.

Defense Digest

On the Pulse…King of Prussia Office: A Historic Legacy and a Dynamic Future of Legal Excellence

Defense Digest, Vol. 31, No. 4, December 2025

December 1, 2025

by Michael L. Detweiler

Situated in the shadow of Valley Forge and the rich history of the Revolutionary War, the King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, office is steeped in history. The office itself has a long history of servicing the counties adjacent to Philadelphia, in addition to Philadelphia. Though once located in the Montgomery County seat of Norristown, this office now sits not far from the King of Prussia Mall and an always active Top Golf facility. The office is also steeped in firm history as it has been affiliated with many of the firm’s founders and leaders through the years, including Jack Warner, Tom Brophy, Christopher Dougherty, Joe Santarone, and Wendy Bracaglia, to name a few.

Today, with approximately 40 attorneys and 60 staff employees, the King of Prussia office is one of the firm’s largest branch offices and one of the largest law offices in Montgomery County. The office has long serviced Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, and Philadelphia Counties. We consolidated with our Doylestown and Allentown offices several years ago, and we now also service Berks, Bucks, Carbon, Lehigh, Monroe, Northampton, and Schuylkill Counties. The addition of attorneys from other offices and the acquisition of key talent from other firms through the years has created a dynamic team comprised of attorneys with numerous backgrounds, skill sets, and perspectives.

The health care team has been a powerful engine for the office for years and continues to flourish. The group has long-standing client relationships with health care systems and providers throughout eastern Pennsylvania and continues to develop new relationships. Led by attorneys Robin Snyder and Donna Modestine, the group continues to grow, even with the recent retirements of several key health care attorneys in the past several years. In 2024, Gary Samms, one of the most sought-after trial attorneys in Pennsylvania, joined an already stalwart group of attorneys: Joan Ford, Joe Hoynoski, and Gabor Ovari. Recent special counsel and associate additions in the past several years include Kevin Majernik, Jonathan Landua, Evan Pentz, David McColloch, and Julianna Malloy, all of whom have joined us from other firms and have added to an already strong and highly-regarded unit. 

Despite retirements of several experienced and senior attorneys in the past several years (we will sorely miss Mark Riley and Ed McGinn when they retire at year’s end) from the Casualty Department, we have pivoted and recently welcomed several talented and energetic associates—Khaliyah Pugh, Richard Lechette, and Ashley Stasak—to our core casualty group, consisting of Michele Frisbie, Michele Krengel, Tim Hartigan, Ed Tuite, and Rob Morton, in addition to those attorneys who strengthened our group after joining us from the Allentown office: Jason Banonis, Steve Keim, and Wendy O’Connor. The casualty attorneys handle a wide array of high-exposure casualty matters, ranging from construction personal injury to serious auto and premises liability matters and everything in between. 

Frank Wickersham, Judd Woytek, Tony Natale, Michael Duffy, and Anna Jaoudi comprise the office’s workers’ compensation unit, which routinely achieves favorable results on behalf of their clients and is very well-regarded by the workers’ compensation bar. Tony and Anna also work in our Medicare Compliance Practice Group, providing the entire firm with an invaluable resource in reaching solutions for often complicated questions created by settlements and Medicare issues.

Finally, the firm is fortunate to have a group of attorneys who handle a wide array of professional liability matters. They include Audrey Copeland, who handles appeals; Gregory Kelley, who focuses on professional liability and construction defects; Maureen Fitzgerald and Christin Kochel, who handle a wide variety of professional liability cases; and Paul Laughlin, who handles professional liability and health care cases. These added practice areas, and the skill with which these attorneys practice, ensure that the office, the firm, and our clients have access to invaluable resources and representation in numerous practice areas. 

