.

Sharon M. O'Donnell

Shareholder

SMOdonnell@mdwcg.com

Portrait of Sharon M. O'Donnell

Sharon is a highly experienced professional liability attorney who defends private and public entities in a wide array of education law, employment law and civil rights litigation. Her clients range from self-insured corporations, to school districts and other private and public entities insured under errors & omissions, directors & officers, professional liability and employment liability practices insurance policies. 

Sharon has successfully defended some of the most high-profile school district litigation in the state of Pennsylvania. She defends school districts in due process matters brought under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act and related federal and state statutes where a free appropriate public education (FAPE) is typically disputed, or related educational services are challenged relating to both gifted and disabled students. She has defended clients before the Pennsylvania Department of Education and the Pennsylvania Special Education Office for Dispute Resolution. 

In the arena of employment law, Sharon defends claims alleging unlawful discrimination, wrongful termination and retaliation matters involving Title VII actions, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and other similar federal statutes. She has also defended lawsuits brought under the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law. She is accustomed to defending employment law clients in actions brought before the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and the Office of Civil Rights.

    • Widener University Delaware Law School (J.D., 1996)
    • King's College (B.A., magna cum laude, 1990)
    • Pennsylvania, 1997
    • Pennsylvania Super Lawyer Rising Star (2005)
    • Harrisburg Style Magazine, December, 2015, "Select Lawyers," (peer rated) in Education and Employment Discrimination Law
    • American Bar Association
    • Dauphin County Bar Association
    • Pennsylvania Bar Association
    • Education Law and related statutory and legal updates to various school districts, insurance companies and professional associations, 2005-2015
    • Employment Law and related statutory and legal updates to various school districts, insurance companies and professional associations, 2005-2015
    • Pennsylvania Special Education Law Seminar, National Business Institute, December 2, 2011
    • Lawfully Managing Student Records Without Violating Privacy Rights, National Business Institute, June 6, 2013
    • Hot Topics in Employment Law, Cumberland County Society for Human Resource Managers, 2002
    • "U.S. Supreme Court Pulls the Plug on DOMA and Opens the Floodgates to Litigation," Defense Digest, Vol. 19, No. 3, September 2013
    • "A Judgment that Doesn't Bear Repeating," PBA Civil Litigation Section Newsletter, Civil Litigation Update, Vol. 6, No. 1, Winter, 2001
    • "Plaintiff Rues Preclusive Effect of Workers' Compensation Decision in Third Party Tort Action," Defense Digest, June Vol. 6, No. 3, 2000
    • "Pennsylvania Bar Claims for Sexual Assault Where Repressed Memory Delays Commencement of Suit," Pennsylvania Bar Association Quarterly, Vol. 69, No. 4, Oct., 1998
    • "Repressed Memory of Sexual Assault Does Not Trigger Discovery Rule," Pittsburgh Legal Journal, Vol. 123, No. 223 Daily Ed., Nov. 25, 1997
    • The School I Deserve, by Jo Napolitano, 2021. Sharon was interviewed and quoted in this book regarding her representation of the subject matter school district.
    • Summary judgment on behalf of an art store chain in a racial discrimination suit over a caricature drawing of a Black woman and her infant son. She, her father and father’s girlfriend, all visitors of a major Pennsylvania theme park, sued the owner of a park kiosk for race discrimination, retaliation and interference under 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, alleging that they were drawn with exaggerated and offensive features rooted in harmful racial stereotypes. They also alleged they were kicked out of the park. The kiosk owner argued that while the caricatures might have been poorly drawn, they were not drawn in any manner intended to be offensive, and while they were happy to see the angry father leave their kiosk, the family was not kicked out of the park. The Judge determined on summary judgment that no reasonable jury could find in favor of the plaintiffs on all three claims and dismissed the action.
    • Defense Verdict:  Alleged racial discrimination case brought by a former African American seventh grade mathematics teacher for a suburban Philadelphia school district, who, although tenured, was informed by his union president that he could be terminated after two unsatisfactory performance evaluations.  Having already received one, and with one likely on the way, he chose to resign.  Three months thereafter he read his own name in the local newspaper amongst various racial slurs that had been exchanged between the former superintendent of the school district and its athletic director. A jury found that his separation from his employment was not based upon his race.
    • Defense verdict in favor of public school, administrators and professional staff alleged to have violated civil rights of freedom of speech, written expression and religious expression of students by disciplining them, up to and including expulsion, for protesting a dress code policy.
    • Directed verdict in favor of a public school board sued by a former member, represented by ACLU attorneys, on a theory of a First Amendment violation of free speech, among other claims, which were voluntarily abandoned prior to trial.
    • Defense verdict by a federal jury in favor of a local college in an alleged unlawful retaliation claim where all alleged Title VII race discrimination claims were voluntarily abandoned on the eve of trial.
    • Defense verdict by a county jury in favor of a credit collection agency alleged to have unlawfully withheld salary and commission to a former executive.
    • Defense verdict on ten separate counts of alleged unlawful gender discrimination by a federal jury in a three-week trial.
    • Defense verdict by county jury in favor of a medical professional by a former patient who alleged negligence in performing bilateral reduction mammoaplasties.
    • Summary judgment in a professional negligence action brought against a psychologist alleged to have breached the standard of care when she dated and married the husband of a client within two years of providing the last client service.
    • Summary judgment on various claims, including 42 U.S.C. 1983, brought in a complex federal court action under the Americans with Disabilities Act against a county District Attorney and his professional staff in which exemplary and significant compensatory damages were sought, resulting in an overall satisfactory outcome.
    • Summary judgment for a defendant general practice physician who provided medical care to a prison inmate who alleged First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment violations against the facility and its medical staff.
    • Summary judgment on behalf of a defendant breast surgeon alleged to have breached the standard of care in performing and following bilateral TRAM flap reconstruction procedures following bilateral mastectomies.
    • Summary judgment for employer of supervisor-employee who sent text-message with racial epithets to subordinate of color in demonstrating that internal investigation and corrective measures were sufficient to eradicate perception of a racially hostile work environment.
    • Mediation resulting in a $250,000 settlement in a professional liability action against an architect alleged to have breached the standard of care where over $1 million in damages were sought for the repair and reconstruction of a commercial property.
    • Mediation resulting in a $50,000 settlement in an action against an acute care facility and anesthesiologist involving alleged wrongful termination of a nurse anesthetist whose wage loss claim alone was $250,000.
    • Mediation resulting in a settlement under six figures in an alleged race discrimination and unlawful retaliation claim brought by a former assistant superintendent of a school district in which the claimed damages, including attorneys fees, exceeded $1 million.

