.

Joseph L. Hoynoski III

Portrait of Joseph L. Hoynoski III

Joseph is a shareholder in the Health Care Department. He focuses the majority of his practice on the defense of various medical/psychiatric providers and facilities in medical malpractice, dental malpractice, complex health care liability matters and premises liability. Joseph has also served as a member of the firm's Executive Committee Advisory Council, a distinguished group of firm leaders whose purpose is to enhance the communication between the Executive Committee and younger members of the firm's professional ranks, including associates, special counsel and junior shareholders. 

Joseph has a rather unique background, which serves him well in handling matters in the health care liability field. From 2004 until 2007, he was involved in representing plaintiffs in hundreds of actions brought against pharmaceutical companies covering a wide array of drugs. Mass torts included Vioxx, Bextra, Celebrex, Viagra, Adderall and ReNu with MoistureLoc.

Since 2008, Joseph has been extensively involved in defending various medical providers in medical malpractice cases. He has obtained dismissals for several physicians and hospitals. He has also represented hospitals and physician groups in health care liability matters and through use of surveillance experts, was able to have cases dismissed against hospitals and physicians. He also successfully handled an Immigration Customs Enforcement Audit for a major Philadelphia corporation.

Joseph also has experience in trademark/copyright litigation and licensing. He has represented national corporations in the areas of retail, specialty food products, hair care products and toys in trademark and copyright litigation matters.

In 2001, Joseph graduated from Temple University cum laude, majoring in corporate law. At Temple, he was involved in the marching band, basketball pep band, orchestra, Student Judicial Board, Business Honors Program and the law fraternity Phi Alpha Delta, where he competed in several mock trial competitions.

Joseph graduated from Widener University School of Law, magna cum laude, in 2004. He was involved in Law Review and received the Senior Staff Award. He was also the treasurer of the Trial Advocacy Honor Society and competed in several mock trial competitions. Joseph received the Widener University School of Law Outstanding Service Award upon graduation, as well as the American Bankruptcy Institute Medal of Excellence.

    • Widener University Delaware Law School (J.D., magna cum laude, 2004)
    • Temple University (B.B.A., cum laude, 2001)
    • Pennsylvania, 2004
    • U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2005
    • U.S. Court of Appeals 3rd Circuit, 2009
    • The Best Lawyers in America©, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants (2026)
    • Pennsylvania Super Lawyers Rising Star (2012-2019)
    • Montgomery County Bar Association
    • Pennsylvania Bar Association
    • “Dealing with Unidentified/Identified Agents Not Named as Defendants in a Complaint.” Defense Digest, Vol. 21, No. 1, March 2015
    • "The Certificate of Merit Status Quo Has to Go," The Legal Intelligencer, Health Care Supplement (page 7), February 17, 2015
    • "Statutory Damages: To Copy Or Not To Copy, That Is The Burning Question," Commercial Damages Reporter, Vol 25, Issue 2, April 2010
    • Civil Litigation Update, contributing author for the annual update published by the Pennsylvania Bar Institute, 2009 and 2010
    • Peer Review: Status 2022, Marshall Dennehey Trends in Health Care and Health Law Seminar, May 5, 2022
    • Secured a Directed Verdict on behalf of an orthopedic surgeon who was alleged to have breached the standard of care as it relates to his performance of a reverse right shoulder replacement. After an 8-day trial, the court found that the plaintiff failed to establish that the surgery performed by the orthopedic surgeon was unnecessary, as alleged in the Amended Complaint.
    • Obtained a defense verdict in Philadelphia County on behalf of an emergency room physician, hospital physician group and hospital for an alleged failure to appropriately treat elevated blood sugar and groin abscess leading to necrotizing fasciitis. The evidence presented to the jury supported the argument that the emergency room physician appropriately treated the abscess as presented and gave appropriate instructions for the plaintiff to return to the hospital if symptoms changed or worsened. Plaintiff did not require admission for treatment of elevated blood sugar as she was a long time diabetic and the glucose level was not abnormal for her. When she finally returned to the hospital after seven days, she had developed the necrotizing fasciitis. The trial lasted four days and the jury returned the verdict in 16 minutes. 
    • Noasha LLC v. Nordic Group of Cos., Ltd., et al, 08-cv-05635, E.D.P.A.
    • Doctor's Associates, Inc. v. Sheetz Inc., et al., 09-cv-88, E.D. Va
    • Humana Inc. v. Aetna Ins., Opposition No. 91192704 (October 13, 2010) [not precedential]. Joseph represented Aetna, Inc. and successfully assisted with defeating Humana Inc.'s opposition to Aetna's use of AETNA ONE for the name of an insurance program in front of the Trademark Trial and Appeals Board.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Featured Conversations... Key Takeaways from A.M. Best’s Webinar on the Misuse Defense in Product Liability Claims, Featuring Michael Salvati

