.

109 Marshall Dennehey Attorneys Recognized in the 2025 Editions of The Best Lawyers in America® and the Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America

August 15, 2024

Marshall Dennehey is proud to highlight the firm’s 109 attorneys who have been recognized in the 2025 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, six of the firm’s attorneys received the Best Lawyers® 2025 “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 2025 LAWYERS OF THE YEAR

Cleveland: Leslie Jenny, Litigation - Health Care
Harrisburg: Allison Krupp, Insurance Law
Harrisburg: Christopher Reeser, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants
Pittsburgh: Anthony Williott, Litigation – Health Care
Orlando: Brad Blystone, Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants
Northeastern Pennsylvania: Thomas Specht, Insurance Law

OUR 2025 BEST LAWYERS IN AMERICA

Philadelphia, PA
•    Josh J.T. Byrne, Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants
•    James Cole, Insurance Law
•    Howard Dwoskin, Litigation – Insurance
•    John Gonzales, Employment Law - Management
•    John Hare, Appellate Practice
•    Daniel Krebbs, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants 
•    Michele Punturi, Workers’ Compensation Law - Employers 
•    Daniel Ryan, Jr., Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
•    Joseph Santarone, Civil Rights Law
•    Christopher Santoro, Product Liability Litigation - Defendants 
•    Josh Scheets, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
•    Michael Turner, Mass Tort Litigation/Class Actions – Defendants, Criminal Defense, White Collar 
•    Thomas Wagner, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants

Pittsburgh, PA
•    John Deasy, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants
•    Melissa Devich Cochran, Commercial Litigation; Mass Tort Litigation/Class Actions - Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants
•    Daniel Deitrick, Workers’ Compensation Law – Employers
•    Ryan Hauck, Workers’ Compensation Law - Employers 
•    Douglas LaSota, Litigation - Construction; Mass Tort Litigation/Class Actions - Defendants
•    Christian Marquis, Litigation, Municipal; Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
•    Patricia Monahan, Insurance Law
•    Brett Shear, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants
•    Patrick Reilly, Commercial Litigation; Mass Tort/Class Action - Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants
•    Teresa Sirianni, Employment Law – Management; Litigation - Labor and Employment
•    Stuart Sostmann, Product Liability Litigation - Defendants
•    Anthony Williott, Litigation - Health Care; Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants

Harrisburg, PA

•    Shannon Fellin, Workers’ Compensation Law - Employers
•    Allison Krupp, Insurance Law
•    Michael Mongiello, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants
•    John R. Ninosky, Litigation, Insurance; Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
•    Christopher Reeser, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
•    Kacey Wiedt, Workers’ Compensation Law - Employers 

Scranton, PA
•    Sarah Argo, Litigation - Insurance
•    Leo Bohanski, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants
•    Michael Connolly, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants; Professional Malpractice Law, Defendants
•    Matthew Keris, Litigation, Health Care; Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants
•    John McGrath, Jr., Insurance Law; Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants 
•    William McPartland, Insurance Law
•    John Nealon, Product Liability Litigation - Defendants
•    Victoria Scanlon, Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants; Health Care Law; Litigation, Health Care
•    Michael Sebastian, Workers’ Compensation Law - Employers
•    Thomas Specht, Insurance Law; Litigation - Insurance  

King of Prussia, PA
•    Gregory Kelley, Litigation - Construction
•    Anthony Natale, III, Workers’ Compensation Law – Employers
•    Mark Riley, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
•    Robin Snyder, Litigation - Health Care
•    A. Judd Woytek, Workers’ Compensation Law - Employers

Erie, PA
•    Patrick Carey, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendant
•    G. Jay Habas, Employment Law, Management
•    Thomas Lent, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants

Cincinnati, OH
•    David Williamson, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants 

Cleveland, OH
•    Vincent Cononico, Litigation - Insurance
•    David Fagnilli, Insurance Law
•    Jason Ferrante, Litigation – Health Care
•    Andrew Isakoff, Transportation Law
•    Leslie Jenny, Litigation - Health Care; Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants
•    Tracey McGurk, Litigation – Real Estate

