.

Arthur F. Wheeler

Shareholder

AFWheeler@mdwcg.com

Portrait of Arthur F. Wheeler

Art is a shareholder in the Casualty Department and a member of the firm's Fraud and Special Investigation Unit (SIU) group where he focuses primarily on large loss and medical provider fraud.  His practice in the area of fraud investigation consists of assessing and analyzing fraud by both medical providers and falsified claims brought by his client's insureds.

Art has also represented a large number of product manufacturers, designers and distributors in products liability actions. Additionally, he has defended numerous restaurants, hotels and businesses in premises liability claims involving allegations of serious and permanent injuries. 

Art has also defended complex professional liability matters with an emphasis on defense of attorneys in legal malpractice matters; real estate agents and brokers  as well as architects, engineers, directors and officers.

Art has successfully arbitrated and mediated approximately 100 cases in the Superior Court of New Jersey and Common Pleas Courts of Pennsylvania.

In 1990, Art graduated, cum laude, from St. Joseph's University. Following graduation, he attended Georgetown University Law Center and received his juris doctor in 1993. He worked as a law clerk for the United States Department of Justice while he was a student at Georgetown. In addition Art went on to earn his LLM Degree in Trial Advocacy from Temple University in 1998. In 2009, Arthur received an AV Preeminent peer review rating from Martindale-Hubbell which he has maintained in each of the subsequent years.

    • Temple University Beasley School of Law (LL.M., 1998)
      • Trial Advocacy
    • Georgetown University Law Center (J.D., 1993)
    • Saint Joseph's University (B.A., cum laude, 1990)
    • New Jersey, 1993
    • Pennsylvania, 1994
    • U.S. District Court District of New Jersey, 1993
    • U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 1995
    • AV® Preeminent™ by Martindale-Hubbell®
      The Martindale Hubbell rated attorney list is issued by Internet Brands, Inc. A description of the selection methodology can be found here. No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.
    • American Bar Association
    • Burlington County Bar Association
    • Camden County Bar Association
    • New Jersey Bar Association
    • “Statutory Exemption from Consumer Fraud Act for Realtors,” Defense Digest, December 2018, Vol. 24, No. 4
    • “Disqualification of Counsel and the Substantially Related Matters Test,” Defense Digest, Vol. 16, No. 4, December 2010
    • "Defense of Legal Malpractice Claims Asserted by Non-Clients," Defense Digest, Vol. 13, No. 4, December 2007 
    • "You Sold The Land But Did You Keep The Liability?," Defense Digest, Vol. 12, No. 4, December 2006 
    • Obtained summary judgment on behalf of a real estate closing attorney in a matter filed in Cape May County, New Jersey, involving the refinance of a marital home in connection with a divorce settlement. The plaintiff's claims of legal malpractice, misrepresentation, and detrimental reliance upon our client's advice and actions were successfully defeated. 
    • Obtained summary judgment and successfully defended an appeal of the dismissal on behalf of a deputy surrogate of Mercer County, New Jersey. The trial court's decision was upheld, which granted summary judgment in connection with the administration of an estate involving properties worth several million dollars in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. 
    • Obtained summary judgment for a well-known Camden County plaintiff's law firm which had been sued for legal malpractice by their former client because the underlying personal injury matter had been dismissed by the trial court. Summary judgment was granted since the plaintiff could not prove that the necessary doctor's report, setting forth the analysis to overcome the New Jersey verbal threshold statute, would have been unable to be obtained by the plaintiff in the underlying matter. 
    • Obtained dismissal of a legal malpractice claim against a large, well-known plaintiff's firm in New Jersey in which the plaintiff was counseled by one of the two original defendant law firms concerning a workers' compensation claim for asbestosis. Subsequently, the first firm referred the matter to the other co-defendant firm for handling. Our client was asked to consult for a potential third party asbestos claim against the asbestos manufacturer. We successfully argued that the claim was referred to our client for review after the statute of limitations and, further, we argued that there was no attorney-client relationship with the plaintiff in the underlying matter, nor was there any duty owed to the referring law firm. 
    • Obtained summary judgment in a legal malpractice action by successfully arguing that our client's actions in representing the plaintiff in connection with the appeal of his police sergeant's exam in Camden County, New Jersey, were not the proximate cause of the unsuccessful appeal. Although our client did not file an Appellate Brief within the time prescribed by the court, we successfully argued that the underlying sergeant's exam appeal would have been rejected by the Appellate Division even if the filing deadline had been met by the client. 
    • Obtained dismissal of a dram shop, premises liability case by showing through deposition testimony that our client did not serve the plaintiff while visibly intoxicated. 
    • Obtained summary judgment in a premises liability claim against a restaurant in southern New Jersey in which the plaintiff claimed to have fallen, sustaining knee injuries and an aggravation of an arthritic condition. The court granted summary judgment in the matter where the plaintiff admitted in depositions that she could not describe the area where she fell. Further, emergency room records showed that the plaintiff, in fact, went to the emergency room on the day before the subject accident. 

