.

Paul D. Krepps

Portrait of Paul D. Krepps

A significant amount of Paul’s practice is concentrated in the area of civil rights litigation. He defends police officers, public officials, corrections officers and administrators, teachers and school district administrators, children and youth case workers, as well as their respective municipal entities, in state and federal court in Pennsylvania and West Virginia. These areas of practice include representing clients before inquest and grand jury proceedings and before administrative proceedings.

Paul has been utilized to perform audits of municipal departments, such as police departments and 911 call centers, and has conducted internal investigations. He has also provided consultation to numerous municipalities regarding the operational aspects of their police departments. His nearly 10 years of experience in law enforcement provide him with a unique perspective, particularly in the numerous matters he has litigated involving the use of Tasers.

Additionally, Paul has litigated a wide array of professional liability and product liability cases in West Virginia, including the defense of real estate agents, insurance brokers, logging cases, correctional facilities and civil rights matters. Among his West Virginia cases was the defense of Weirton Steel Corporation and Wheeling Downs and the City of Huntington. Paul has also represented a number of private and public employers in employment matters.

Paul was designated as lead defense counsel for all suits arising out of the Pittsburgh “G-20.” In this role he successfully completed training provided by the Department of Homeland Security in both the Basic and Command courses in Managing Civil Actions and Threat Incidents (MCATI).

In 2015, Paul was commissioned by the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police to assist in developing a policy and training program on the use of Body Worn Cameras (BWC). As a member of the BWC Committee, Paul provides recommendations to members of the Pennsylvania legislature in drafting legislation to govern the use of BWCs by police officers.

In 1979 Paul earned his Bachelor of Science degree in Administration of Justice from the Pennsylvania State University. For nearly 12 years before attending the Duquesne University School of Law, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Paul was a police officer. He served in Elizabeth Township, Pennsylvania, and then in the cities of West Palm Beach and Palm Beach, Florida. He served as a uniform police officer and field training officer, became certified as a crime scene analyst, and was part of the Major Crimes Unit. Paul was recognized as an expert in crime scene reconstruction and the science of fingerprints in both state and federal courts in Florida.