Mount Laurel, NJ
•    David Blake, Litigation - Insurance
•    Barbara Davis, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants
•    Walter Klekotka, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
•    Lynne Nahmani, Litigation - Health Care
•    John Slimm, Legal Malpractice Law - Defendants; Professional Malpractice Law – Defendants

Roseland, NJ
•    Robert Evers, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants
•    Justin Johnson, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants
•    Julia Klubenspies, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants 
•    Leonard Leicht, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
•    Sunny Sparano, Litigation – Construction
•    William Waldron, Litigation - Construction

New York, NY
•    Tonya Lindsey, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants

Westchester County, NY
•    Ephraim Fink, Insurance Law

Jacksonville, FL
•    Elizabeth Ferguson, Litigation - Construction
•    James Hanratty, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants

Orlando, FL
•    Bradley Blystone, Insurance Law; Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants, Litigation, Health Care, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
•    Thomas Brown, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
•    Peggy Bush, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
•    Dante Rohr, Commercial Litigation

Tampa, FL
•    Michael Archibald, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
•    Michael Bradford, Admiralty & Maritime Law; Commercial Litigation; Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
•    Alicia Caridi, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
•    Lindsay McCormick, Litigation - Construction 

Wilmington, DE
•    Sarah Cole, Litigation - Insurance 
•    Bradley Goewert, Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants
•    Keri Morris-Johnston, Workers’ Compensation Law - Employers

OUR 2025 BEST LAWYERS: ONES TO WATCH

Philadelphia, PA
•    Holli Bott, Health Care Law
•    Melanie Foreman, Product Liability Litigation - Defendants; Transportation Law
•    Adam Fulginiti, Health Care Law
•    Dana Gittleman, Insurance Law; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants
•    Angeline Panepresso, Construction Law; Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
•    Alesia Sulock, Commercial Litigation
•    Christian Weimann, Mass Tort Litigation/Class Actions – Defendants; Transportation LawFort Lauderdale, FL
•    Holly Hamilton, Financial Services Regulation Law

Pittsburgh, PA
•    Gregory P. Graham, Commercial Litigation; Construction Law; Litigation - Construction; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants; Professional Malpractice Law
•    Brad Haas, Insurance Law; Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants; Product Liability Litigation -Defendants
•    Taylor Kosko, Mass Tort Litigation/Class Actions - Defendants; Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
•    Lauren Purcell, Construction Law; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants
•    Michael Winsko, Product Liability Litigation - Defendants

Harrisburg, PA
•    Brittany Bakshi, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants

Scranton, PA
•    Robert Aldrich, III, Health Care Law; Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants

Mount Laurel, NJ
•    Jeremy Zacharias, Commercial Litigation

New York, NY
•    Elizabeth Driscoll, Insurance Law
•    Andrew Thebaud, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants 

Melville, NY
•    Robert Demeusy, Mass Tort Litigation/Class Actions – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants
•    Sam Ruggeri, Litigation - Environmental; Mass Tort Litigation/Class Actions - Defendants

Westchester County, NY
•    Nadia Niazi, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
•    Jennifer Robinson, Construction Law

Jacksonville, FL
•    Kathleen Carlson, Insurance Law; Personal Injury Litigation
•    Sean Reeves, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants 
•    Corey Setterlund, Insurance Law

Orlando, FL
•    Carolin Pacheco, Insurance Law

Wilmington, DE
•    Benjamin Durstein, Workers’ Compensation Law
 

Firm Highlights

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

Result

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

Result

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

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. 