Results

View all

Defense Verdict Affirmed in Complex Legal Malpractice Case

We successfully defended an appeal in a complex series of legal malpractice actions arising out of an $11 million investment in an illegal venture in Brazil. In the initial trial, the plaintiff’s economic loss expert had offered a net opinion in connection with what plaintiff would have earned from the illegal venture in Brazil. We established the plaintiff’s knowledge of that illegality, which had been demonstrated in the previous legal malpractice action. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s expert report was barred in the first legal malpractice action, the doctrine of collateral estoppel applied, and the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s order, which barred the expert report in the second legal malpractice action. In addition, the court found that profits derived from the illegal venture are worthless and cannot form the basis for a claim.

Dismissal of Complex Legal Malpractice Action

We obtained a dismissal of a legal malpractice action arising from a Law Against Discrimination and Conscientious Employment Practices Act action against a municipality and its School Board. In this complex multi-party action, our client, an expert in school law, was retained by the school district to handle a hearing against the plaintiff, a teacher and coach. The plaintiffs alleged a conspiracy among the lawyers and the school board to oust the plaintiff. There were also allegations of malicious prosecution and malicious abuse of process against the town and its attorneys. The court granted our motion and dismissed based on the litigation privilege.

Firm Highlights

graphic announcing our 6 2027 Super Lawyers & Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2027 New Jersey Super Lawyers And Rising Stars

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

News

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

News

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

Event

CLM 2026 Focus Conference

Allison joins three insurance industry leaders to discuss how cyber coverage disputes, the growing impact of social inflation on bodily injury claim valuation, and the use of artificial intelligence are reshaping the bad faith landscape. The panel will examine emerging sources of extra-contractual exposure, including evolving cyber insurance coverage issues and the challenges of accurately valuing bodily injury claims. Practical approaches to claim evaluation using AI, along with defense strategies designed to help prevent or successfully defend against bad faith litigation, will also be addressed. 

Thought Leadership

Commonwealth Court Reaffirms the Constitutionality of Act 111's IRE Provisions

In this case, the claimant sustained a work injury of January 6, 1994, which was acknowledged by Notice of Compensation Payable (NCP). After the claimant’s receipt of 104 weeks of temporary total disability benefits, the employer filed a Request for an Impairment Rating Examination (IRE). The IRE was performed in May 2023 and the IRE physician found that the claimant had a 5% whole person impairment, under the AMA Guides. The employer filed a Petition based on the IRE results, and the Petition was granted by the WCJ. During litigation, the claimant argued that the IRE provisions of Act 111 (Section 306(a.3) of the Act) were not applicable to her injury, since it predated June 24, 1996, the date Act 57 went into effect, and that the IRE provisions were unconstitutional. The Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ)) granted the Petition and the Board affirmed. On appeal to the Commonwealth Court, the claimant argued that Act 111 violated the nondelegation doctrine and that its retroactive application to the claimant’s injury was unconstitutional. The court rejected the arguments on the basis that they had already found the same arguments without merit in multiple, prior cases. The court also addressed an argument made by the claimant that Act 111 was procedurally defective under the Pennsylvania Constitution because it was only considered on two days in each House after having undergone amendments and reassignments. The court noted that the Pennsylvania Constitution requires every bill to be considered on three different days in each House. The claimant maintained that, according to the legislative history, the bill did not receive three separate days of consideration from each House when it was assigned a new bill number. The court pointed out, however, that the bill number, H.B. 1840 remained constant and was considered on three occasions by the House. Further, the court concluded that minor amendments to the bill were germane to its original subject, which was to modify the Act’s IRE process, in accordance with Protz II.

Thought Leadership

WCJ Improperly Refused to Conduct C&R Hearing and Erroneously Required Settlement of All Pending Petitions

In this case, the claimant sustained injuries in the course and scope of her employment as a registered nurse. The employer acknowledged the injury by a Notice of Compensation Payable (NCP).  Subsequently, a Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) expanded the description of injury. The employer then filed a Termination Petition, alleging the claimant was fully recovered from the injuries. Providers filed Utilization Review (UR) Petitions, challenging UR determinations finding their chiropractic treatment to be not reasonable and necessary. A settlement of the claim was eventually reached, and the employer filed a Petition to Seek Approval of a Compromise and Release (C&R) Agreement. The C&R outlined that the agreement fully resolved all future workers’ compensation claims except for the termination and UR Petitions. Briefs were filed and one day later, the WCJ issued an Interlocutory Order which stated if instructions were not followed regarding filing of a C&R, a settlement hearing date would not be given. The employer complied with the order, and filed the C&R. Subsequently, the WCJ notified the parties that the C&R must resolve all issues in the petitions, or would not be entertained. A settlement hearing was never held, and the WCJ then issued a decision, granting the Termination Petition and dismissing the UR Petitions. The WCJ also said that the Petition for Approval of a C&R was dismissed without prejudice, as the issues in the Termination and UR Petitions went to a decision. The claimant appealed to the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Board). The Board granted the claimant’s appeal, finding that the WCJ violated the requirement of Section 449 that an expedited hearing be held when a Petition for Approval of a C&R is filed.  The Board further held that it was legally incorrect for the WCJ to insist that the C&R resolve all issues raised by the pending Petitions. The Board remanded the case to a new WCJ, and Employer appealed to the Commonwealth Court. The court affirmed the Board and held that the WCJ erred, as a matter of law, by refusing to hold an expedited hearing within 30 days, once the Petition for Approval of a C&R was filed.  The court noted that the language of Section 449(b) is mandatory, and a settlement hearing is not discretionary or dependent on a party’s separate request for a stay, or whether the record has been closed. The court further rejected Employer’s argument that the case should not be remanded to a new WCJ for a new decision on the termination and and UR Petitions, as the Board passed no judgment on whether the C&R Agreement resolved the termination and UR Petitions, and left it for the WCJ to decide in connection with the Petition for Approval of a C&R.

