Advertising Disclosure Email Disclosure
Attorney Profile

Joshua H. Romirowsky

Associate
1845 Walnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
(215) 575-2742
(215) 575-0856 - Fax
jhromirowsky@mdwcg.com

Josh is a civil litigator, concentrating his practice in Special Investigation Unit (SIU) defense litigation, where individuals and medical providers are suspected of insurance fraud. Josh also concentrates his practice in the defense of automobile, premises, and products liability litigation. 

Josh has experience successfully handling all aspects of litigation throughout Philadelphia and surrounding counties. His experience includes pretrial pleadings, investigation, depositions, analysis of medical damages, and expert discovery. Josh has conducted numerous detailed Examinations Under Oath on behalf of insurance carriers on various SIU related issues in Pennsylvania. He has also successfully defended numerous personal injury suits at arbitration and trial. 

Josh's practice in the areas of insurance fraud/SIU is bolstered by his previous experience in law enforcement. Prior to joining Marshall Dennehey, he worked at the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., the District Attorney's Office of Chester County, Pennsylvania, and the Philadelphia Law Department's General Litigation Unit. In the District Attorney's Office, Josh gained valuable and practical experience in law enforcement, where he assisted in criminal investigations, litigated preliminary hearings, suppression motions, and summary trials on behalf of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Upon graduation from law school, Josh served as a law clerk to the Honorable Jan R. Jurden in the Delaware Superior Court.

Prior to law school, Josh worked on Capitol Hill as a legislative aide to then-Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr. on matters concerning national security, education, environmental affairs, veterans affairs, and U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.

Josh is admitted to practice in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Josh also serves as an arbitrator in the Compulsory Arbitration Program of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.

Significant Representative Matters

  • Obtained numerous defense verdicts while defending commercial and residential property owners in matters where plaintiffs were claiming personal injuries allegedly caused by conditions on or adjacent to the premises.  Many of these instances involved suspicions of fraud and involved intensive investigation and discovery in order to effectively defend the claims.

  • Obtained numerous defense verdicts while representing insured drivers involved in motor vehicle accidents with limited-tort plaintiffs.  Josh has successfully persuaded Arbitration Panels on multiple occasions that the plaintiffs' alleged injuries did not rise to the level of "serious bodily injuries" as defined by Pennsylvania Statute and case law, therefore prohibiting plaintiffs from recovering non-economic damages i.e. pain and suffering.

  • Josh was recently successful in defending a property owner that had been sued by a plaintiff represented by one of the most prominent plaintiff's firms in Pennsylvania.  Plaintiff made a $7.75 Million claim for personal injuries sounding in premises liability, which included a closed-head trauma and claims of extensive neurological and neuropsychological damages.  Plaintiff was a 38-year-old tenant on defendant's residential property in Pennsylvania when he allegedly tripped and fell down a concrete flight of stairs.  Plaintiff was air-lifted to a nearby hospital for emergency treatment and claimed that, as a result of the fall he suffered from a seizure disorders and a complete loss-of-earnings capacity. Josh had secured extensive investigative findings that contradicted plaintiff's claims as well as obtained numerous victories in discovery court compelling extensive discovery of plaintiff's financial, PennDOT, and employment records.  As a result, Josh successfully persuaded plaintiff to voluntarily drop his claims.

  • Successfully dismissed our client from suit following Preliminary Objections which were sustained in a major jury case involving the representation of one of the largest elevator manufacturers in the world. Plaintiff was allegedly injured while making a "sales call" in a hospital. Plaintiff claimed that the elevators were not functioning and was forced to use the stairwell, where she allegedly slipped and fell. Josh successfully argued that not one jurisdiction across the country has recognized a party's right to recover from the elevator maintenance company in analogous scenarios on the issue of proximate causation. The presiding Judge was persuaded by Josh's argument and dismissed the elevator company from the suit.  

Areas of Practice

Education

  • Widener University School of Law, Wilmington, Delaware, 2008 J.D.

    Honors: Dean's Grant, Academic Scholarship
    Honors: Dean's List
    Honors: Intensive Trial Advocacy Program (ITAP)
    Law Review: Widener Law Review: Business Editor, 2007-2008; Staff Member, 2006-2007 

  • University of Maryland Scholars Program, 2003 B.A.

