.

Christopher J. DiCicco

Co-Chair, Aviation and Complex Litigation Practice

Co-Chair, Maritime Litigation Practice

CJDicicco@mdwcg.com

Portrait of Christopher J. DiCicco

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2024 New Jersey Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

March 26, 2024

Six attorneys from Marshall Dennehey’s Mount Laurel and Roseland, New Jersey offices have been selected to the 2024 edition of New Jersey Super Lawyers magazine. A Thomson Reuters business, Super Lawyers is a rating service of lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement.

Each year, no more than five percent of the lawyers in the state are selected as Super Lawyers and no more than 2.5 percent are selected for Super Lawyer Rising Stars. The selection process is multi-phased and includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations. A description of the selection methodology can be found at http://www.superlawyers.com/about/selection_process.html. No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.

2024 New Jersey Super Lawyer

Robert T. Evers, Personal Injury: Medical Malpractice Defense. Robert is the supervising attorney for the Health Care Department in the the firm’s Roseland office. He focuses his practice on medical/dental malpractice, hospital liability, nursing home liability and state board disciplinary actions. He has handled several hundred medical malpractice actions and has represented physicians, nurses and physical therapists at state board disciplinary hearings. He has taken more than 150 cases to trial, the majority of which resulted in a defense verdict (90%) or settlement significantly below the demands. He is admitted to practice in New Jersey. 
 
2024 New Jersey Super Lawyer Rising Stars 

Christopher J. DiCicco, Personal Injury, Products Defense. Christopher serves clients out of our  Mount Laurel and Philadelphia offices. He focuses his practice on product liability, admiralty and maritime litigation, and aviation litigation. He is admitted to practice in New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania, and he actively handles litigation in all three states.

David R. Drake, Medical Malpractice Defense. David works in our Mount Laurel office and concentrates his practice on the defense of health care providers when facing claims and lawsuits. He has represented health care professionals from all disciplines of medicine and nursing, as well as private and public entities in the defense of professional liability and other claims. He is admitted to practice in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. 

Paul W. Lanza, Personal Injury, General, Defense. Paul serves clients out of our Roseland office, concentrating his practice primarily on trucking/transportation liability, premises/retail liability, and construction injury litigation. Additionally, he handles cases in the fields of condominium/community association law, automobile liability, products liability, and malpractice claims against real estate professionals. He is frequently retained by his clients to handle the pre-suit investigation of high exposure cases involving complex issues of fact and law, including fatal commercial vehicle accidents. He is admitted to practice in New Jersey and New York. 

Brielle K. Winkler, Insurance Coverage. As a member of the firm’s Casualty Department, Brielle provides legal counsel and representation in the areas of automobile liability, underinsured/uninsured motorists claims, premises liability and condominium/community association law. Resident in the firm’s Mount Laurel office, she is admitted to practice in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

Jeremy J. Zacharias, RPLU, Professional Liability Defense. Jeremy represents and defends attorneys, accountants, insurance producers, corporate directors and officers, and financial institutions, among other clients. He additionally represents clients in privacy and data breach matters and handles cases involving intellectual property, copyright and trademark infringement, as well as trade secret, trade dress technology and media-related litigation. Jeremy serves clients from our Mount Laurel office. He is admitted to practice in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. 
 

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

A Unified, Single Claim for Damages Requires Apportionment in a Joint Proposal: What the Decision in 'Trace Elements' Means for Property Insurance Claims

Kimberly and Seth, shareholders in the Insurance Services Practice in our Fort Lauderdale office, break down the Florida Supreme Court's decision in 'Trace Elements v. MacKensen' and what it means for property insurance claims in the state. Read the article here.

