.

Joseph L. Hoynoski III

Portrait of Joseph L. Hoynoski III

Joseph is a shareholder in the Health Care Department. He focuses the majority of his practice on the defense of various medical/psychiatric providers and facilities in medical malpractice, dental malpractice, complex health care liability matters and premises liability. Joseph has also served as a member of the firm's Executive Committee Advisory Council, a distinguished group of firm leaders whose purpose is to enhance the communication between the Executive Committee and younger members of the firm's professional ranks, including associates, special counsel and junior shareholders. 

Joseph has a rather unique background, which serves him well in handling matters in the health care liability field. From 2004 until 2007, he was involved in representing plaintiffs in hundreds of actions brought against pharmaceutical companies covering a wide array of drugs. Mass torts included Vioxx, Bextra, Celebrex, Viagra, Adderall and ReNu with MoistureLoc.

Since 2008, Joseph has been extensively involved in defending various medical providers in medical malpractice cases. He has obtained dismissals for several physicians and hospitals. He has also represented hospitals and physician groups in health care liability matters and through use of surveillance experts, was able to have cases dismissed against hospitals and physicians. He also successfully handled an Immigration Customs Enforcement Audit for a major Philadelphia corporation.

Joseph also has experience in trademark/copyright litigation and licensing. He has represented national corporations in the areas of retail, specialty food products, hair care products and toys in trademark and copyright litigation matters.

In 2001, Joseph graduated from Temple University cum laude, majoring in corporate law. At Temple, he was involved in the marching band, basketball pep band, orchestra, Student Judicial Board, Business Honors Program and the law fraternity Phi Alpha Delta, where he competed in several mock trial competitions.

Joseph graduated from Widener University School of Law, magna cum laude, in 2004. He was involved in Law Review and received the Senior Staff Award. He was also the treasurer of the Trial Advocacy Honor Society and competed in several mock trial competitions. Joseph received the Widener University School of Law Outstanding Service Award upon graduation, as well as the American Bankruptcy Institute Medal of Excellence.

    • Widener University Delaware Law School (J.D., magna cum laude, 2004)
    • Temple University (B.B.A., cum laude, 2001)
    • Pennsylvania, 2004
    • U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2005
    • U.S. Court of Appeals 3rd Circuit, 2009
    • The Best Lawyers in America©, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants (2026)
    • Pennsylvania Super Lawyers Rising Star (2012-2019)
    • Montgomery County Bar Association
    • Pennsylvania Bar Association
    • “Dealing with Unidentified/Identified Agents Not Named as Defendants in a Complaint.” Defense Digest, Vol. 21, No. 1, March 2015
    • "The Certificate of Merit Status Quo Has to Go," The Legal Intelligencer, Health Care Supplement (page 7), February 17, 2015
    • "Statutory Damages: To Copy Or Not To Copy, That Is The Burning Question," Commercial Damages Reporter, Vol 25, Issue 2, April 2010
    • Civil Litigation Update, contributing author for the annual update published by the Pennsylvania Bar Institute, 2009 and 2010
    • Peer Review: Status 2022, Marshall Dennehey Trends in Health Care and Health Law Seminar, May 5, 2022
    • Secured a Directed Verdict on behalf of an orthopedic surgeon who was alleged to have breached the standard of care as it relates to his performance of a reverse right shoulder replacement. After an 8-day trial, the court found that the plaintiff failed to establish that the surgery performed by the orthopedic surgeon was unnecessary, as alleged in the Amended Complaint.
    • Obtained a defense verdict in Philadelphia County on behalf of an emergency room physician, hospital physician group and hospital for an alleged failure to appropriately treat elevated blood sugar and groin abscess leading to necrotizing fasciitis. The evidence presented to the jury supported the argument that the emergency room physician appropriately treated the abscess as presented and gave appropriate instructions for the plaintiff to return to the hospital if symptoms changed or worsened. Plaintiff did not require admission for treatment of elevated blood sugar as she was a long time diabetic and the glucose level was not abnormal for her. When she finally returned to the hospital after seven days, she had developed the necrotizing fasciitis. The trial lasted four days and the jury returned the verdict in 16 minutes. 
    • Noasha LLC v. Nordic Group of Cos., Ltd., et al, 08-cv-05635, E.D.P.A.
    • Doctor's Associates, Inc. v. Sheetz Inc., et al., 09-cv-88, E.D. Va
    • Humana Inc. v. Aetna Ins., Opposition No. 91192704 (October 13, 2010) [not precedential]. Joseph represented Aetna, Inc. and successfully assisted with defeating Humana Inc.'s opposition to Aetna's use of AETNA ONE for the name of an insurance program in front of the Trademark Trial and Appeals Board.

Firm Highlights

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. 

