.

Casey is a member of the Appellate Advocacy & Post-Trial Practice Group, where he focuses his practice on appellate advocacy, post-trial motions, and appeals. A highly accomplished appellate attorney, Casey has extensive experience before Pennsylvania’s highest court. Over the course of his career, he has represented parties and amici curiae in more than 15 appeals before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and has successfully secured discretionary review, widely known as “allocatur,” on six occasions. He has also presented oral argument before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court, and the Pennsylvania Superior Court.  Casey is a frequent commentator on appellate matters, contributing insights to The Legal Intelligencer and Law360 on cases pending before Pennsylvania’s appellate courts.

In addition to his robust appellate practice, Casey maintains an active commercial litigation practice and brings significant first-chair trial experience. He regularly represents businesses in high-stakes, “bet-the-company” litigation in state and federal courts nationwide. His experience spans a wide array of matters, including breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, civil conspiracy, constitutional challenges, emergency injunctive relief, environmental disputes, restrictive covenant litigation, shareholder disputes, and trade secrets claims. He also represents clients in matters within the original jurisdiction of the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court.

Casey serves as Chair of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania’s Civil Procedural Rules Committee, where he assists the Court in the development and administration of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. He is also a Board Member of the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Historical Society; Co-Chair of the Pennsylvania Defense Institute’s Amicus Curiae Committee; a member of the Pennsylvania Bar Association’s Appellate Advocacy Committee; and a member of the James S. Bowman American Inn of Court.

He is a past President of the Middle District of Pennsylvania Chapter of the Federal Bar Association and currently serves as Co-Chair of the Chapter’s CLE Committee. He has also contributed to the federal bench and bar through his service on the Planning Committee for the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania’s 2024 Bench/Bar Conference and as a former member of the Third Circuit Lawyers Advisory Committee.

Casey has earned widespread recognition for his exceptional legal acumen and leadership, including selection to the 2026 edition of The Best Lawyers in America® for Appellate Practice and Administrative/Regulatory Law. He was also honored as one of The Legal Intelligencer’s “2024 Lawyers on the Fast Track (Small/Midsize)”, a highly selective distinction recognizing just 13 attorneys statewide under age 40. In 2023, Casey was named a Fellow of the Foundation of the Federal Bar Association, an elite honor awarded to fewer than 300 attorneys nationwide. Earlier in his career, he was consistently recognized on the Pennsylvania Rising Stars list (Thomson Reuters) for Business Litigation for ten consecutive years (2015-2024), reflecting his sustained excellence and growing influence in the field.

Prior to entering private practice, Casey served as a law clerk for then-Justice, now Chief Justice Emeritus, Thomas G. Saylor of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court for two and a half years. Casey received his juris doctor from Temple University Beasley School of Law, where he served as Editor-in-Chief of the Temple Journal of Science, Technology & Environmental Law. He received his Bachelor of Arts with distinction, in Journalism from The Pennsylvania State University. While at Penn State, Casey was inducted into the Phi Beta Kappa Honor Society and spent a semester in Washington, D.C., interning for CNN’s Capital Gang.