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

Jason Banonis Holds PDI Attorney of the Year Award with the PDI President

News

Jason Banonis Named Attorney of the Year by the Pennsylvania Defense Institute

Portrait of Carolyn Schweizer, with text below: Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

News

Marshall Dennehey Names Carolyn Schweizer New Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

Event

Pennsylvania Appellate Update 2025-2026

On August 21, 2026, Casey will serve as a panelist for the live webcast program, “Pennsylvania Appellate Update 2025-2026” presented by the Appellate Advocacy Committee of the Pennsylvania Bar Association and Pennsylvania Bar Institute. The program is divided into three parts—Criminal, Civil, and Administrative. Casey will serve as a panelist for the Civil portion, along with Christina McKinley of Blank Rome, Ben Baer of Injury Law Partners, John Masslon of Keller Postman, Jonathan Bruno of Bruno Litigation LLC, and moderator, Ezza Ahmed of Buchanan Ingersoll.  Registration and more information: https://www.pbi.org/product/pennsylvania-appellate-update-2025-2026/

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.

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

Thought Leadership

What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp - News and Results*

RESULTS Lela Eke (Roseland) secured a significant victory in a catastrophic injury workers’ compensation matter involving an above-knee amputation and approximately $2 million in past medical bills. After more than a year of litigation over Motions for Medical and Temporary Benefits and a subsequent Motion to Compel/Payment of Bills, the claimant sought an order requiring payment of medical expenses for which certain providers had intervened and were pursuing their own claims through separate counsel. We argued that the intervenors’ bills were not properly before the court and should not be included in the MMT Order. The court agreed, finding that the bills were outside the scope of the MMT Order and further determining that the employer had complied with the other applicable requirements. As a result, the claimant’s counsel was not entitled to a potential 25% fee on the approximately $2 million in intervenors’ medical bills, preserving up to approximately $500,000 in potential savings. The ruling also preserved the client’s ability to negotiate the outstanding medical bills rather than requiring their immediate payment. Andrew Maffett (Harrisburg) obtained a favorable result in a Pennsylvania workers’ compensation matter. The matter involved the employer’s petitions to suspend and terminate workers’ compensation benefits arising from a July 22, 2024 work injury. With respect to the suspension petition, the employer presented fact-witness testimony that modified-duty work was available within the claimant’s treating physician’s restrictions. The judge credited that testimony and granted the suspension petition effective May 19, 2025. With respect to the termination petition, the employer presented testimony from an expert that the claimant had fully recovered from the work injury. The judge credited that testimony and granted the termination petition effective June 5, 2025. As a result, the employer was permitted to discontinue indemnity and medical benefits related to the July 22, 2024 injury and pursue supersedeas fund reimbursement for wage loss and medical benefits paid during the litigation. Perry Merlo (Harrisburg) secured a favorable decision in a Pennsylvania workers’ compensation matter involving a dispute over wage-loss benefits. The parties stipulated that the claimant had sustained a work injury but left unresolved whether he was entitled to indemnity benefits for the period from June 2, 2025, through November 17, 2025. The claimant testified that the employer had failed to accommodate his work restrictions during that time. In response, we presented testimony from an employer fact witness establishing that the claimant had been provided work within his restrictions without any loss of wages. The judge credited the employer’s witness over the claimant and denied the claim for approximately five months of wage-loss benefits, resulting in a favorable decision for the employer. William Murphy (Roseland) obtained a favorable resolution in a New Jersey workers’ compensation matter pending in Newark. The claim involved alleged injuries to the lower back, bilateral knees, and bilateral hands. We filed a motion seeking dismissal as to the carrier, arguing that coverage was not in effect on the date of the alleged accident. The judge granted the motion and entered an order dismissing the carrier from the case. William Murphy (Roseland) obtained a dismissal in a New Jersey workers’ compensation matter. The claim involved allegations of occupational exposure resulting in orthopedic, neurologic, and pulmonary disabilities. After numerous delays by the claimant’s counsel in prosecuting the