.

Thomas A. Specht

Shareholder

TASpecht@mdwcg.com

Portrait of Thomas A. Specht

Thomas concentrates his practice on insurance coverage disputes, defense of insurance bad faith claims, post-trial matters and appeals.  He is admitted to practice in Pennsylvania, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. 

In 1993, Thomas graduated magna cum laude from the University of Scranton.  He then went on to attend Villanova University School of Law, receiving his juris doctor in 1996. 

Thomas is a member of the Wilkes-Barre Law and Library Association, the Lackawanna County Bar Association, the Pennsylvania Bar Association and the Defense Research Institute, where he is currently the Third Circuit reporter for DRI's Certworthy publication.  Thomas is also the current editor in chief of Defense Digest--Marshall Dennehey's quarterly newsletter that updates its clients on important legal cases and issues. 

    • Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law (J.D., 1996)
    • University of Scranton (B.A., magna cum laude, 1993)
    • Pennsylvania, 1996
    • U.S. District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania, 2001
    • U.S. Court of Appeals 3rd Circuit, 2010
    • The Best Lawyers in America®, “Lawyer of the Year,” Northeastern Pennsylvania, Insurance Law (2025)
    • The Best Lawyers in America©, Insurance Law; Litigation – Insurance (2024-2026)
    • BV® Distinguished™ by LexisNexis Martindale-Hubbell
    • Defense Research Institute
    • Lackawanna County Bar Association
    • Pennsylvania Bar Association
    • Wilkes-Barre Law & Library Association
    • Obtained complete dismissal of all claims on eve of trial where plaintiff’s demand was $10 million. Plaintiff was an emergency medicine technician (EMT) who was severely assaulted during an ambulance transport of a minor patient to a psychiatric facility. The client-physician discharged the patient with orders for sedation and restraints, if needed, during transport. The plaintiff alleged these discharge orders were insufficient and violated standard of care. The defense successfully argued that under Pennsylvania’s Mcare Act, the client-physician did not owe a duty to the plaintiff-EMT, only to the minor patient, and further, that the plaintiff’s Emergency Medicine expert was not qualified to opine on the standard of care provided by client-physician who is an Internal Medicine specialist in that plaintiff’s expert had no expertise in the long-term management of psychiatric patients. Without an expert to opine on the applicable standard of care, the plaintiff’s claim must fail. As a result, the court granted the motion for summary judgment and dismissed plaintiff’s claims.
    • Achieved dismissal, and affirmance of dismissal on appeal, of an insurance bad faith/UTPCPL/breach of contract action seeking $1,000,000 in permanent total disability benefits and extra-contractual damages, where court agreed that the Plaintiff's Complaint did not allege facts sufficient to come within the Policy's terms of coverage, and was not ambiguous.
    • Won summary judgment for insurer in an excess verdict bad faith case, where the underlying verdict came in at 14 times the last offer made by insurer, and subsequently achieved affirmance of summary judgment on appeal.
    • Obtained favorable coverage decision, that resulted in the dismissal of Luzerne County UIM case, in which the Claimant sought UIM policy limits of $200,000.00, and had contended that her status as a "driver listed" on her former boyfriend's automobile policy, and payment of premiums for that status, entitled her to UIM coverage for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident.
    • Won motion for summary judgment that resulted in dismissal of coverage matter in which insured sought recovery for rain-damaged property, alternative living expenses and depreciation holdback, where wind during storm had blown tarp off of house during renovation project.
    • Obtained reversal of $700,000 trial court award on appeal, where the Pennsylvania Supreme Court determined that dam owner was not responsible for flooding of downstream property owners and was not negligent as a matter of law.
    • In a case dealing with a novel issue in Pennsylvania insurance bad faith practice, convinced district court to grant a motion to dismiss portion of bad faith claim relating to denial of first party medical benefits, on the basis of PA MVFRL preemption, even though insurer had not utilized PRO process, but an IME, in which doctor had opined that Plaintiff had reached maximum medical improvement.
    • Attained dismissal of a UIM action on Preliminary Objections, where the trial court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to UIM coverage under his employer's commercial automobile policy, on the basis that the Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Act precluded an action against the co-employee/tortfeasor directly.
    • Accomplished dismissal of breach of contract/insurance bad faith claim, and affirmance of dismissal on appeal, where the plaintiff sought coverage under Businessowners Coverage Form and Cargo Endorsement for spoilage of frozen veal product, convincing the courts that the Cargo Endorsement superseded, and did not conflict with, the language of the Coverage Form, and did not provide coverage for the loss.
    • Persuaded U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit to affirm dismissal of civil rights lawsuit alleging that local police officer engaged in a conspiracy to violate civil rights of plaintiff through an allegedly wrongful citation that lead to an adverse employment action being taken against the plaintiff.
    • In an action alleging that School District Defendants had defamed Plaintiff Charter School, convinced the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit to affirm dismissal of the defendants on the basis that the defendants were protected by high official immunity for defamation claims made against them in their official capacities, and because the charter school, as a governmental entity, was barred by the First Amendment from asserting a defamation claim against the defendants in their individual capacities.
    • Shamnoski v. PG Energy, 858 A.2d 589 (Pa. 2004) 