    • Temple University Beasley School of Law (J.D., 2009)
    • The Pennsylvania State University (B.A., 2006)
    • Pennsylvania, 2009
    • New Jersey, 2010
    • The Best Lawyers in America®, Appellate Practice and Administrative/Regulatory Law, (2026)
    • The Legal Intelligencer's Lawyers on the Fast Track, Small/Midsize Winner for Pennsylvania (2024)
    • Pennsylvania Rising Star (2015-2024)
    • Supreme Court of Pennsylvania’s Civil Procedural Rules Committee, Chair
    • Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Historical Society, Board Member
    • Pennsylvania Defense Institute’s Amicus Curiae Committee, Co-Chair
    • Pennsylvania Bar Association’s Appellate Advocacy Committee, Member
    • James S. Bowman American Inn of Court, Member
    • Middle District of Pennsylvania Chapter of the Federal Bar Association, Co-Chair CLE Committee
    • Middle District of Pennsylvania Chapter of the Federal Bar Association, Past President
    • Third Circuit Lawyers Advisory Committee, Past Member
    • Representing a group of manufacturers, distributors, and retailers of e-cigarettes in Pennsylvania federal court in a case concerning a constitutional challenge to Act 57 of 2025.  MMA Group 1 Inc. d/b/a Tobacco Hut State College, et al. v. David W. Sunday, Jr., No. 3:26-CV-01385 (M.D. Pa.) (pending). Case featured in Law360 and The Philadelphia Inquirer.
    • Represented Harrisburg City Council in a lawsuit filed by Mayor Wanda R.D. Williams concerning Council’s decision to not fund four positions as part of the City’s 2026 budget.  As part of the lawsuit, successfully defeated a preliminary and permanent injunction sought by the Mayor and successfully obtained dismissal of the lawsuit.  Williams v. Harrisburg City Council, No. 2026-CV-00140 (Dauphin Cnty. Ct. Com. Pl.).  Case featured in PennLive, TheBurg, Fox43, ABC27, and other media outlets.
    • Represented a group of casinos at trial before the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court as part of its original jurisdiction and on an appeal before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in a case concerning the legality of the Pennsylvania Lottery’s iLottery program.  Greenwood Gaming & Entertainment, Inc., et al. v. Department of Revenue, 306 A.3d 319 (Pa. 2023).
    • Represented a Fortune 500 company in CERCLA and RCRA litigation in Wisconsin federal court in which the plaintiff sought nearly $30 million in past and future response costs and declaratory relief.  After a two-week bench trial, the court awarded the plaintiff $0 in past response costs, reduced the plaintiff’s requested allocation of future response costs to the company by more than 40%, and dismissed the plaintiff’s RCRA claim.  Barclay Lofts LLC, et al. v. PPG Industries, et al., 2:20-CV-01694 (D. Wis.).
    • Represented Chester County in an appeal before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court concerning a challenge to the City of Chester’s attempt to acquire the assets of the Chester Water Authority. In re Chester Water Authority, 349 A.3d 892 (Pa. 2026).  Successfully petitioned the Supreme Court to grant review of the appeal.
    • Represented a publicly traded electric vehicle manufacturer against another publicly traded electric vehicle manufacturer in a tortious interference case in Arizona federal court involving more than $25 million in damages.  Lion Electric Company v. Nikola Corporation, 2:23-CV-00372 (D. Ariz.).
    • Represented a company in a lawsuit filed by the Pennsylvania Department of Health before the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court as part of its original jurisdiction involving DOH’s attempt to restrict attendance at the Carlisle Car Show pursuant to various orders issued by then-Governor Wolf and then-Secretary of Health Dr. Rachel Levine in connection with the COVID-19 epidemic.  As part of that lawsuit, successfully defeated a preliminary injunction sought by DOH.  Department of Health v. Carlisle Productions, Inc. d/b/a Carlisle Events, No. 350 MD 2020 (Pa. Commw. Ct.).
