.

106 Marshall Dennehey Attorneys Recognized in the 2027 Editions of The Best Lawyers in America® and the Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America

August 20, 2026

Marshall Dennehey is proud to highlight the firm’s 106 attorneys who have been recognized in the 2027 editions of The Best Lawyers in America® and the Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America. Less than 6% of all practicing lawyers in the U.S. were selected by their peers for this recognition.

Additionally, four of the firm’s attorneys received the Best Lawyers® 2027 “Lawyer of the Year” awards in their respective practice areas and demographic regions.

Since it was first published in 1983, Best Lawyers® has become universally regarded as the definitive guide to legal excellence. Best Lawyers lists are compiled based on an exhaustive peer-review evaluation. For more information, please visit https://www.bestlawyers.com/.


OUR 2027 LAWYERS OF THE YEAR

Harrisburg, PA

Christopher Reeser, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
Kacey Wiedt, Workers Compensation Law - Employers

Roseland, NJ

Justin F. Johnson, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants
Leonard Leicht, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
 

OUR 2026 BEST LAWYERS IN AMERICA

Philadelphia, PA
Nicholas D. Bowers, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
Josh J. T. Byrne, Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants
Jefferey J. Chomko, Insurance Law
James H. Cole, Insurance Law
John J. Delany III, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
Laurianne Falcone, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
John P. Gonzales, Employment Law - Management
John Hare, Appellate Practice
Daniel D. Krebbs, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
Michele Punturi, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers
Bradley D. Remick, Product Liability Litigation - Defendants
Andrea Cicero Rock, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers
Robin M. Romano, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers
Daniel J. Ryan, Jr., Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
Gary M. Samms, Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants
Christopher N. Santoro, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation -Defendants
Josh D. Scheets, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
Robert P. Schenk, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers
Robert E. Smith, Insurance Law
Robin Snyder, Litigation - Health Care
Michael L. Turner, Commercial Litigation; Criminal Defense: White-Collar; Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants
Claire Breaux Ventola, Product Liability Litigation - Defendants

Pittsburgh, PA
Melissa Devich Cochran, Commercial Litigation; Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants 
John F. Deasy, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants
Daniel W. Deitrick, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers
Douglas C. LaSota, Litigation - Construction; Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants
Joseph V. Lesinski, Product Liability Litigation – Defendants  
Christian D. Marquis, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
Patricia A. Monahan, Insurance Law; Litigation - Insurance
Patrick T. Reilly, Commercial Litigation; Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants
Brett C. Shear, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants
Teresa O. Sirianni, Education Law; Employment Law – Management; Litigation - Labor and Employment
Stuart Sostmann, Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
Danielle M. Vugrinovich, Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants

Scranton, PA
Sarah E. Argo, Litigation - Insurance
Michael J. Connolly, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants; Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants
Matthew Keris, Litigation - Health Care; Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants
John T. McGrath, Jr., Insurance Law; Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants
William J. McPartland, Insurance Law
John R. Nealon, Product Liability Litigation - Defendants
Victoria Scanlon, Health Care Law; Litigation - Health Care; Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants
Michael A. Sebastian, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers
Thomas A. Specht, Insurance Law; Litigation - Insurance
Suzanne Tighe, Litigation Insurance

Harrisburg , PA
Casey Alan Coyle, Administrative/Regulatory Law; Appellate Practice; Commercial Litigation
Brittany E. Bakshi, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
Shannon P. Fellin, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers
Allison Krupp, Insurance Law
John R. Ninosky, Litigation – Insurance; Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
Christopher Reeser, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
Kacey Wiedt, Workers' Compensation Law – Employers

King of Prussia, PA 
Michael L. Detweiler, Construction Law
Joseph L. Hoynoski III, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants
Gregory J. Kelley, Construction Law, Litigation - Construction
Anthony Natale III, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers
Francis X. Wickersham, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers
A. Judd Woytek, Workers' Compensation Law – Employers

Erie, PA
Patrick M. Carey, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
Joel M. Snavely, Health Care Law; Insurance Law

New Haven, CT
Michael Wrona, Commercial Litigation, Litigation - Bankruptcy 

Mount Laurel, NJ
David D. Blake, Litigation - Insurance
Barbara Davis, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
Lynne Nahmani, Litigation - Health Care
John H. Osorio, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
John L. Slimm, Legal Malpractice Law – Defendants; Professional Malpractice Law – Defendants

Roseland, NJ
Robert T. Evers, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants
Justin F. Johnson, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants
Julia Klubenspies, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants
Leonard C. Leicht, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
Patricia M. McDonagh, Appellate Practice
Sunny Sparano, Litigation - Construction
Randall S. Watts, Health Care Law

New York, NY
Tonya M. Lindsey, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants

Tampa, FL
Michael Archibald, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
Lindsay G. McCormick, Litigation – Construction

Orlando, FL
Thomas F. Brown, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
Dante C. Rohr, Commercial Litigation

Fort Lauderdale, FL
Kimberly Kanoff Berman, Appellate Practice
Patrick M. Delong, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants

Jacksonville, FL 
Heather Byrer Carbone, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers
Linda Wagner Farrell, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers
Elizabeth B. Ferguson, Litigation - Construction
James P. Hanratty, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants

Wilmington, DE
Sarah B. Cole, Litigation - Insurance
Benjamin K. Durstein, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers
Maria R. Granaudo, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants 
Keri L. Morris-Johnston, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers

Cincinnati, OH
Timothy B. Schenkel, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
David E. Williamson, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants

Cleveland, OH
Vincent E. Cononico, Litigation – Insurance, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
Jillian L. Dinehart, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
David J. Fagnilli, Insurance Law
Jason P. Ferrante, Health Care Law, Litigation - Health Care
Andrew H. Isakoff, Transportation Law
Leslie M. Jenny, Litigation - Health Care; Medical Malpractice Law – Defendant

OUR 2026 BEST LAWYERS: ONES TO WATCH

Jacksonville, FL
Sean J. Reeves, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants

Orlando, FL
Carolin A. Pacheco, Insurance Law

Mount Laurel
Stacey Gorin, Insurance Law

Melville, NY
Kimberly Gitlin, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants
Matthew A. Gray, Insurance Law; Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants

Philadelphia, PA
Holli K. Archer, Health Care Law; Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants; Professional Malpractice Law
Emily Pritchyk, Commercial Litigation; Product Liability Litigation – Defendants

Pittsburgh, PA
Taylor E. Kosko, Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Defendants; Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
Alana Staniszewski, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers
Michael D. Winsko, Product Liability Litigation – Defendants; Transportation Law

King of Prussia, PA
Richard Lechette, Commercial Litigation; Insurance Law, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants

Firm Highlights

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.

graphic announcing our 6 2027 Super Lawyers & Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2027 New Jersey Super Lawyers And Rising Stars

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. 

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.

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.

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. 

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

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.

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