Results

View all

Dismissal of all claims on the eve of trial where EMT plaintiff’s demand was $10 million.

The plaintiff was an Emergency Medicine Technician who was severely assaulted during an ambulance transport of a minor patient to a psychiatric facility. The client-physician had discharged the minor patient with orders for sedation and restraints, if needed, during transport. The plaintiff alleged these discharge orders were insufficient and violated standard of care. Our attorneys successfully argued that under Pennsylvania’s Mcare Act our client-physician did not owe a duty to the plaintiff-EMT, only to the minor patient. Further, they successfully argued that the plaintiff’s Emergency Medicine expert was not qualified to opine on the standard of care of our client, an Internal Medicine specialist, in that the plaintiff’s expert had no expertise in the long-term management of psychiatric patients. Without an expert to opine on the applicable standard of care, they reasoned the plaintiff’s claim must fail. As a result, the court granted their motion for summary judgment and dismissed the EMT’s claims.   

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

Defense Digest

Denial of Insurer’s Petition for Limited Intervention in Trial Court Action Against Insured to Determine Whether Coverage Exclusion Applies Is Immediately Appealable

March 1, 2024

Key Points: Trial court’s denial of insurer’s petition for limited intervention to determine whether coverage exclusion applied was immediately appealable pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 313(b).  Trial court’s denial of petition to intervene under Pa. R.C.P. 2327(1) was erroneous because, unless insurer was permitted to intervene for the limited purpose of submitting a special interrogatory to the jury, the entry of a judgment in the action would impose liability upon insurer to indemnify insured.  Pennsylvania Superior Court remanded to trial court to determine whether intervention should be refused under Pa. R.C.P. 2329.  In Hannibal v. Solid Waste Services, Inc., 2023 WL 8761934 (Pa. Super. Dec. 19, 2023), the Superior Court reversed a trial court order that had denied Admiral Insurance Company’s (Admiral) petition for limited intervention in an action brought by Ahmed Hannibal (Hannibal) against Admiral’s insured, Solid Waste Services, Inc. d/b/a J.P. Mascaro & Sons, Inc. (Mascaro), and remanded for further proceedings. The appeal was an immediate interlocutory appeal as of right pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 313, which permits immediate appeals from collateral orders of trial courts.  Admiral had issued a commercial general liability insurance policy to Mascaro that provided defense and indemnity coverage. The policy excluded coverage for “‘bodily injury,’ ... allegedly or actually arising out of, related to, caused by, contributed to by, or in any way connected to or with the ownership, maintenance, use, or entrustment to others, by or on behalf of any insured of an ‘auto,’ ... ‘Use’ includes, but is not limited to, operation and ‘loading or unloading.’”  Hannibal was injured when a trash dumpster platform he was standing on moved and caused him to fall and sustain injuries. At the time of the accident, the trash dumpster platform was connected to a dumpster being serviced by Mascaro.  Hannibal filed suit against Mascaro, asserting that Mascaro was responsible for the maintenance, care, and upkeep of the dumpster; that Mascaro was negligent and careless; and that such negligence and carelessness caused his injuries. The complaint asserted a claim for premises liability and a claim for negligence but no claim based on the ownership, maintenance, or use of an auto.  Mascaro tendered to Admiral, seeking defense and indemnity coverage under the policy. Admiral agreed to provide a defense to Mascaro subject to a full reservation of rights to deny coverage and withdraw its defense should evidence reveal that the policy did not cover Hannibal’s claims.  Discovery revealed that the platform on which Hannibal was standing moved because it was resting on a dumpster attached to a Mascaro truck that was pulling away, thereby causing the accident. Admiral subsequently filed a federal declaratory judgment action that was dismissed as premature. Admiral thereafter sought to intervene in the state trial court action for the limited purpose of submitting a special interrogatory to the jury as to whether Hannibal’s injuries and damages were caused by the ownership, maintenance, or use of any auto. Admiral alleged that, if intervention were denied, the jury would simply be asked if Mascaro was negligent and if such negligence was the proximate cause of Hannibal’s injuries and damages, without specifying the precise manner of such negligence or whether such negligence involved the ownership, maintenance, or use of a vehicle. The special interrogatory would only be submitted if the jury found that Mascaro had been negligent and that such negligence was the proximate cause of Hannibal’s injuries and damages. Both Hannibal and Mascaro opposed intervention, and the trial court denied intervention without a hearing. Admiral filed a notice of appeal from the putatively interlocutory order to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. Since most interlocutory orders in Pennsylvania are not immediately appealable, the Superior Court preliminarily dealt with the issue of whether it had appellate jurisdiction over the order denying limited intervention. The court noted that such an order might be appealable as a collateral order or as an interlocutory order by permission. However, Admiral only appealed on the basis that the order was appealable as a collateral order pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 313(b).  Rule 313(b) provides that an interlocutory order is collateral and, therefore, immediately appealable if: (1) it is separable from and collateral to the main cause of action; (2) the right involved is too important to be denied review; and (3) the question presented is such that if review is postponed until final judgment in the case, the claim will be irreparably lost. See Pa. R.A.P. 313(b). The Superior Court determined that the order denying limited intervention was immediately appealable under Rule 313(b).  