    • Represented the Scranton Diocese as amicus curiae in an appeal before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court involving the statute of limitations for civil sexual abuse claims.  Rice v. Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown, 255 A.3d 237 (Pa. 2021).  As part of the appeal, provided substantial assistance to the appellants, including assisting them with successfully petitioning the Supreme Court to grant review of the appeal.  Also quoted in the AP article, “Slew of church abuse lawsuits hinges on state court decision” (Aug. 14, 2020).
    • Represented a franchisee against a nationwide franchisor in a breach of contract case pending in Pennsylvania federal court.  As part of the representation, successfully defeated a preliminary injunction sought by the franchisor.  Koala Insulation Franchisor, LLC v. Lotus & The Rooster Holdings Company, et al., No. 1:25-CV-01008 (M.D. Pa.).
    • Representing a former C-suite executive in a civil conspiracy case before the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court as part of its original jurisdiction brought by the Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner in his capacity as Statutory Rehabilitator of Senior Health Insurance Company of Pennsylvania (SHIP); the Commissioner is seeking over $500 million in damages.  Humphreys v. Wegner, et al., No. 1 SHP 2020 (Pa. Commw. Ct.) (pending).
    • Represented a nationwide flooring company in a non-competition/non-solicitation/theft of information case against a competitor and three former employees pending in Pennsylvania state court.  Floormax Direct LLC t/b/d/a FloorMax USA v. Rahman, et al., No. 2025-CV-02469 (Dauphin Cnty. Ct. Com. Pl.).  As part of the representation, successfully obtained a preliminary injunction against one of the individual defendants.
    • Representing the Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry, UPMC, Uber Technologies, Inc., and 15 other organizations as amicus curiae in an appeal before the Pennsylvania Superior Court concerning the scope of the Fair Share Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 7102.  Holland v. WM Operating, LLC, et al., Nos. 4 EDA 2025 & 3380 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (pending).  Amicus brief featured in the article, “Pa. Biz Groups, Providers, Uber Want Fault Loophole Closed,” Law360 (Aug. 21, 2025).
    • Representing an estate in a breach of contract case pending in Pennsylvania state court concerning an alleged right of first refusal.  As part of the representation, successfully defeated a preliminary injunction sought by the management agent of the properties in question.  JLD Property Management Group, Inc., et al. v. Estate of Harold D. Dumm, et al., No. 2024-CV-07085 (Dauphin Ctny. Ct. Com. Pl.) (pending).
    • Represented the Pennsylvania Coalition for Civil Justice Reform, Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, and other trade associations and businesses as amicus curiae in an appeal before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court concerning the standard of proof required to establish forum non conveniens for a case involving an in-state plaintiff.  Tranter v. Z & D Tour, Inc., 343 A.3d 1106 (Pa. 2025).  Amicus brief quoted in article, “Industry Groups Back Appeal of Ruling They Claim ‘Would Effectively Abolish Venue’ in Pa.,” The Legal Intelligencer (June 17, 2024).
    • Represented a trade association in Pennsylvania federal court in a case concerning a constitutional challenge to the City of Pittsburgh’s inclusionary zoning ordinance.  Builders Association ofMetropolitan Pittsburgh v. City of Pittsburgh, et al., No. 2:22-CV-00706 (W.D. Pa.) (pending).  Complaint featured in the article, “Builders Sue To Stop Pittsburgh’s ‘Inclusionary Zoning’ Rule,” Law360 (May 12, 2022).
    • Represented a school district in an appeal before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court involving media access to student records. Central Dauphin School District v. Hawkins, et al., 286 A.3d 726 (Pa. 2022).  Successfully petitioned the Supreme Court to grant review of the appeal and presented oral argument to the Court.
    • Represented the putative debtor in an involuntary bankruptcy before the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.  In re Deluxe Building Solutions, LLC, No. 5:21-BK-00534 (Bankr. M.D. Pa.).  As part of the representation, participated in nine non-consecutive days of evidentiary hearings on the putative debtor’s motion to dismiss.
