Section 13:35-7.1A(a) requires that a practitioner conduct an examination and appropriately document the same within the medical record before dispensing drugs or issuing prescriptions. The examination must include an "appropriate history and physical examination," a diagnosis based upon the examination and any testing consistent with good medical care, the formulation of a therapeutic plan discussed with the patient, and the availability of appropriate follow-up care. There are only six exceptions to this requirement: In admission orders for a newly hospitalized patient For a patient of another physician for whom the practitioner is taking calls For continuation medications on a short-term basis for a new patient prior to the patient's first appointment For an established patient who, based on sound medical practice, the physician believes does not require a new examination before issuing a new prescription For a patient examined by a healthcare professional who is in collaborative practice with the practitioner When treatment is provided by a practitioner for an emergency medical condition Emergencies are also limited to situations where someone's health is in serious jeopardy, there is serious impairment to bodily functions, or serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part. During the COVID-19 pandemic, then New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy issued an executive order declaring a public health emergency and a state of emergency that allowed authorized prescribers to prescribe Schedule II controlled dangerous substances via telemedicine. The order was terminated when he left office earlier this year and the state reverted to the requirement of an initial in-person examination and quarterly in-person visits. With this return to prior regulatory requirements, practitioners subject to the jurisdiction of the board of medical examiners may benefit from a refresher on the regulatory limitations on their practice now that the pandemic-era flexibilities have ended. This new requirement may create confusion for prescribers and lead to casual prescribing of medication in violation of the regulations, even in the setting of recurrent telemedicine appointments as noted in the example above. Casual prescribing can take many forms: filling a prescription request from a friend or family member without an examination or contemporary medical record; using telemedicine to expand your practice without proper in-person appointments or documentation in the medical record; failing to ensure appropriate follow-up care for a "one time" prescription; etc. Although not all board complaints end in a publicly available opinion, serious deviations from regulatory requirements can shine a light on practices that will require action by the board if a complaint is received. Consider the following cases: In October 2025, the board issued a final consent order in an administrative action where a doctor provided opioids without examination and his license was permanently revoked. In re Robert Dela Gente, D.O., N.J. State Bd. of Med. Exam'rs Oct. 21, 2025. Criminal charges were filed (though that is not always the case). In a September 2025 consent order, a physician was reprimanded for "prescribing opioids several months in advance without the proper patient follow-up..." and explained that they did so for "patients who can not pay for multiple visits to refill medications." In re A/an E. Schultz, M.D., N.J. State Bd. of Med. Exam'rs Sept. 25, 2025. Another physician was suspended and placed on probation in a consent order for prescribing three patients the weight-loss medication "Ozempic" via text messages through a website called "Push Health" and without any further communication with the patients or taking a medical history. In re Laura E. Purdy, M.D., N.J. State Bd. of Med. Exam'rs Aug. 29, 2025. A June 2025 interim consent order required a "full evaluation and assessment of [a physician's] general knowledge and skill, with specific emphasis on his knowledge of and ability to safely prescribe [controlled dangerous substances]" due to his failure to review a patient's prior medical history and medical record, assess and review the prescription monitoring program before prescribing CDS, and conduct random urine screens on a patient that tested positive for CDS upon admission to his practice because "he trusted the patient." In re Donald Oh, M.D., N.J. State Bd. of Med. Exam'rs June 2, 2025. Each of these examples demonstrate a failure to follow strict procedure regardless of the intention. Failing to follow procedure secondary to good intentions, such as considering a patient's financial constraints, trust in the patient, or utilizing a new telemedicine service platform, will not be a defense to a board complaint. Especially when practicing via telemedicine, practitioners must ensure they are adhering to the appropriate regulatory standard. A provider who calls in a prescription for a traveling friend or family member or agrees to prescribe medication for individuals using the newest phone app will have a hard time meeting the requirements of N.J.A.C. Section 13:35-7.1A. Even if a history was taken, a "therapeutic plan" was created, and "follow up care" was provided, the prescriber would still not be in compliance with the regulation without an in-person examination. In our opening hypothetical, the prescriber's behavior did not change between December and March; however, the legal shift in the regulatory landscape made once acceptable behavior a violation as a required examination did not occur. When complaints are made with regard to informal prescribing, the board has discretion to employ measures to encourage compliance in lieu of formal proceedings such as a private, written warning; suspending fines subject to continuing compliance; medical or professional treatment as may be necessary; medical or diagnostic testing and monitoring; skills assessment; corrective training; participation in outreach programming; or contribution to the consumer fraud protection fund. The lesson for health care practitioners is that regular review of the regulatory requirements can ensure compliance and that casual prescribing may be in violation of state regulations if the necessary components are not met. Even compliant providers who had not conducted an in-person examination for telemedicine patients during the COVID-19 emergency would be in violation of the regulations as of January 2026 for the same practice. Practitioners should be diligent in adhering to the prescribing rules to avoid sanctions related to casual care. Likewise, attorneys advising or defending practitioners before the board must be aware of the in-person examination requirements for prescribing in New Jersey whether the care in question took place in-person or in a telemedicine setting. Reprinted with permission from the April 22, 2026 issue of the New Jersey Law Journal. ©2026 ALM Media Properties, LLC. Further duplication without permission is prohibited. All rights reserved.

Result

No-Cause Jury Verdict Secured in Wrongful Death Trial

We successfully obtained a no-cause jury verdict in a 13-day wrongful death trial. The decedent, a 59-year-old man, was admitted to the emergency room on February 15, 2019, with complaints of abdominal pain, decreased appetite, and constipation, despite the use of laxatives. The patient did not complain of any nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea. He had a significant medical history including diabetes, hypertension, prior coronary artery stenting, morbid obesity (with past gastric bypass surgery), longstanding ventral hernia, and back pain. A CT scan revealed multiple hernias and a potential closed-loop bowel obstruction, leading to a surgery consultation. Our client, an emergency general surgeon, interpreted that the patient did not have a closed loop or any significant obstruction and recommended non-surgical management. The patient was approved to have clear liquids, and had a vomiting incident shortly after, but our client was not notified. The patient was returned to NPO status, and after improving overnight, he was returned to “clears” and additional medical and renal consults were ordered. Our client did not receive any communications from the residents/nurses of any changes in the patient’s condition. On February 18, 2019, two rapid responses were called due to increased heart rate and vomiting. It is believed that the vomiting resulted in aspiration, causing sepsis, ultimately leading to the patient’s death. During the trial, the plaintiff’s sole medical expert highlighted imaging on the wrong hernia, which called into question all of his opinions in the case. We made key objections related to the expert testimony, limiting what the allegations were, and preventing new allegations from being made. After approximately two and a half hours of deliberating, the jury returned a no-cause verdict.