Relying on Bogdan v. Am. Legion Post 153 Home Ass’n., 257 A.3d 751, 756 (Pa. Super. 2021), it concluded that the order denying the petition satisfied the separability prong under Rule 313(b) because Admiral’s right to intervene was peripheral to the ultimate resolution of the action brought by Hannibal. Admiral merely sought to ensure that, when the jury would reach its determination as to whether Mascaro was liable to Hannibal, it would make certain factual findings which would resolve the coverage issues. The Superior Court also found that the order satisfied the second prong of Rule 313(b)—that the right involved was too important to be denied review. The court noted that Admiral sought limited intervention to obtain a clear determination of the basis for any potential jury verdict to assist with subsequent coverage determinations regarding its indemnity obligations in a declaratory judgment action. The court indicated that the petition to intervene was “the only way for Admiral to secure the specific factual reasons for any potential verdict against Mascaro, and, if appropriate, to sustain its burden of establishing—in a subsequent declaratory judgment action—whether any policy exclusions apply to preclude indemnity coverage for any verdict that Hannibal may secure against Mascaro.”  The Superior Court also decided that if review of the order denying intervention were postponed until after final judgment, the claim would be irreparably lost. Citing Butterfield v. Giuntoli, 670 A.2d 646, 658 (Pa. Super. 1995), the court stated that, if the jury were to return a general verdict against Mascaro, without making any factual determinations necessary to resolve the coverage issues, Admiral would be permanently deprived of the ability to establish whether a policy exclusion applied and precluded indemnity coverage for any judgment against Mascaro. In Butterfield, the Superior Court had affirmed summary judgment in favor of the insured in a declaratory judgment action brought by the insurer because it was the insurer’s burden to prove that the claim was excluded from coverage, and the insurer had failed to seek intervention or request special interrogatories, rendering it impossible to determine the basis of the jury’s findings in order to determine whether a policy exclusion applied. Finding that the appeal was properly before it, the Superior Court looked to the denial of the petition to intervene. The court stated that who may intervene in an action and when that intervention may be prohibited is determined by Pa. R.C.P. Nos.: 2327 and 2329.  Pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 2327, “at any time during the pendency of an action, a person not a party thereto shall be permitted to intervene therein, subject to these rules if (1) the entry of a judgment in such action or the satisfaction of such judgment will impose any liability upon such person to indemnify in whole or in part the party against whom judgment may be entered.” Pa. R.C.P. 2327(1). Pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 2329:  [u]pon the filing of the petition and after hearing, of which due notice shall be given to all parties, the court, if the allegations of the petition have been established and are found to be sufficient, shall enter an order allowing intervention; but an application for intervention may be refused, if (1) the claim or defense of the petitioner is not in subordination to and in recognition of the propriety of the action; or (2) the interest of the petitioner is already adequately represented; or (3) the petitioner has unduly delayed in making application for intervention or the intervention will unduly delay, embarrass or prejudice the trial or the adjudication of the rights of the parties. Pa. R.C.P. 2329. The trial court had found that Admiral failed to satisfy Rule 2327(1), but the Superior Court disagreed. It concluded that, “unless Admiral is permitted to intervene for the limited purpose of submitting a special interrogatory to the jury, the entry of a judgment in this action will impose liability upon Admiral to indemnify Mascaro.” The court noted that, when the insurer relies upon exclusionary language in the policy as a defense to coverage, the burden shifts to the insurer to prove that the exclusion applies to the facts of the case and that, to sustain that burden, Admiral was required to prove that Hannibal’s injuries and damages were caused, in whole or in part, by the ownership, maintenance, or use of an auto, and sought limited intervention in this action for the sole purpose of submitting a special interrogatory to the jury to make this narrow factual determination.  The Superior Court opined that, as per Butterfield, 670 A.2d at 658, Admiral would be unable to determine the applicability of its potential coverage defense to any claim asserted against its insured if it was not not permitted to intervene. And Admiral would be obligated to indemnify Mascaro for any judgment imposed against it in the action.  The Superior Court, therefore, concluded that the trial court manifestly abused its discretion in determining that Admiral failed to satisfy the requirements of Rule 2327(1). It remanded for the trial court to conduct a hearing pursuant to Rule 2329. So, in sum, there are two large takeaways from Hannibal. First, orders denying coverage counsel petitions for limited intervention into underlying actions are immediately appealable pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 313. Second, coverage counsel would be wise to attempt to intervene in underlying actions against insureds, pursuant to Butterfield, where there are fact issues relating to whether coverage defenses apply and there is a danger that the verdict could be ambiguous as to those coverage issues. *Tom is a shareholder in our Scranton, Pennsylvania, office. He can be reached at (570) 496-4612 or taspecht@mdwcg.com.    Defense Digest, Vol. 30, No. 1, March 2024, is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2024 Marshall Dennehey. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.