    • Represented a publicly traded company in an appeal of a multi-million-dollar verdict before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.  The Bert Company v. Turk, et al., 298 A.3d 44 (Pa. 2023).  Appeal involved, among other issues, the calculation of the constitutionally permissible ratio of compensatory-to-punitive damages in multidefendant cases.  Successfully petitioned the Supreme Court to grant review of the appeal.
    • Represented a leading provider of integrated specialty services to the global industrial, commercial, and infrastructure markets in Brand Energy & Infrastructure Servs., et al. v. Irex Corporation, et al., No. 5:16-CV-02499 (E.D. Pa.). Regarded as one of the leading cases nationally on the retroactive application of the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1836.
    • Representing the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry, and other trade associations as amicus curiae in an appeal before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court concerning the constitutionality of the statutory damage caps established in Section 8528 of the Pennsylvania Sovereign Immunity Act. Freilich v. SEPTA, No. 10 EAP 2024 (Pa.) (pending).  Amicus brief featured in the article, “Chamber Tells Pa. Justices To Keep Gov’t Suit Damages Cap,” Law360 (Aug. 5, 2024).
    • Represented a 50-50 owner of a limited liability company in a shareholder dispute before the Centre County Court of Common Pleas and Tioga County Court of Common Pleas. Shaner, et al. v. Hendrick, et al., 2013-4525 (Centre Cnty. Ct. Com. Pl.); Hendrick, et al. v. Shaner, et al., No. 974-CV-2013 (Tioga Cnty. Ct. Com. Pl.).  These companion cases involved the allegation that the other owner breached his fiduciary duties to the company, resulting in over $38 million in damages.
    • Panelist, “2025-2026 Appellate Update," Allegheny County Bar Association 2026 Bench-Bar Conference, June 19, 2026.
    • Presenter, “Nuclear Verdicts, Enforceability of Online Arbitration Agreements, and Other Hot Topics in Pennsylvania Law,” Association of Corporate Counsel, Central Pennsylvania Chapter, April 2, 2026.
    • Panelist, “Lions, and Tigers, and Nuclear Verdicts, Oh My!  Why Every Healthcare Provider Should Care About Venue Reform, The Recent Epidemic of Outsized Verdicts, and Where We Go From Here,” Pennsylvania Bar Association and Pennsylvania Medical Society 2025 Joint Medical-Legal Conference, November 12, 2025.
    • Panelist, “Pennsylvania Appellate Court Tips, Tricks & Insights from the Bench and Bar 2025,” Pennsylvania Bar Association and Pennsylvania Bar Institute, October 20, 2025.
    • Panelist, “Pennsylvania Appellate Update 2024-2025,” Pennsylvania Bar Association and Pennsylvania Bar Institute, August 22, 2025.
    • Panelist, “Supreme Court Update,” Washington County Bar Association Winter Bench Bar Conference, January 24, 2025.
    • Panelist, “Pointers on Appellate Practice,” Dauphin County Bar Association, January 14, 2025.
    • Panelist, “Appalachia Appeal: Pennsylvania and West Virginia Appellate Roundup,” Babst Calland Client CLE Day, October 16, 2024.
    • Panelist, “Best Practices for Managing Root Cause Investigations,” Energy Mineral Law Foundation’s 45th Annual Institute, June 11, 2024.
    • Panelist, “Befriending the Court: A Primer on Amicus Curiae Practice Before Pennsylvania Appellate Courts,” Allegheny County Bar Association, May 7, 2024.
    • Panelist, “Appellate Review 2023-2024,” Pennsylvania Coalition for Civil Justice Reform, April 25, 2024.
    • Panelist, “Transformation of Pennsylvania Civil Law 2016-2013,” Pennsylvania Coalition for Civil Justice Reform, September 11, 2023.
    • Panelist, “Top Ten Pennsylvania Appellate Cases,” Allegheny County Bar Association, April 27, 2023.
    • Panelist, “Roundup of Recent and Pending Appellate Decisions in Pennsylvania,” Pennsylvania Coalition for Civil Justice Reform, April 18, 2023.
    • Panelist, “Appealing Entertainment: Pennsylvania and West Virginia Appellate Courts Round-Up,” Babst Calland Seminar, February 28, 2023.
    • Panelist, “The New Public Access Regime for Education Records (and Why Life as a School Solicitor Got a Whole Lot Harder),” Allegheny County Bar Association, School and Municipal Law Section, February 16, 2023.