Thought Leadership

U.S. Supreme Court Decides Key Issue Regarding Interstate Freight Broker Liability

Freight brokers are intermediaries.  They connect shippers of goods with trucking companies that transport those goods.  Freight brokers match a load of freight with a trucking company and oversee the logistics of the transportation. For a number of years there has been a division among the Federal Circuits regarding the potential liability of freight brokers when the trucking companies that they retain for interstate loads are involved in accidents.  At the center of this division was the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (FAAAA).  Some Federal Circuit Courts have held that state law negligent hiring claims against freight brokers were preempted by the FAAAA .  Other Federal Circuits Courts have held that even if preemption applied, the “safety exception” in the FAAAA saved state law negligent hiring claims from federal preemption.  On May 14, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the conflict in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, et al, No24-1238. In that case freight broker C.H. Robinson selected Caribe Transport to haul an interstate load. The commercial truck driver employed by Caribe Transport allegedly caused an accident and the plaintiff, Montgomery, was seriously injured. Montgomery brought an action against the driver, Caribe Transport and C.H. Robinson. The allegation against C.H. Robinson was that it negligently retained Caribe Transport when it knew, or should have known, that it was an unsafe company. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that Montgomery’s claims against C.H. Robinson were preempted by the FAAAA. The plaintiff appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.  The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision focused primarily on the safety exception in the FAAAA.  That provision provides that the FAAAA preemption “…shall not restrict the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles.” C.H. Robinson argued, as freight brokers historically have, that their function was not “with respect to motor vehicles” because they do not own trucks or employ drivers. They are merely intermediaries, connecting entities who need freight moved with entities who can do that job. Therefore, C.H. Robinson argued that preemption applied, not the safety exception. The U.S. Supreme Court did not accept that argument. The Court focused on the meaning of the phrase “with respect to” in the safety exception. The Court held that it means “referring to”, “concerning” or “regarding”. Therefore, writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Barrett concluded that “[r]equiring C.H. Robinson to exercise ordinary care in selecting a carrier therefore “concerns” motor vehicles—most obviously, the trucks that will transport the goods. So, Montgomery’s negligent-hiring claim falls within the FAAAA’s safety exception, which saves it from preemption.” Justice Kavanaugh, in his concurring opinion, noted the effect this ruling may have on freight brokers and their insurers throughout the country: Importantly, the Court's decision today should not be read to mean that brokers will routinely be subject to state tort liability in the wake of truck accidents. As even plaintiff's counsel stressed, brokers should be able to successfully defend against state tort suits if the brokers have acted reasonably and arranged transportation with reputable trucking companies. Tr. of Oral Arg. 27-29. In plaintiff's counsel's words, the brokers "just have to hire carriers that actually have a reasonable policy," and "the broker is not going to have a problem if it's asking the hard questions of the carrier." Id., at 42, 45. In addition, the proximate-cause requirement in typical state tort law should help protect brokers from excessive liability. Id., at 25. That said, the brokers rightly caution against naivete. In the real world, as the brokers forcefully respond, state tort law can be unpredictable, and the costs to brokers of litigation and insurance may be significant even when brokers prevail in lawsuits. Moreover, the costs of litigation and insurance, as well as the costs of brokers' conducting more substantial inquiries into trucking companies, will cascade through the economy and be paid in part by American consumers in the form of higher prices. The concerns expressed by the brokers are legitimate and weighty. The key point here is that freight brokers can no longer claim they are protected from negligent retention claims by the FAAAA (in cases involving interstate transportation). The challenge will be to determine what is considered ”reasonable efforts” used by brokers when retaining transportation companies. 

Thought Leadership

PA Middle District Dismisses Claims Against School District and its Superintendent, Principal, Special Education Director, and Classroom Teacher

A five-year-old special education student was enrolled in the Wyoming Valley West School District and attended the State Street Elementary School during the 2024-2025 school year. The student refused to clean up classroom toys at dismissal. When his teacher allegedly grabbed him by the wrist to walk him back to his seat, the student dropped to the floor and began crying. The teacher then allegedly grabbed the student by the ankle and dragged him across the floor. Following an investigation, criminal charges were not advanced by the county DA, and the school permitted the teacher to return to the classroom. The student’s parents sued, lodging thirteen legal counts under both state and federal law, which sought monetary damages from the teacher, the school district, the superintendent, the principal, and the director of special education. The plaintiff’s 42 USC 1983 claims were dismissed as to the school district for failure to allege a policy or custom violation, and the failure to alleged deliberate indifference in the failure-to-train context. As to the superintendent, building principal, and special education director, the Section 1983 claims were also dismissed for failure to allege personal involvement on the part of the individuals. Regarding an equal protection claim asserted against all defendants, the motion to dismiss was also granted for a failure to advance a plausible equal protection claim, holding that “plaintiffs' single-act allegations do not include a factual basis to even infer that the act was motivated by discriminatory animus rather than some other non-discriminatory impulse.” The court further dismissed the plaintiff’s negligence-based claims including negligence against the teacher and district administrators, NIED, and vicarious liability under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act (PSTCA). The federal claims under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA were also dismissed in various respects. The IDEA claim was dismissed against all defendants with prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Section 504 claims against the individual defendants were also dismissed with prejudice, as districts, not individuals, are the recipients of federal funds under Section 504. However, the Section 504 and ADA claims were dismissed without prejudice as to defendant Wyoming Valley West, and the plaintiff was permitted leave to amend.