Thought Leadership

Two Tracks, No Preclusion: Ohio Supreme Court Preserves Separate Damages Claims After Chapter 2506 Appeals

The Supreme Court of Ohio has clarified that an administrative appeal under Ohio Revised Code Chapter 2506 does not bar a separate action for damages and declaratory relief that could not have been pursued in the administrative appeal. The Ohio Supreme Court considered Sheetz, Inc. v. Centerville (2026-Ohio-3531) as a result of a certified question from the Southern District of Ohio. The question was whether Sheetz, the gas station/convenience store brand, was barred from seeking damages in a separate action since damages were not sought in their administrative appeal. Ultimately, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that res judicata does not bar a separate action for damages after ruling on an administrative appeal because R.C. Chapter 2506 is limited to judicial review and cannot grant affirmative relief. The case arose after Centerville’s city council rejected a site plan proposed by Sheetz, Inc. that had received unanimous approval from the City’s planning commission. Sheetz filed an administrative appeal pursuant to R.C. 2506 in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, and two months later filed a complaint for damages and declaratory relief under 42 USC § 1983 as a takings action with the city, city council, and other objectors as improper takings and a violation of due process, as well as interference with business and contractual relationship. The city and city council removed the § 1983 action for damages to federal court. Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas reversed the city council’s denial, and allowed the Sheetz project to move forward. Upon that ruling, the federal court issued a show-cause order questioning whether the § 1983 action was barred by the doctrine of res judicata via claim preclusion (which includes all theories of recovery).  Sheetz argued that Ohio courts of common pleas do not have authority to award damages or declaratory relief as party of the R.C. Ch. 2506 appeal, therefore res judicata could not be triggered to apply to the § 1983 action. Additionally, Sheetz moved to certify the issue to the Ohio Supreme Court, citing differing results between the second and sixth districts on this same issue. Centerville approached the question, not from a claim preclusion standpoint, but from the holding in Grava v. Parkman, Twp which states that a final judgment rendered on the merits bars all subsequent action based on the same transaction or occurrence.  In yet another approach, an objector argued that claim preclusion was satisfied because Sheetz could have raised its damages claims in the administrative appeal – Sheetz disagrees. In their analysis, the Supreme Court of Ohio broke down the elements of a claim preclusion analysis: 1) a prior final, valid decision on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) a second action involving the same parties, or their privies, as the first; (3) a second action raising claims that were or could have been litigated in the first action; and (4) a second action arising out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the previous action. The Court held that R.C. Ch. 2506 does not permit a party to argue damages as R.C. Ch. 2506 limits the common pleas jurisdiction as if it were sitting on appeal, and therefore can only affirm, reverse, vacate, or modify the appealed order, or can remand the case to the administrative body. Further, the Court held that Grava’s conclusion that a final judgment precludes additional litigation for different relief is inapplicable under this fact pattern because it was meant only to apply to those matters in which the plaintiff brings the exact same case twice, but for new relief. The Court found Grava was inapplicable because Sheetz could have requested damages or declaratory relief in the R.C. 2506 appeal. Therefore, Grava would be nothing more than dicta if it even did apply. Going further, the Ohio Supreme Court disavowed Sixth Circuit precedent which, in reliance on Grava and other district court decisions, permitted an owner to seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alongside an administrative appeal. See Moore v Hiram Twp., 988 F.3d 353 (6th Cir.2021). The Ohio Supreme Court found that the Sixth Circuit had disregarded a critical decision in Community Concerned Citizens, Inc. v. Union Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 1993-Ohio-115, which clearly held that a R.C. Ch. 2506 appeal cannot be combined with a complaint seeking other claims for relief. Id. at ¶ 11. To that end, the Ohio Supreme Court has determined that the decisions Moore relied on (outside of Grava) are no longer good law, and that Moore was wrongly decided. The decision draws a clear procedural boundary: Chapter 2506 provides judicial review of an administrative decision, not a forum for independent claims seeking affirmative relief. Although Grava may place claims arising from a single transaction within the potential scope of claim preclusion, those claims are not barred unless the complete claim-preclusion test is satisfied. Because Sheetz could not have pursued damages or declaratory relief in its Chapter 2506 appeal, the separate action was not precluded. The remaining question for practitioners looking to apply or defend against this exception is when does the statute of limitations begin to run on damages and declaratory relief claims related to an administrative decision on appeal? A takings action in federal court has a 2-year statute of limitations, or as a state claim, 4 years (like the other tortious claims raised therein). Correlating this case with others, an administrative appeal will not likely toll the statute of limitations on claims based on a final decision by a municipal authority. Therefore, practitioners should look for these cases to be brought simultaneously.