    • Panelist, “Appellate Update,” Washington County Winter Bench Bar Conference, January 20, 2023.
    • Panelist, “Appellate Practice in Pennsylvania,” OGC University 2022, October 20, 2022.
    • Panelist, “E-Discovery: Navigating Obligations and Disputes in the Middle District of Pennsylvania,” Middle District of Pennsylvania Chapter of the Federal Bar Association, March 24, 2022.
    • Co-Presenter, “Appealing Entertainment: Pennsylvania Appellate Courts Round-Up 2021,” Virtual CLE, December 7, 2021.
    • Panelist, “Proportionality: One Year Later, A Review of the Practical Implications of the Amendments to the Discovery Rules,” Middle District of Pennsylvania Chapter of the Federal Bar Association, November 2016.
    • Co-Presenter, “What You Will Not Learn from the Rules of Appellate Procedure,” Lancaster County Bar Association, March 2013.
    • Co-Presenter, “What You Will Not Learn from the Rules of Appellate Procedure,” York County Bar Association, April 2013.
    • Co-Author, “Cue Lee Corso: Reprieve From Heightened Standard to Enforce Online Arbitration Agreements May Be Short Lived,” The Legal Intelligencer, February 26, 2026.
    • Co-Author, “Surprise Act: Pending Appeal Involving Last-Minute Amendment Could Presage the Revival of Trial by Ambush in Pa.,” The Legal Intelligencer, December 4, 2025.
    • Co-Author, “Clearing the Air on Public Nuisance and Preemption: A Look at Climate-Change Litigation in Pa. and Beyond,” The Legal Intelligencer, August 1, 2025.
    • Author “Mo Money Mo Problems: As Noneconomic Damages Awards Continue to Rise, So Do Concerns Over Their Constitutionality,” The Legal Intelligencer, June 12, 2025.
    • Author, “Is the Collateral Order Doctrine About to Have a ‘Brat Summer’?,” The Legal Intelligencer, February 7, 2025.
    • Co-Author, “The ‘Roundup’ Round-Up: Will a Recent Third Circuit Ruling Spell the End for Roundup Products Liability Litigation in Pa. State Courts?,” The Legal Intelligencer, December 5, 2024.
    • Co-Author, “Stare Decisis: U.S. Supreme Court’s Willingness to Overturn Longstanding Precedent and its Potential Effect on State Appellate Courts,” The Legal Intelligencer, August 15, 2024.
    • Co-Author, “Blurred Lines: The Ongoing Battle Between iLottery and iGaming,” The Legal Intelligencer, April 29, 2024.
    • Co-Author, “Forum Non Conveniens – Pennsylvania’s Jurisdiction Jigsaw Puzzle,” The Legal Intelligencer, January 27, 2024.
    • Co-Author, “To Infinity and Beyond? Pennsylvania Supreme Court Casts Doubt Upon Presumptive Constitutional Limit for Punitive Damages,” The Legal Intelligencer, November 3, 2023.
    • Co-Author, “It’s Groundhog Day for Pennsylvania’s Fair Share Act,” The Legal Intelligencer, May 25, 2023.
    • Co-Author, “Questions Abound Following Right-to-Know Law Decision Involving Student Records,” The Legal Intelligencer, April 20, 2023.
    • Co-Author, “We Don’t Talk About Bruno (But We Should): Why Uncertainty Still Persists Regarding the ‘Gist of the Action’ Doctrine in Pennsylvania,” The Legal Intelligencer, February 2, 2023.
    • Author, “Checklist: Metadata Fields to Consider,” Bloomberg Law, June 18, 2021.
    • Author, “Guide to Understanding, Using, & Analyzing Metadata in Litigation,” Bloomberg Law, June 4, 2021.
    • Co-Author, “Time-Barred Claims of Sex Abuse in Pa.—Litigation and Legislative Developments,” The Legal Intelligencer, March 12, 2021.
    • Co-Author, “Consumer Protection Law Ruling Could Spell Big Trouble for Pennsylvania Businesses,” The Legal Intelligencer, March 4, 2021.
    • Co-Author, “Federal DTSA: New Weapon in the Battle to Protect Trade Secrets,” The Legal Intelligencer, May 27, 2016.
    • Co-Author, “Court Limits Ability to Allege FCA Violations Over Post-Employment Conduct,” The Legal Intelligencer, June 29, 2015.
    • Author, “Pa. High Court Tort Ruling Is Relief To Local Gov’t,” Law360.com, November 24, 2014.
    • Co-Author, “Products Liability Practitioners Anxiously Await Tincher Ruling,” The Legal Intelligencer, November 3, 2014.
    • Co-Author, “CWA Ruling Could Be National Victory For Municipalities,” The Legal Intelligencer, September 30, 2013.