News

View all

Firm Highlights

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.

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

Unanimous New Jersey Supreme Court Holds That Personal Emails of Public Employees and Officials are Subject to OPRA

In Rosetti v. Ramapo-Indian Hills Regional High School Board of Education, the New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously held that government-related emails, which are contained within personal email accounts, are government records under the Open Public Records Act (OPRA), and a log of those emails must be produced when requested. In reaching this decision, the court conducted an analysis of the OPRA and cited previous cases that held that emails do in fact fall within OPRA’s definition of a record and must be produced when requested pursuant to the Act. The court in Rosetti then had to answer the question as to whether public officials’ personal email accounts that are used for government purposes are subject to OPRA, and found that they are. Rosetti made an OPRA request to the Board of Education seeking email logs from Board members’ personal email accounts. The Board refused to produce the logs and indicated that it was not under any obligation to produce personal email account logs, only from government-related email accounts. The issue was whether a log had to be produced for Board members’ personal email accounts, which they used to conduct Board business. The Board argued that while it was possible to create a log for government-related email accounts through its IT Department, it was not possible to do so for personal email accounts. The court rejected this argument and ruled that Board members are required to search their personal email accounts and create a log of government-related emails housed in those accounts. Once completed, each Board member then must submit a certification detailing the searches that were conducted. The court went one step further with a suggestion to government employees and officials, stating, “[g]overnment agencies should strongly advise their employees, elected officials, and others engaged in government-related business to refrain from using their personal email accounts when conducting government-related business.”  Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions regarding this case and others pertaining to the OPRA. 

News

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

Thought Leadership

Perlmutter Provides Predictability for Punitive Damages Claims in Florida

In a much anticipated decision, the Florida Supreme Court provided clarity for the standards of proof for punitive damages claims in Perlmutter v. Federal Insurance Company, SC2024-0058 (Fla. June 11, 2026). Litigants and trial judges must be mindful of the standards laid out by the Court. And, defense practitioners must be prepared to alter their strategies to defend against such claims. Perlmutter came to the Court from the Fourth District, based on conflict jurisdiction with decisions from the Second and Fifth District and on certification of a question of great public importance as to the standard of proof for punitive damages claims at the pleading stage. Fed. Ins. Co. v. Perlmutter, 376 So. 3d 24, 29 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023). In the underlying case, the Fourth District made two conclusions. First, it held that a “trial court must consider the evidentiary showing by all parties at the hearing on the motion to amend, that is, evidence ‘in the record’ and evidence ‘proffered by the claimant.’”  376 So. 3d at 33. Second, the Fourth held that it “interpreted section 768.72(1) and (2) to require the trial court to make a preliminary determination of whether a reasonable jury, viewing the totality of proffered evidence in the light most favorable to the movant, could find by clear and convincing evidence that punitive damages are warranted.  