    Honors: Omicron Delta Kappa National Leadership Honors Society
    Major:  Government & Politics 

Pages

Law Alerts • January 1, 2012
A chiropractor was entitled to recover no fault benefits from an insurer for chiropractic services provided to an insured because the chiropractic manipulation under anesthesia (MUA) performed was not prohibited by the Education Law §6551(1)...., Case Law Alert, 1st Qtr 2012
Read More >>
Law Alerts • January 1, 2012
The appellants, an estate Administratrix and others, sought review of an order from the Commonwealth Court, which affirmed a trial court order that granted summary judgment to appellees, the state police department and various troopers, in the..., Case Law Alert, 1st Qtr 2012
Read More >>
Law Alerts • January 1, 2012
Text messages admitted into evidence by the trial court constitute inadmissible hearsay. Authentication of electronic communications requires circumstantial evidence that tends to corroborate the identity of the sender. In this case, appellant Amy..., Case Law Alert, 1st Qtr 2012
Read More >>
Law Alerts • January 1, 2012
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled that the state does not need to present expert testimony in DUI cases where the defendant was under the influence of a prescription drug. Here, the defendant-driver had submitted blood revealing Valium and..., Case Law Alert, 1st Qtr 2012
Read More >>
Law Alerts • January 1, 2012
The plaintiffs' complaint, which arose out of a multi-vehicle chain reaction automobile accident, was inadequate where it failed to specify the order in which the vehicles involved in the accident were positioned and whether the vehicles were..., Case Law Alert, 1st Qtr 2012
Read More >>
Law Alerts • January 1, 2012
The Pennsylvania Senate recently and overwhelmingly approved legislation that prohibits motorists from sending, receiving or reading text messages while driving. A day after the measure passed in the House, senators voted, 45-5, to send it to..., Case Law Alert, 1st Qtr 2012
Read More >>
Law Alerts • October 1, 2011
A Lehigh County judge has thrown out the city's ordinance that banned using a cellular phone while operating a vehicle, saying it was pre-empted by state law. Allentown's Ordinance 14782 was passed and signed into law in March 2010. Lehigh County..., Case Law Alert - 4th Qtr 2011
Read More >>
Law Alerts • October 1, 2011
As in a suit for personal injury, a plaintiff seeking uninsured motorist coverage must demonstrate that his or her medical expenses are reasonable and necessary. The insurer had retained an expert to testify to the reasonableness of the charges for..., Case Law Alert - 4th Qtr 2011
Read More >>
Law Alerts • October 1, 2011
The plaintiff, the owner of an all-terrain vehicle (ATV), sued the defendants, a minor and his guardian, alleging negligent operation of the ATV by the minor and negligent entrustment by the guardian. The minor-defendant allegedly lost control of..., Case Law Alert - 4th Qtr 2011
Read More >>
Law Alerts • October 1, 2011
A no-fault insurer, GEICO, as subrogee for its insured, filed an action against the defendants, the state and its employee, to recover first party benefits paid as a result of a motor vehicle accident that occurred between the employee and the..., Case Law Alert - 4th Qtr 2011
Read More >>

Pages

Areas of Practice

Education

  • University of Maryland (B.A., 2003)
  • Widener University School of Law, Wilmington, DE (J.D., 2008)

Bar Admissions

  • Pennsylvania, 2008
  • New Jersey, 2008
  • U.S District Court of New Jersey, 2008
  • U.S District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2009

Associations & Memberships

  • American Bar Association
  • Louis D. Brandeis Law Society - Executive Committee Member
  • Pennsylvania Bar Association
  • Philadelphia Bar Association

Honors & Awards

  • Presidential Scholar; Scholars Program Citation in Public Leadership

Year Joined Organization: 2009

© 2012 Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, P.C.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1

Please read the following disclaimer:

Thank you for your interest in our firm. The information contained on this Website contains statements, videos and other content about the type and quality of services offered by Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, as well as past results and testimonials about the firm. This information has not been reviewed nor approved by the Florida Bar.

  • The facts and circumstances of your case may differ from the matters in which results and/or testimonials have been provided.
  • All results of cases handled by the firm are not provided and not all clients have given testimonials.
  • The results and testimonials provided are not necessarily representative of results obtained by any individual attorney or by the firm nor of the experience of all clients or others with the firm. Every case is different, and each client's case must be evaluated and handled on its own merits.


Please acknowledge that you have read the above disclaimer by clicking on one of the two links below.

YES I have read and understand the above statements. I am interested in learning more about Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin. NO I do not want to view the information.

Before you send this email please note:

You are attempting to send email, through a link on our website, to an attorney of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin or an employee in our firm. Please note that your email may not be treated as confidential and does not create an attorney-client relationship. You should not rely upon the transmission of an email through this website if you are seeking to enter into such a relationship. Until such time as we have agreed to represent you, no information in your email will be treated as confidential. Please contact us directly by telephone at 1.800.220.3308 if it is your intent to seek legal counsel with our firm or convey confidential information.

If it is still your intent to send this email, knowing that it may not be treated as confidential, you may accept our terms of agreement by pressing "OK". If you choose not to accept these terms of agreement you may navigate away from this page by pressing "Cancel."