Results

View all

Summary Judgment Achieved in Racial Discrimination Suit

We achieved summary judgment on behalf of an art store chain in a racial discrimination suit over a caricature drawing of a Black woman and her infant son. She, her father and her father’s girlfriend, all visitors of HersheyPark, sued the owner of the kiosk for race discrimination, retaliation and interference under 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, alleging that they were drawn with exaggerated and offensive features rooted in harmful racial stereotypes. The kiosk owner argued that while the caricatures might have been poorly drawn, they were not drawn in any manner intended to be offensive. Judge Bloom determined on summary judgment that no reasonable jury could find in favor of the plaintiffs on all three claims and dismissed the action.

Defense Verdict for School District

We obtained a defense verdict after a one-week trial in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The case involved alleged race, gender and/or “intersectional” (race and gender) discrimination claims by two women against a Philadelphia area school district.

Thought Leadership

View all

Legal Updates for Employment Law

OSHA’s New Emergency Temporary Standard Suspended for Now

November 18, 2021

Key Dates: Effective Immediately and Until Further Notice Effective November 16, 2021, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration SUSPENDED its November 4, 2021, Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) that requires private employers with 100 employees or more to mandate COVID-19 vaccinations for employees or, alternatively, for those employees who are exempt, to require continued use of face coverings and the need to show weekly proof of a negative COVID test result.  OSHA’s ETS suspension arrived on the heels of several lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the ETS which are now being litigated across the country and will be consolidated for appeal before the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals and are likely making their way, ultimately, to the United States Supreme Court.  For now, at least, it appears that all previously announced deadlines for implementation of the ETS by private employers are suspended. Stay tuned for more updates as this fluid and evolving situation develops.   Legal Updates for Employment Law - November 18, 2021, has been prepared for our readers by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin. It is solely intended to provide information on recent legal developments, and is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We welcome the opportunity to provide such legal assistance as you require on this and other subjects. If you receive the alerts in error, please send a note to tamontemuro@mdwcg.com. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2021 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin. All Rights Reserved.

Legal Updates for Employment Law

COVID-19 Update: New OSHA Regulatory Standard Mandating COVID-19 Vaccinations for Large Employers