Id. at 34 (underscoring in the original). In making these conclusions, the court cautioned trial courts that the “preliminary determination” analysis did not entitle the trial court to decide whether the evidence is clear and convincing and noted that the trial court should not weigh evidence and should not determine witness credibility. Id. The Florida Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction and answered the certified question in the negative. It quashed the decision below and remanded the case for application of the following standards: The trial court should consider only the evidence identified or proffered by the claimant; it should not entertain an evidentiary counter-submission from the opponent. The trial court should consider whether a reasonable person could conclude based on the claimant’s evidence, that the defendant committed “intentional misconduct” or “gross negligence” as defined in section 768.72(2) or section 768.72(3). The trial court must review the request for punitive damages in the context of the underlying claims. The trial court should not apply the clear and convincing standard of proof in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence at the pleading stage. The trial court does not act as a fact-finder; the trial court must not weigh the claimant’s evidence—it cannot decide the truth of the matter. The trial court must consider the record evidence and the proffered evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, but the allegations in the proposed amended complaint are not themselves evidence. Perlmutter, SC2024-0058 at 13-15 (emphasis added). In explaining these standards, the Court interpreted the text of the statute and compared it to a related statute which governs punitive damages in the nursing home context. The nursing home statute expressly calls for evidentiary submissions by “the parties” and expressly tells the trial court to determine whether there is a reasonable basis to believe the claimant could satisfy the “clear and convincing evidence” standard at trial. Id. at 17-18 (comparing the text of section 768.72(1), Florida Statutes, with section 400.0237, Florida Statutes). Without that express language in section 768.72, the statute could not be applied in the same manner. With these standards specially delineated for the trial courts, the Court is “confident that its interpretation of section 768.72(1) will not frustrate the effectiveness of the statute in accomplishing the Legislature’s textually evident purposes.” Id.  at 22 (cleaned up). This remains to be seen. While Perlmutter provides predictability and clarity for trial courts when reviewing the evidentiary submissions in support of a punitive damages claim, the decision will not likely impact the numbers of punitive damages motions filed. Rather, these new parameters will change the way claims are defended, reminiscent of a time when rulings on punitive damages were only subject to certiorari review and appellate courts were limited in reviewing procedural errors. This decision will likely deflate the level-playing field that Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(G) addressed by allowing appeals of orders granting and denying punitive damages amendments. Further, Perlmutter may have impliedly created a call to action for the Legislature to amend section 768.72(1) in the same manner it amended section 400.0237 to allow the courts to analyze “admissible evidence submitted by the parties” and determine at a hearing whether there is a reasonable basis to believe the claimant at trial would be able to demonstrate by “clear and convincing evidence” that the recovery of punitive damages is warranted. Until then, defendants must adjust their strategies. To adapt to these new standards, defense practitioners will need to tailor their strategy for defending punitive damages claims since they can no longer submit a counter-proffer or urge a court to apply the clear and convincing standard at the pleading phase. Instead, defendants will need to attack the deficiencies in the claimant’s pleadings and proffer. If the trial court fails to serve as a gatekeeper, and does not apply the above standards, then defendants can pursue an interlocutory appeal under Rule 9.130(a)(3)(G). If a nonfinal appeal is taken, then defendants should move to stay any intrusive financial discovery while the appellate court analyzes the issues on appeal. Finally, defendants should utilize Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510 to serve as a screening device to allow the trial court to analyze all evidence and prevent nonmeritorious punitive damages claims from proceeding to a jury.

