Pittsburgh
The Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania office of Marshall Dennehey, which opened in May of 1993, is now located in the historic Union Trust Building. The office is comprised of civil litigation attorneys practicing in all four of our major law groups covering Casualty and General Liability, Professional Liability, Health Care and Workers' Compensation. The majority of the attorneys have enjoyed a long standing professional relationship in the practice of defense litigation and are natives or long-time residents of the Pittsburgh area.
Pittsburgh is a naturally convenient location in which to quarter a litigation practice serving the Western Pennsylvania counties of Allegheny, Beaver, Butler, Lawrence, Clarion, Armstrong, Jefferson, Indiana, Westmoreland, Fayette, Washington, Greene, Somerset, Bedford, Blair, Cambria and Clearfield. The United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania is located in Pittsburgh. In addition, Pittsburgh is the seat of the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, which operates one of the busiest civil dockets in the Commonwealth's court system. A large majority of the workers' compensation claims and civil liability suits filed in the entire Western Pennsylvania region are litigated either in Pittsburgh or within a short drive of our office.
In addition to providing counsel in Western Pennsylvania, a number of attorneys in our Pittsburgh office are admitted to the bar in West Virginia. Here, they represent clients in both the state courts and before the United States District Courts for the Northern and Southern Districts of West Virginia.
Thought Leadership
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Holds Self-Referral Prohibition Does Not Cover Prescriptions Written by Physicians with Ownership Interests in Dispensing Pharmacies
June 19, 2026
700 Pharmacy v. Bureau of Workers’ Compensation Fee Review Hearing Office (State Workers’ Insurance Fund); Nos. 97, 98, 99, 100, 101 MAP 2024; decided June 16, 2026; by Justice Mundy. In this case, Drs. Miteswar Purewal and Shailen Jalali, treating physicians for workers’ compensation claimants, wrote prescriptions for various medications that were filled by 700 Pharmacy. The worker’s compensation insurer refused to pay for the prescriptions on the basis that they were illegal self-referrals under the Act. 700 Pharmacy subsequently filed fee review applications with The Bureau of Workers’ Compensation Medical Fee Review Office. At a fee review hearing, both physicians stipulated they had a financial interest in the pharmacy. The physicians argued that the Anti-Referral Provision of the Act does not bar self-referrals on prescription drugs and pharmaceutical services, since the provision does not specifically identify prescription drugs. The Fee Review Hearing Officer rejected this argument and found that prescriptions for medications are prohibited under the “goods or services” language included in the provision. 700 Pharmacy appealed to the Commonwealth Court, and the court affirmed, agreeing with the Hearing Officer’s interpretation of “goods and services” as encompassing prescriptions. 700 Pharmacy appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the Hearing Officer and the Commonwealth Court, holding that the term “goods and services” in the Anti-Referral Provision of the Act did not include prescriptions. According to the Court, “goods and services” was not a catch-all, but simply explanatory as to the eight enumerated categories in the provision. The provision (Section 306(f.1)(3)(iii)) reads, in pertinent part: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it is unlawful for a provider to refer a person for laboratory, physical therapy, rehabilitation, chiropractic, radiation oncology, psychometric, home infusion therapy or diagnostic imaging, goods or services pursuant to this section if the provider has a financial interest with the person or in the entity that receives the referral. The Court said that if the General Assembly wanted to specifically include prescription drugs and pharmaceutical services in the Anti-Referral Provision, they would have done so. They pointed out that prescription drugs and pharmaceutical services were included by the legislature in Section 306 (f.1)(3)(vi) of the Act as to reimbursement, and claimed that their omission from the Anti-Referral Provision supports the conclusion that those services are not included in the Anti-Referral Provision’s self-referral prohibition.
What's Hot in Workers' Comp
Legislation Proposed to Reduce the Cost of Prescription Topical Drugs
June 8, 2026
In March, Pennsylvania Senate Bill 1215 was introduced in an effort to address the high cost of prescription topical drugs. According to the bill’s sponsor, the issue is excessive reimbursement rates for topical drugs that are essentially alternate versions of readily available, less expensive over the counter drugs. A study performed by The Workers’ Compensation Research Institute (WCRI), shows that Pennsylvania has the highest share of prescription reimbursements and the highest average quarterly payments for topical drugs. The proposed bill would provide for payment for each ingredient separately, instead of reimbursing a single inflated price, deny payment if an ingredient lacks a valid National Drug Code, limit total reimbursement to $400 per 30 day supply no matter what ingredients are used, ban reimbursement for compound drugs that duplicate existing commercial drugs, and add a flat $20 compounding fee for pharmacies or physicians who prepare the medication. The goal? To eliminate inflated billing practices and reduce costs for employers and insurers. Currently, the bill is in committee. We will monitor the proposed legislation as it advances and provide updates as to any significant developments that may occur.
Results
Defense Verdict Obtained After Seven-Day Bench Trial
We received a defense decision after a seven-day bench trial in a product liability action in which the exposure in the case exceeded $30 million. Our client designs, sells and services engineered equipment for the energy industry, including natural gas compression apparatuses for use in transmission pipeline systems. In 2015, the client sold the plaintiff two reciprocating compressor systems to replace outdated equipment at a station located near Downingtown, PA. The compressor systems were designed to inject oil into the gas stream for piston lubrication. This lubricating oil needed to be removed from the gas stream using filtration devices supplied by the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed weld debris contained within certain vessels of the compressors migrated downstream upon commissioning and compromised several gas filtration devices. The plaintiff further contended the damaged filtration devices permitted excess lubricating oil into the pipeline, which fouled multiple turbines owned by its downstream customer at a large natural gas-fired power plant, causing significant economic losses. The applicable contract between the plaintiff and our client contained a forum selection clause requiring litigation to take place in Lake County, Indiana. The plaintiff claimed commercial losses of $18 million, plus attorney fees (per contract) in the neighborhood of $4 million. The plaintiff also maintained it was entitled to pre-judgment interest. If successful in establishing liability, this sum would have added another $5 million to $7 million to the damage award, depending on the interest rate employed by the court. Therefore, the pure exposure in the case exceeded $30 million. In response to the plaintiff’s claims, we successfully established that the weld debris incident was a red herring and did not damage the filtration equipment. Material testing of debris from within the filtration devices revealed very little weld debris compared to pipe scale and other naturally occurring components. Through key expert testimony, we established that the plaintiff could not meet its burden of proof because the oil contamination events may have been caused by several factors directly attributable to the plaintiff’s lack of design engineering, inadequate equipment maintenance, equipment failure and inappropriate response to system alarms.
Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case
We secured a complete defense victory, saving our client over $500,000 in known exposure and likely millions in long-term liability. The workers’ compensation judge granted our termination petition and denied the claimant’s claim petition, finding that the claimant fully recovered and was not entitled to wage loss or medical benefits. Through medical discovery, we uncovered pre-injury treatment that directly contradicted the claimant’s testimony. The judge favored our medical expert, citing no changes on pre- and post-injury MRIs as further evidence undermining the claim.