Michael Salvati, shareholder in our Philadelphia office, was a panelist for the April A.M. Best webinar, “The Misuse Defense: Strategic Approaches to Defending Product Liability Claims for Insurers.” During the program, Michael and his fellow panelists offered practical, jurisdiction‑specific guidance on how misuse and failure‑to‑warn theories intersect in modern product liability litigation. Michael emphasized the unique challenges these claims present—particularly in states like Pennsylvania, where evidentiary rules diverge sharply from those applied in many other jurisdictions. Failure to Warn as the “Flip Side” of Misuse Salvati explained that failure‑to‑warn allegations often arise as a direct counter to a misuse defense. As he noted, “If our misuse defense is that the plaintiff didn't use a product properly or safely, then the failure to warn claim is that we didn't tell them how to use it properly.” He emphasized that these claims can stem from either the absence of warnings or criticisms of existing warnings, such as insufficient specificity or lack of clarity about risks. Pennsylvania’s Unique Evidentiary Landscape One of Salvati’s most notable points was the stark difference in how Pennsylvania treats evidence of compliance with industry standards. He highlighted that Pennsylvania is “one of the only states…where that evidence is not admissible” in strict liability cases. Manufacturers cannot rely on compliance with ANSI, UL, ISO, or even federal safety standards to defend the product against a strict liability claim—because the focus is solely on the product itself, not the manufacturer’s conduct. Salvati acknowledged the challenge this creates for defense counsel and clients who expect such compliance to carry weight. Understanding the Three Defect Theories Salvati also walked through the three primary defect theories recognized in many jurisdictions: - Design defect – a flaw in the product’s intended design - Manufacturing defect – a deviation affecting a specific unit - Failure to warn – inadequate instructions or warnings He noted that warnings claims are increasingly significant and sometimes stand alone when design or manufacturing theories are weak. As he put it, plaintiffs often default to warnings claims because “the default position seems to be, ‘If I got hurt, there must be something wrong.’” Warranties and State‑by‑State Variations Salvati addressed how breach‑of‑warranty claims fit into the broader framework, explaining that implied warranties—such as merchantability—often overlap with strict liability in Pennsylvania. He emphasized the importance of understanding local nuances, as warranty law and admissibility rules vary widely across states. Looking Ahead: The Growing Importance of Warnings In his closing remarks, Salvati stressed that warnings should never be treated as an afterthought in product liability defense. He observed that warnings‑only claims are becoming more common and urged manufacturers and insurers to continually evaluate the clarity and completeness of their instructions and warnings. His takeaway: “We should always be talking about what are the instructions that come with our products…to bolster a misuse defense.” Listen to the complete webinar here: https://www3.ambest.com/conferences/events/eventregister.aspx?event_id=WEB1074.

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

Legal Update for Special Education Law: Recent Positive Outcomes From the Group

Hearing Officer Confirms District Acted Appropriately Under IDEA and Section 504 Atty. William J. McPartland (Scranton) obtained a finding in favor of our client, a school district, on all issues following a due process hearing. The parent had filed a due process complaint alleging that the school district had breached its child find duty under the IDEA and Section 504, that the school district had discriminated against the student on the basis of disability in violation of Section 504, and that the school district had denied a free and appropriate public education to the student both by developing inadequate IEPs and via an actionable procedural violation.  Specifically, the student had received a Section 504 evaluation in October 2023, after a number of behavioral infractions culminating in a fight in September 2023, was identified as having anxiety and a sleep disorder, and received appropriate Section 504 accommodations. The student had never previously demonstrated signs of a learning disability, and the parent denied the school district permission to evaluate the student for special education needs in November 2023, and January 2024. The parent granted the district permission to evaluate the student in October 2024, after a private psychologist diagnosed the student with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, possible Oppositional Defiance Disorder, a learning disorder, and anxiety. The school district issued a special education evaluation report in December 2024, finding that the student had an emotional disturbance and other health impairment, and an IEP providing an itinerant level of emotional support, as well as instruction in academics and social skills, was issued in January 2025, and amended in February, March, and April 2025. The student withdrew from the school district in April 2025, to attend a cyber charter school. The hearing officer determined that the school district had not violated its child find duty to the student in violation of either the IDEA or Section 504 where the district developed a Section 504 plan for the student within a month and a half of the parent’s first request for a Section 504 evaluation and where the parent repeatedly denied consent to conduct an IDEA evaluation of the student. The hearing officer noted that the student’s sporadic record of behavioral infractions prior to September 2023, did not suggest that the student had a disability prior to the parent’s initial request for an evaluation. The hearing officer further determined that no evidence had been produced to suggest that the student was discriminated against on the basis of disability in violation of Section 504. Additionally, the hearing officer determined that the IEP offered to the student was substantively adequate and that, to the extent the social and emotional programming offered by the school district was not received by the student, this resulted from the parent’s refusal to accept the same. The hearing officer finally determined that the school district did not commit an actionable procedural violation by delaying development of an IEP for the student where the parent repeatedly denied consent to evaluate the student. Court Dismisses Three of Four Claims Against School District Attys. Christopher J. Conrad and Daniel P. McGannon (Harrisburg) achieved a significant early victory on behalf of a school district client in. The team successfully obtained dismissal of three of the four claims asserted in the plaintiff’s amended complaint. The former district superintendent brought multiple claims arising out of his alleged “forced resignation,” including age discrimination under the ADEA, a Section 1983 Equal Protection claim, a Pennsylvania Whistleblower claim, and breach of contract. On behalf of the district, the defense team moved to dismiss the complaint in part, arguing: The plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts to support a prima facie case of age discrimination. The equal protection claim was barred because the ADEA provides the exclusive federal remedy for age-based employment claims. The breach of contract claim could not stand because the underlying employment agreement had expired prior to the alleged breach. The court agreed, dismissing the ADEA, equal protection, and breach of contract claims in their entirety. As a result, only a single claim under the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law remains pending. This outcome substantially narrows the scope of the litigation and positions the client for a more efficient defense moving forward.