Firm Highlights

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. 

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

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.

Thought Leadership

Coverage Determined, Judgment Paid, Bad Faith Survives: Fourth DCA’s Opinion Highlights the Distinction Between Contractual and Extra-Contractual Damages

In Healthy Food Experts, LLC v. Amguard Ins. Co., No. 4D2025-0181 (4th DCA June 10, 2026), the Fourth District Court of Appeal explained that an insurer’s payment of a judgment in a breach of contract case does not automatically eliminate a later bad faith claim seeking extra-contractual damages. The decision provides guidance on when a first-party bad faith claim may still proceed after a coverage dispute has already been resolved by a judgment. Healthy Food Experts, LLC involved a dispute related to a property damage claim submitted under a commercial insurance policy issued by the insurer following a ceiling collapse at the insured’s restaurant. The insurer denied coverage for the insured’s losses for business personal property and business income, but extended coverage for the food spoilage losses. As a result, the insured filed a breach of contract action and ultimately obtained a jury verdict. The insurer appealed the verdict and, while the appeal was pending, the insured filed a Civil Remedy Notice (CRN) seeking payment for the judgment plus interest. The insurer failed to cure the CRN within the statutory sixty-day cure period, but paid the judgement in full with accrued interest following the appeals court’s per curiam affirmance. Nevertheless, the insured filed a first party bad faith lawsuit claiming to have suffered extra-contractual damages. In response to the bad faith suit, the insurer filed a Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, relying on Fridman v. Safeco Insurance Co. of Illinois, 185 So. 3d 1214 (Fla. 2016) stating that damages were fixed by judgment of the breach of contract suit and the insured could not recover additional damages beyond those already awarded. The insurer also argued that the judgment did not exceed the insured’s policy limits, which was a required element of a first party bad faith claim. The trial court dismissed the bad faith action based on Fridman, concluding the insured could not seek any additional damages.  The insured appealed the court’s ruling to the Fourth DCA arguing the trial court’s order conflicts with Florida law and misapplies Fridman, as a contractual damage determination in the underlying suit establishes the “condition precedent to prosecute a first party bad faith action.” Cingari v. First Protective Ins. Co., 377 So. 3d 1169, 1174 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024). Further, the insured argued that the only purpose to the binding language in Fridman is to prevent the re-litigating of the same damages, which in this case are the contractual damages. The insured asserted the damages were not the “same” as they were seeking consequential damages from the insurer’s alleged bad faith. The Fourth District emphasized in its ruling that a first party bad faith claim is not ripe for litigation until there has been the following: a determination of the insurer’s liability for coverage; a determination of the extent of the insured’s contractual damages, and the required civil remedy notice is filed pursuant to §624.155(3)(a).  Demase v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 239 So. 3d 218, 221 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) The court concluded that the necessary conditions were satisfied as the jury verdict determined both coverage and the extent of the insured’s contractual damages, and the insured properly filed a civil remedy notice, so the bad faith claim was ripe for litigation. The Fourth DCA further explained the insured could not seek contractual damages in its bad faith action, which was previously litigated in its breach of contract suit. However, the court determined the insured could seek “extra-contractual damages,” which were not recoverable in the insured’s breach of contract suit, which may include interest, court cost, and reasonable attorney’s fees incurred by the insured. Further, the court held excess judgment is not essential in a first party bad faith claim and the insurer’s late payment of the judgment did not preclude the insured’s bad faith action. As a result, the Fourth District Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s final dismissal order of the bad faith action. This opinion highlights the distinction between contractual and extra-contractual damages. Moreover, this case demonstrates that a judgment does not necessarily end the dispute in a first party property claim as it is could also serve as a prerequisite of a bad faith action. The decision serves as a reminder that insurers may face bad faith exposure notwithstanding the payment of a judgment in an underlying breach of contract action.