matter, we successfully obtained a dismissal for lack of prosecution. The dismissal resulted in a complete resolution of the claim. William Murphy (Roseland) successfully dismissed a New Jersey workers’ compensation claim involving allegations of a decade-long occupational exposure. The claimant alleged orthopedic, neurologic, and pulmonary disabilities arising from the exposure. After the claimant’s counsel failed to take the necessary steps to advance the matter, we pursued dismissal for lack of prosecution. The court granted the request, bringing the claim to a complete and favorable conclusion. William Murphy (Roseland) successfully secured the dismissal with prejudice of two New Jersey workers’ compensation medical provider applications seeking a combined $71,534.47. The applications arose from medical treatment allegedly related to a September 11, 2021 workplace injury. We challenged the claims on jurisdictional grounds, arguing that the underlying accident occurred in New York and lacked a sufficient connection to New Jersey. Despite the two matters being assigned to different judges of compensation, both judges agreed with the jurisdictional argument and entered orders dismissing the respective claims with prejudice on July 23 and 24, 2026. The result eliminated $71,534.47 in claimed exposure. Tony Natale (King of Prussia) obtained a defense verdict in a workers' compensation case in Pennsylvania. The claimant sustained a work-related injury in the form of a bilateral knee strain during the course and scope of employment. She continued to treat for these injuries without cessation. She originally refused a job offer to return to work and continued treatment. A board-certified orthopedic surgeon who specializes in knee injuries examined her and found that despite the varied and somewhat bizarre subjective pain complaints, there were no objective corroborative findings to support ongoing injury or disability. This medical expert testimony was proffered and accepted by the court as credible, resulting in a full defense verdict. Michele Punturi (Philadelphia) successfully prosecuted a Termination Petition involving a 71-year-old certified nursing assistant who suffered a work injury to the lumbar spine with a pre-existing back condition, the latter of which the claimant denied. The defense medical expert, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon with a specialty in surgical treatment of spinal injuries, examined the claimant and his opinions were found competent, credible and persuasive supporting a full recovery based upon a comprehensive physical examination, review of medical records and x-rays of the lumbar spine as well as three MRIs of the lumbar spine in 2023, 2024 and 2025 revealing no post-traumatic findings nor an aggravation of her pre-existing lumbar condition. Michele demonstrated claimant’s expert lacked the expertise and experience and his focus was on pain management. The judge rejected claimant’s medical expert as not credible even though he attempted to support an aggravation of her underlying degenerative disc disease. The judge further rejected claimant’s testimony given her efforts to unequivocally deny prior back injury going as far as to say it would be a lie to say she had a prior low back injury despite the medical records that clearly demonstrated prior treatment along with medication for her lumbar spine. Also, the demonstration of her sporadic treatment further supported a lack of credibility as did favorable surveillance showing her active.   *Prior Results Do Not Guarantee a Similar Outcome NEWS Judd Woytek (King of Prussia) is speaking at the National Comp conference in Las Vegas in September. He joins a group of panelists to present “Older, Wiser, But Costlier to Heal: What an Aging Workforce Means for Employers and for the Industry,” a discussion focused on the challenges employers face in balancing safety, compliance, and productivity as the workforce continues to age. Judd and his co-presenters will address proactive strategies to reduce workplace risk, support older employees, navigate age-discrimination and workers’ compensation issues, and build a safer, more resilient workforce. For more information, visit National Comp. Conference and Trade Show.

Thought Leadership

Fla. Workers' Comp Physician Dispensing Ruling Could Produce New Legislative Fight

In a significant decision issued on February 25, 2026, the First District Court of Appeal (DCA) ruled in Publix Super Markets, Inc., et al. v. Department of Financial Services, et al., 430 So. 3d 252 (Fla. 1st DCA 2026), that while injured workers have an absolute right to choose their own pharmacy or pharmacist, that right does not extend to physicians who dispense medications directly to their patients.  Read Blake's article in Insurance Journal: https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/southeast/2026/08/05/880229.htm. 

empty courtroom photo

Result

Summary Judgment Secured for Life Insurance Agent