November 11, 2021

Key Compliance Dates: December 6, 2021; January 4, 2022            In June of 2021, OSHA filed its plan and reasoning for a new temporary regulatory standard for large employers (i.e., those with 100 employees or more) for the purpose of enforcing the President’s policy of mandating COVID-19 vaccinations. On November 5, 2021, that new standard became effective. In a nutshell, the Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS), found at 29 C.F.R. §1910, Subpart U, is broken down into five subparts, addressing: Vaccination, Testing and Face Coverings (1910.501), Healthcare (1910.502), Mini Respiratory Protection (1910.504), Severability (1910.506), and Incorporation by Reference (1910.509). The section anticipated to have a ubiquitous reach is the first, relating to Vaccination, Testing and Face Coverings. Indeed, this section requires all employers subject to the ETS have in place a policy that: mandates vaccinations by either Pfizer, Moderna or Johnson & Johnson; exempts the mandate for approved reasons, including medical advice against it, sincerely held religious beliefs against it, or situations where it doesn’t apply at all—such as employees who do not come into contact with co-workers or customers, employees who work in an office space completely closed off from other office spaces, employees who work from home or employees who work outside; and requires that those employees exempt from the ETS wear face coverings at all times inside a building or in a car if on company business accompanying others. It further requires those employees to be tested for COVID-19 every seven days and turn those results into the employer, beginning on January 4, 2022. The ETS also requires employers to track and maintain data and documentation on each employee regarding their COVID vaccination status so that if OSHA must do an investigation based upon a complaint, that information is available for inspection. Importantly, this will require employers to collect and maintain (in a separate confidential medical file) each employee’s proof of vaccination and every COVID-19 test result for those employees who are exempt from the mandate. The ETS further protects “whistleblowers” and creates a standard for non-retaliation for anyone who makes a complaint to OSHA without regard to its merit. The ETS requires the employer to separate a non-compliant employee from the workplace unless and until the employee provides a current, negative COVID-19 test result. Significantly, there is no requirement for the employer to maintain a non-compliant employee on its payroll, nor is there a requirement for the employer to pay for the COVID tests that all exempt employees are required to take beginning in January 2022. While legal challenges to the ETS were fully expected and those lawsuits have already been filed, including one Court of Appeals staying the enforcement of the ETS until the challenge can be fully heard, employers should nonetheless put the necessary measures in place to comply with the ETS requirements now by creating all required policies, assuming that OSHA is successful in defeating the pending challenges. Failure to comply with this mandate could result in significant monetary penalties to employers if OSHA determines that an employer failed to have the required policy in place and also failed to enforce that policy with respect to all of its employees. For more information about how to implement and enforce this ETS in your organization, please contact RKODonnell@mdwcg.com, Chair, Employment Law Practice Group, Marshall Dennehey.   Legal Updates for Employment Law – November 11, 2021, has been prepared for our readers by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin. It is solely intended to provide information on recent legal developments, and is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We welcome the opportunity to provide such legal assistance as you require on this and other subjects. If you receive the alerts in error, please send a note to tamontemuro@mdwcg.com. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2021 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin. All Rights Reserved

Firm Highlights

News

Stacey R. Gorin Installed as President of the Burlington County Bar Association

Thought Leadership

Dental Malpractice

For health care providers and insurers navigating the complexities of dental malpractice risk, Marshall Dennehey delivers a disciplined, end‑to‑end defense built on deep clinical understanding and litigation experience. Our health care litigators routinely represent general dentists, oral and maxillofacial surgeons, prosthodontists, periodontists, and endodontists at every stage of a claim—from early risk assessment and pre‑suit strategy through trial and appeal—helping clients manage exposure while protecting professional reputations. With a strong command of applicable standards of care across both routine and advanced procedures, our team is well positioned to address high‑severity allegations such as surgical complications, permanent nerve injury, infection, missed oral cancer diagnoses, and jaw fractures. We also guide providers through licensing board matters, offering measured, practical counsel aligned with clinical realities. “Our priority is to give providers and their insurers clarity and control from day one,” said Robin Snyder, director of our Health Care Department. “By combining early expert insight with a practical understanding of clinical decision‑making, we are able to defend claims effectively while helping clients achieve timely, favorable outcomes.”

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. 

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.

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

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.

Result

Unanimous Verdict Obtained in a Medical Malpractice Matter in Bergen County, New Jersey

Result

Summary Judgment Secured, Preserving $750,000 in Coverage for Insured in Major Trucking Liability Dispute

Ray Freudiger and Michael A. Roberts (both of Cincinnati) successfully obtained summary judgment on behalf of their client in a coverage dispute arising from a May 19, 2022, motor vehicle accident. A permissive driver operated a box truck for an interstate trucking company and caused severe injuries to two tort victims. Prior to the accident, the insured had procured a commercial auto policy for the trucking company with stated limits of $1,000,000. Following the accident, the insurer initiated a declaratory judgment action asserting that only reduced bodily injury limits of $25,000/$50,000 applied and later counterclaimed, alleging it would not have insured the driver had he been properly submitted for approval under the policy. After extensive discovery, briefing, and oral argument, the court rejected the insurer’s attempt to shift responsibility for the $750,000 in coverage it was legally required to provide for permissive drivers under Ohio law, granting summary judgment in favor of the insured and preserving $750,000 in liability exposure.

Portrait of Thomas Glassman. Text: Joining our Cincinnati Office as a Shareholder in the Casualty Department

News

Marshall Dennehey Adds Shareholder Thomas F. Glassman in Cincinnati, Expands Casualty Practice in Ohio and Kentucky