King of Prussia
The King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, office of Marshall Dennehey is one of the firm's largest branch offices and one of the largest law offices in Montgomery County. In deciding to establish this office, the firm recognized the importance of a local presence, as opposed to simply being a Philadelphia firm which does work in the surrounding counties and states.
The King of Prussia office services Berks, Bucks, Carbon, Chester, Delaware, Lehigh, Monroe, Montgomery, Northampton and Schuylkill counties. Our more senior litigators in this office have a wealth of experience in handling significant cases spanning the full spectrum of property, casualty, professional liability and workers' compensation litigation. Our attorneys seek to provide the highest quality, yet cost-effective, defense litigation. We are extremely sensitive towards the clients' ultimate goals, whether it be early resolution through settlement or taking matters through to verdict.
Thought Leadership
What's Hot in Workers' Comp
Commonwealth Court Holds That a Claimant Who Was Struck By a Car While Crossing the Street During an Unpaid Break Was In the Course and Scope of Employment
August 13, 2026
This case involved a claim petition filed by a claimant who sustained injuries after being struck by a vehicle while crossing the street in front of the employer’s premises. The employer denied the claim based on course and scope, as the accident occurred during one of two mandatory fifteen (15) minute breaks provided to the claimant. The claimant would punch out at the beginning of a break and punch back in when the break was over. On the date of the incident, the claimant punched out and left the building to get lunch at a restaurant, which required her to cross the employer’s parking lot, and then a public street, where the injury occurred. The Workers Compensation Judge (WCJ) dismissed the petition, noting that that during the two mandatory fifteen-minute breaks per shift allowed by the employer, the claimant was free to leave the employer’s premises, and during breaks, permitted to engage in whatever activity she desired. The WCJ found that at the time of the accident, the claimant was on her own time, in the middle of the street, and going to get lunch. The claimant filed an appeal with the Worker’s Compensation Appeal Board (Board), and the Board reversed. According to the Board, the claimant’s location was still on the employer’s premises, as the claimant was taking her customary route while using a reasonable ingress/egress from the employer. Further, the Board found that the “Personal Comfort Doctrine” applied, as the claimant was on a momentary departure to take care of her personal comfort, within the window of time she was allotted for her break. The Board remanded the case, and a WCJ granted the claim petition. The Board affirmed, and the employer appealed to the Commonwealth Court. Before the Court, the employer argued that the claimant was not in the course and scope of her employment, because the injury did not occur on its premises, and the claimant was outside the bounds of the Personal Comfort Doctrine. The Court, however, rejected these arguments, and dismissed the employer’s appeal. The Court noted that the break given to the claimant was so cursory, when she set out to relieve her hunger for her own personal comfort, she remained in the course of her employment when she sustained her injuries. A Petition for Allowance of Appeal in the Supreme Court has been filed by the Employer, Giant Eagle.
Case Law Alerts
Pennsylvania Superior Court Reaffirms Liberal Pleading Standard in Medical Malpractice Actions
July 21, 2026
The Pennsylvania Superior Court has reinforced a broader fact-pleading approach that may make it more difficult for healthcare defendants to obtain dismissal at the preliminary objection stage. In DaSilva v. Abington Memorial Hospital, the court held that the plaintiffs’ second amended complaint satisfied Pennsylvania’s fact‑pleading requirements despite the absence of individually named negligent actors. In DaSilva, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint alleging that Abington Memorial Hospital was directly and vicariously negligent after the patient, who was experiencing a mental health crisis, was left unattended by hospital staff, exited the emergency department, and was struck by a vehicle, suffering serious injuries. The trial court sustained the hospital’s preliminary objections and dismissed the complaint with prejudice, stating plaintiffs “failed to plead any material factual allegations in support of their claims of negligence [and] set forth vague allegations of negligence and unidentified agency.” Id. at *5. The plaintiffs appealed. On appeal, the Superior Court reversed, holding that the complaint sufficiently pled negligence and vicarious liability claims under Pa.R.C.P. 1019(a). The court concluded that allegations describing the patient’s condition, the hospital’s awareness of that condition, and the alleged failure to monitor or prevent elopement were adequate to satisfy Pennsylvania’s pleading requirements. Significantly, the court rejected the hospital’s argument that the complaint failed because it did not identify the specific employees responsible for the alleged negligence. Instead, the court found that generalized references to “emergency room staff” were sufficient to place the hospital on notice of the claims because “the names of those who performed services for the plaintiff are known to the defendant or can be ascertained during discovery.” Id. at *12 (citing Est. of Denmark ex rel. Hurst v. Williams, 117 A.3d 300, 307 (Pa. Super. 2015)). The effect of DaSilva is that plaintiffs may proceed past the pleading stage with relatively generalized allegations, particularly in cases involving institutional defendants where relevant details are uniquely within the defendant’s control. As a result, healthcare defendants should anticipate that challenges to claim sufficiency may be resolved in the later stages of litigation, including discovery and summary judgment.
Results
News
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
Jason Banonis Named Attorney of the Year by the Pennsylvania Defense Institute
July 31, 2026
Marshall Dennehey Again Earns Recognition in Distinguished Chambers USA
June 4, 2026