Result

$19 Million Medical Malpractice Verdict Overturned

In this medical malpractice case, the trial court vacated $10 million of a $19 million verdict in post-trial motions and the Superior Court of Pennsylvania vacated the remaining $9 million on appeal.

Result

Statutory Employer Immunity Upheld

In this construction accident case that resulted in a $5 million verdict, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania upheld the Statutory Employer Doctrine, which immunizes general contractors and other contractors on construction sites when certain elements are satisfied.

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Reversed Trial Judge's Orders Granting a Plaintiff's Section 40 Summary Judgement Motion

In Haskins v. Casey, et al., the plaintiff Dane Haskins worked for defendant Ekornes, Inc. (Ekornes) as a material handler. In June 2021, he filed a workers’ compensation claim petition for benefits due to a left shoulder injury in December 2020. He then resolved his workers’ compensation claim in November 2022 under an Order Approving Settlement. In January 2023, he filed a lawsuit against Ekornes and later amended to add additional claims and name other defendants, including the Ekornes president, chief financial officer, and director of human resources. In May 2025, a second amended complaint alleged that after he filed the workers compensation claim, Ekornes placed him on leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), denied his request for a work accommodation, and ultimately terminated him from employment in December 2021. He pleaded several causes of action asserting violations of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) as well as fraudulent concealment and wrongful discharge. The plaintiff then moved for partial summary judgment, seeking an order enforcing Section 40 of the Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA) as well as summary judgment on his FMLA claims. The defendants opposed the motions and cross-moved for summary judgment on the FMLA claims. After arguments, the court entered an order in December 2025, denying the FMLA motion and cross motion and granting the plaintiff’s Section 40 motion. In the order, the court permitted the plaintiff to pursue compensatory damages at trial in connection with the bodily injury claim. The court also allowed the plaintiff to present evidence of any workers’ compensation benefits to support his claim. The court then denied the defendant's subsequent reconsideration motion in February 2026. The defendants that appealed the Section 40 aspect of the orders. In reviewing the appeal de novo, the Appellate Division rejected the plaintiff's argument that the work-related injury arose out of his discrimination claims under the LAD. The plaintiff argued that he should be able to pursue a personal injury claim as a part of his LAD claim, noting that the employer’s compensation carrier would be able to assert a lien against any recovery against his LAD claims. In distinguishing between the Richter vs. Oakland Board of Education, 246 N.J. 507 (2021) case, in which the Court found that any recovery would be subject to a Section 40 lien as the allegation was that the defendants failed to accommodate her pre-existing diabetic condition, which resulted in bodily injury. In this case, the Appellate Division indicated that there was no bodily injury caused by Ekornes’ failure to accommodate a pre-existing disability. Rather, the shoulder injury was a result of a workers compensation claim, for which he received appropriate benefits previously. The Appellate Division noted that if the plaintiff was successful in proving his LAD claims, he would be entitled to damages caused by the discriminatory discriminatory conduct such as lost wages and emotional distress damages and that there will be no Section 40 lien. In addition, the Appellate Division disagreed that the petitioner could present evidence about and seek damages for his shoulder injury at trial. Although the petitioner argued that a defendant who retaliated against an employee for filing a workers’ compensation claim should not benefit from the exclusivity provision of the WCA, the Appellate Division noted that the Legislature did not include this type of scenario in the statue nor did any of the case law recognize this type of claim as a remedy. As such, the Appellate Division reversed the December 2025 order granting the the plaintiff’s Section 40 summary judgment motion as well as the February 2026 reconsideration motion order. The Appellate Division noted that they did not intend to limit the plaintiff in his pursuit of his other claims on under the LAD, FMLA, and workers’ compensation retaliation causes of action.

Result

$1.09 Billion Products Liability Verdict Overturned

In this products liability crashworthiness case, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania reversed a Philadelphia jury verdict of $1.09 billion, the largest verdict ever overturned by a PA appellate court.  The court ordered a new trial based on deficient jury instructions, clarified important aspects of crashworthiness law, and confirmed that so-called standard jury instructions may be incompatible with Pennsylvania law.