The office is defined, in large part, by the skill and talent of its attorneys, but it has had its share of characters and levity through the years, too. There has never been a shortage of social events (Top Golf, happy hours, associate dinners), games (trivia night), music (a staple on the “Class Action” tour circuit) and the occasional awkward photo of an office attorney from yesteryear. The office has always embodied one of the defining features that makes Marshall Dennehey special and unique: “A culture where humor is the great equalizer, and no one is above the friendly jest.” The office is also blessed with hard-working and talented paralegals and support staff, who are an integral part of our success and are led by our dedicated and tireless office manager, Suzie Spitko.

One of the office’s primary strengths remains its versatility, both in the various practice groups that provide skilled lawyering and in its capacity to provide representation in numerous venues in eastern Pennsylvania. We have always thrived, in great part, due to our flexibility and adaptability and in bringing on new talent to continue our tradition of excellence. In many ways, the King of Prussia office serves as a microcosm of the firm at large: rich in history but poised for great things moving forward. 

Mike is the managing attorney of our King of Prussia, PA office. He can be reached at 610-354-8271 or MLDetweiler@mdwcg.com. 

Defense Digest, Vol. 31, No. 4, December 2025, is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2025 Marshall Dennehey. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.

Firm Highlights

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

News

Marshall Dennehey Names Carolyn Schweizer New Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

Thought Leadership

Mitigating Long-Tail Liability: Delaware Court Reaffirms Five-Year Workers’ Compensation Deadline

Williamson v. Donald F. Deaven, Inc., No. N25A-07-004 FWW, 2026 LX 252526 (Del. Super. Ct. June 2, 2026) Claimant was involved in a compensable industrial work accident on May 12, 1995, for a low back injury.  Following this, he received compensation for temporary total disability benefits from July 1996 to September 1996 and for sustaining a permanent impairment in 1997 and 1998. For the next 23 years, the claimant continued treatment and paid his own medical bills without submitting them to the employer’s insurer. In November 2021, the claimant filed a petition seeking payment for medical expenses, including prospective surgery and a resulting period of total disability. The employer moved to dismiss the petition, arguing it was barred by Delaware’s five-year statute of limitations (19 Del. C. § 2361(b)). Pursuant to 18 Del. C. § 3914, insurers must provide prompt written notice of the applicable statute of limitations to invoke the five-year deadline. Due to the age of the case, neither party had a comprehensive file of the claim and the Board had archived its file of the matter. The carrier’s computer system retained only bare information indicating that payments occurred and agreements and receipts were filed with the Board in 1997. While the claimant argued that the employer could not prove it provided the mandatory statutory notice, the Hearing Officer recovered the archived file, which contained two “Receipts for Compensation Paid” signed by the claimant. The receipts explicitly contained the required five-year limitation language, which the claimant testified to signing at the hearing. The claimant also attempted to introduce evidence of payments he claimed the employer made, which would have extended the statute of limitations. As a preliminary matter, the hearing officer excluded the testimony about the payments because the claimant did not produce them to the employer. The Board found in favor of the employer and dismissed the claimant’s petition as time-barred. The claimant appealed the Board’s decision, arguing that he never received adequate notice of the statute of limitations and that the hearing officer’s evidentiary ruling was an abuse of discretion. The Court held that the archived, signed receipts constituted substantial evidence that the insurer fulfilled its statutory notice requirements. Therefore, the claimant’s petition was time-barred under the statute of limitations provisions of 19 Del. C. § 2361(b). Furthermore, the Court reinforced strict procedural compliance: it rejected the claimant’s attempts to introduce evidence of payment on appeal, ruling the argument was waived for failure to preserve it while the matter was still before the Board. This recent ruling by the Court underscores the importance and necessity of robust data preservation and precise compliance with notice requirements. For risk managers, employers, and insurers, the decision highlights how tight administrative execution protects against catastrophic long-tail liability.