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

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

Thought Leadership

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Holds Self-Referral Prohibition Does Not Cover Prescriptions Written by Physicians with Ownership Interests in Dispensing Pharmacies

700 Pharmacy v. Bureau of Workers’ Compensation Fee Review Hearing Office (State Workers’ Insurance Fund); Nos. 97, 98, 99, 100, 101 MAP 2024; decided June 16, 2026; by Justice Mundy.   In this case, Drs. Miteswar Purewal and Shailen Jalali, treating physicians for workers’ compensation claimants, wrote prescriptions for various medications that were filled by 700 Pharmacy. The worker’s compensation insurer refused to pay for the prescriptions on the basis that they were illegal self-referrals under the Act. 700 Pharmacy subsequently filed fee review applications with The Bureau of Workers’ Compensation Medical Fee Review Office. At a fee review hearing, both physicians stipulated they had a financial interest in the pharmacy.  The physicians argued that the Anti-Referral Provision of the Act does not bar self-referrals on prescription drugs and pharmaceutical services, since the provision does not specifically identify prescription drugs. The Fee Review Hearing Officer rejected this argument and found that prescriptions for medications are prohibited under the “goods or services” language included in the provision. 700 Pharmacy appealed to the Commonwealth Court, and the court affirmed, agreeing with the Hearing Officer’s interpretation of “goods and services” as encompassing prescriptions. 700 Pharmacy appealed to the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the Hearing Officer and the Commonwealth Court, holding that the term “goods and services” in the Anti-Referral Provision of the Act did not include prescriptions. According to the Court, “goods and services” was not a catch-all, but simply explanatory as to the eight enumerated categories in the provision. The provision (Section 306(f.1)(3)(iii)) reads, in pertinent part: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it is unlawful for a provider to refer a person for laboratory, physical therapy, rehabilitation, chiropractic, radiation oncology, psychometric, home infusion therapy  or diagnostic imaging, goods or services pursuant to this section if the provider has a financial interest with the person or in the entity that receives the referral. The Court said that if the General Assembly wanted to specifically include prescription drugs and pharmaceutical services in the Anti-Referral Provision, they would have done so. They pointed out that prescription drugs and pharmaceutical services were included by the legislature in Section 306 (f.1)(3)(vi) of the Act as to reimbursement, and claimed that their omission from the Anti-Referral Provision supports the conclusion that those services are not included in the Anti-Referral Provision’s self-referral prohibition.

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.

Result

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