Four Marshall Dennehey Attorneys Selected 2026 “Top Lawyers” by Delaware Today Magazine

News

Four Marshall Dennehey Attorneys Selected 2026 “Top Lawyers” by Delaware Today Magazine

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2027 Pennsylvania Super Lawyers and Rising Stars Honorees

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2027 Pennsylvania Super Lawyers and Rising Stars Honorees

Thought Leadership

Pennsylvania Supreme Court to Review Whether Legal Malpractice Claims May Be Recast as Breach of Contract Claims

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently granted allowance of appeal to consider whether a plaintiff may pursue a breach of contract claim against an attorney based on allegations that the attorney failed to provide competent legal services. The issue is significant in professional liability litigation because it concerns whether a plaintiff may avoid the statute of limitations applicable to professional negligence claims by characterizing the alleged misconduct as a breach of contract. Antoine Poteat retained attorneys Gary Asteak and Nino V. Tinari to represent him in a criminal matter. After his conviction was subsequently overturned through a Post Conviction Relief Act proceeding, Poteat filed suit against his former attorneys alleging that they breached their retainer agreements by failing to provide competent legal services. The attorneys argued that the claims sounded in professional negligence, rather than breach of contract, and were therefore time-barred. The trial court dismissed Poteat’s complaint, but the Superior Court, sitting en banc, reversed. The Superior Court held that the gist-of-the-action doctrine did not bar Poteat’s breach of contract claim because the alleged failure to provide competent legal services could constitute a breach of the parties’ agreement. The Court further held that a legal-services agreement contains an implied duty requiring an attorney to provide competent legal services, even where the agreement does not contain an express provision requiring such services. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review in July 2026 and will consider whether the Superior Court’s decision conflicts with Pennsylvania precedent distinguishing contract and tort claims, including Bruno v. Erie Insurance Co. The Supreme Court will also address whether a plaintiff may maintain a breach of contract claim based on an implied duty to provide competent legal services without identifying a specific contractual provision that was breached. The Supreme Court’s decision could have significant implications for professional liability litigation in Pennsylvania, particularly where plaintiffs seek to characterize claims arising from alleged professional negligence as contractual claims.

Thought Leadership

The Search-Incident-to-Arrest Doctrine Does Not License Strip Searches

In Beatty v. Gardner, No. 25-2860 (3d Cir. Sept. 16, 2026), Kyle Beatty sued police officers Clinton Gardner and Calvin Irvin under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after they stopped, arrested, and searched him three times during a drug investigation in Williamsport, Pennsylvania. The officers initially smelled marijuana coming from the car in which Beatty was sitting and observed marijuana residue, giving them probable cause to arrest him. Beatty consented to the first pat-down, and the second search was conducted incident to his lawful arrest; neither search uncovered weapons or contraband. The officers then transported Beatty to the police station solely to strip-search him, but the strip search also revealed nothing. The District Court granted the officers summary judgment, concluding that the initial stop, arrest, and first two searches were reasonable and that qualified immunity protected the officers from liability for the strip search. The Third Circuit affirmed, but held that the strip search itself violated the Fourth Amendment. The court concluded that the search-incident-to-arrest doctrine does not automatically permit officers to strip-search an arrestee outside the jail or prison setting. Because strip searches are highly intrusive and the traditional justifications for searches incident to arrest (officer safety and preservation of evidence) did not justify the search of Beatty, the officers generally needed either the arrestee’s consent, exigent circumstances, or a warrant supported by probable cause to believe that a search beneath the clothing would reveal weapons, contraband, or evidence. Here, the officers had none of those justifications. Nevertheless, the court held that qualified immunity barred damages liability because, at the time of the search, the right against a warrantless strip search of an arrestee outside the institutional setting was not clearly established by Supreme Court or Third Circuit precedent. The court likewise upheld qualified immunity on Beatty’s First Amendment retaliation claim and affirmed summary judgment for the officers.

business meeting photo

Result

Summary Judgment Obtained in Insurance Coverage Case

Marshall Dennehey Welcomes Special Counsel David Farkouh and Michele P. Rannie to New York City Office

News

Marshall Dennehey Welcomes Special Counsel David Farkouh and Michele P. Rannie to New York City Office