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

Casey Alan Coyle Joins Marshall Dennehey's PA Appellate Practice as a Shareholder in Harrisburg and Philadelphia

News

Marshall Dennehey Expands Leading Pennsylvania Appellate Practice With Addition of Shareholder Casey Coyle

Thought Leadership

Congress Passes Financial Exploitation Prevention Act

On June 25, 2026, the House passed the Financial Exploitation Prevention Act of 2025 (“the Act”) by a vote of 414 to 2. The Act allows financial advisors and firms to delay suspicious transactions regarding the accounts of clients who are 65 or older, if they believe financial exploitation has occurred or is about to take place. With the advancement of technology and AI, the House’s overwhelming bipartisan passage of the Financial Exploitation Prevention Act represents an important step in strengthening the financial industry’s ability to combat the growing threat of elder financial exploitation. The Act recognizes what advisors have long known that financial professionals are often the first to detect suspicious behavior but have historically lacked clear legal authority to intervene before irreversible financial harm occurs. From the industry’s perspective, the bill accomplishes several important objectives, including the following: (1) Provides a practical “pause button” by allowing financial professionals to temporarily delay certain transaction requests when there is a reasonable belief that a senior or vulnerable adult is being financially exploited; (2) Empowers financial professionals to act by providing greater certainty that firms can act in good faith to protect clients without unnecessary legal risk; and (3) Strengthens investor protection without sacrificing client rights by allowing temporary delays based on a reasonable suspicion of exploitation, which is intended only to allow additional review and not to deny clients access to their money indefinitely. In sum, the Financial Exploitation Prevention Act will equip financial professionals with practical, carefully tailored tools to stop suspected financial exploitation before client assets are lost. By allowing firms to temporarily delay suspicious transactions under defined circumstances, Congress is recognizing the critical role advisors play as the first line of defense against increasingly sophisticated fraud schemes. The Act strikes an appropriate balance between protecting vulnerable investors and preserving individual financial autonomy, while reinforcing collaboration among advisors, families, and law enforcement to combat financial exploitation. The bill now awaits Senate action.

empty courtroom photo

Result

Summary Judgment Secured for Life Insurance Agent

Thought Leadership

New Jersey Expands Family Leave Protections Effective July 17, 2026

On January 17, 2026, Governor Murphy signed into law legislation expanding the New Jersey Family Leave Act (NJFLA). Beginning July 17, 2026, significant amendments to the NJFLA will expand job-protected family leave to smaller businesses and more employees across the state. The new law broadens coverage by lowering the threshold for private employers from 30 employees to 15 employees, meaning many smaller businesses will now be subject to the NJFLA. Employees of state and local government agencies will continue to be covered regardless of the size of the employer. The amendments also make it easier for employees to qualify for leave. Under the revised law, an employee will be eligible after three months of employment and at least 250 hours worked during the preceding 12 months, replacing the previous requirement of 12 months of employment and 1,000 hours worked. Currently, New Jersey's Temporary Disability Insurance (TDI) and Family Leave Insurance (FLI) programs provide eligible employees with wage replacement while they are on leave but do not independently guarantee job protection. The recent amendments to the New Jersey Family Leave Act (NJFLA) expand these protections by extending job-protected leave to additional employees. Under the amended law, employees receiving TDI or FLI benefits may be entitled to return to the same position they held before taking leave, or to an equivalent position with the same seniority, status, pay, and benefits. Although the legislation also states that it does not expand or modify an employee's reinstatement rights under the NJFLA, the amendments appear to provide job protection to eligible employees receiving TDI or FLI benefits without requiring them to separately satisfy the eligibility requirements of the NJFLA or the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). As a result, some employees may be entitled to longer periods of job-protected leave than were previously available under existing law. With these amendments, New Jersey continues to strengthen workplace protections by expanding access to job-protected family leave for eligible employees. These changes significantly expand access to job-protected family leave and may require employers to update their leave policies, employee handbooks, and HR practices. Notably, employers who were previously not required to administer NJFLA may need to amend their policies and/or create new protocols to come into compliance with the NJFLA. Failure to do so would prove costly, as the penalties for non-compliance are significant.

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

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.

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.