    • Thomas R. Kline School of Law of Duquesne University (J.D., 1994)
    • The Pennsylvania State University (B.S., 1979)
    • Pennsylvania, 1994
    • West Virginia, 1995
    • U.S. District Court Southern District of West Virginia, 1998
    • U.S. District Court Northern District of Ohio, 2016
    • U.S. District Court Northern District of West Virginia, 2017
    • Academy of Trial Lawyers of Allegheny County
    • Allegheny County Bar Association
    • Municipal Police Officer Education and Training Commission (MPOETC)
    • Pennsylvania State Bar Association
    • West Virginia State Bar Association
    • Qualified Immunity and Its Significance in Civil Rights Cases, Pennsylvania Defense Institute 2022 Annual Conference & CLE Program, Bedford, Pennsylvania, July 14, 2022
    • Impact of Protection from Abuse Orders: A Case Study, Law Against Violence Continuing Legal Education Program, Allegheny County Bar Association, June 27, 2022
    • Litigation & Trial Considerations When Representing/Defending Law Enforcement, NAPO’s Annual 2021 Legal Seminar, West Palm Beach, FL, October 4, 2021
    • Hot Topics in 2020 Law Enforcement Liability, Client Webinar, December 2020
    • Mass Disturbances: Law and Litigation, Allegheny County Law Enforcement, March 2019
    • The Wrong Side of the Caption, 42 USC 1983 Turns the Tables on Prosecutors, Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association/Institute, July 2015
    • Hot Topics for Local Law Enforcement, Washington County Chiefs of Police Association, May 2015
    • Beyond Asking Questions at a Deposition, November 2014
    • Challenging §8553 - Tort Claims Act Damages Cap and Damages Recoverable Under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act, September 2013
    • Employment Liability in the Cyber Age, Marshall Dennehey / AIG Employment Seminar, Pittsburgh, PA, May 2, 2013
    • Leadership Course for Law Enforcement Executives, Pennsylvania Chiefs of Police Association, December 2011
    • Reasonable Expectation of Privacy, the Danger in Enforcing the Wiretap Act, Police Departments from Beaver, Allegheny and Butler Counties, August 2011
    • Liability Issues for Municipalities Hosting National Events: Including the Development of Security Plans, Training and Equipping Police Officers, and Executing Law Enforcement and Security Functions During These Complex Events, City of Honolulu, Hawaii, January 2010
    • Exposure in Education Cases Related to Due Process and Bullying, Client Seminar, August 2010
    • Assisted the Municipal Police Officers Education and Training Commission, Pennsylvania State Police - preparation and training to training officers (2006, 2008)
    • Constitutional Litigation in the Current Political Climate, Pennsylvania Bar Institute, June 2008
    • Section 1983 Civil Rights, Continuing Legal Education, Pennsylvania Bar Association
    • Law Enforcement Issues and Liability, Pennsylvania State Association of Township Supervisors & Delaware Valley Insurance Trust, October 2008
    • Implications of Scott v. Harris on Police Pursuits and Beyond, Lorman Education Services
    • Development of a Critical Incident Protocol - City of Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, City of Pittsburgh Law Department, various Chiefs of Police Organizations
    • Effective Law Enforcement Through Police Accountability - City of Pittsburgh and various municipal law enforcement agencies
    • Police Rights and Liabilities - Various Chiefs of Police Organizations
    • Police Accountability - Pennsylvania State Association of Township Supervisors and various police departments
    • Effective Witness Preparation - Continuing Legal Education for in-house lawyer training
    • Terrorism and An Analysis of the Events of 9/11 - American Inns of Court and University of Pittsburgh
    • Workplace Violence - Housing Authority of the City of Pittsburgh
    • Disability of Deriliction? - Claims Management Advisory Board Seminar for a major municipal insurance carrier
    • Litigating an Uninsured Auto Case in West Virginia - Maryland Auto Insurance Fund
    • Civil / Criminal Forfeiture and RICO - University of Pittsburgh
    • Police and Drug Enforcement - University of Pittsburgh
    • Immigration and Law Enforcement - University of Pittsburgh
    • Crime Scene Investigation - University of Pittsburgh and various law enforcement agencies
    • Property Crimes - University of Pittsburgh
    • Organized Crime; Asian and African American - University of Pittsburgh
    • Organized Crime; Russia - University of Pittsburgh
    • Community Consideration of Policing Immigrant Populations - University of Pittsburgh
    • Probation and Parole - St. Vincent College
    • Crime Prevention and Property Crimes - St. Vincent College
    • Introduction to Criminology - Beaver County Community College
    • "Close Judicial Scrutiny of Qualified Immunity And Municipal Liability In An Excess Use-Of-Force Death Case," Defense Digest, Vol. 10, No. 4, December 2012
    • "Palsfraf Revisited - Brisbine v. Outside Inn School of Experiential Education," Defense Digest, Vol. 8, No. 3, September 2002 and Lawyer's Journal, Vol. 5 No. 3, February 7, 2003
    • Selected as lead defense counsel for all litigation arising out of the Group of 20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors’ Conference (G20), which occurred in Pittsburgh on September 24 and 25, 2009. In this capacity, Paul represented literally hundreds of police officers from police departments in Pittsburgh and numerous other cities throughout the United States in this litigation. Cases filed include numerous First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims.
    • Successfully defended a case in which two police officers Tasered a suicidal man a total of seven times before he could be disarmed. Summary judgment was granted as to the entire case.
    • Successfully defended two separate death cases brought under the State Created Danger Theory. In one case, brought in state court, the decedent left the scene of a minor traffic accident and, upon arriving home, committed suicide. In the other, filed in federal court, a police officer stopped a suspect leaving the scene of a domestic incident. Twenty minutes after leaving the scene of the traffic stop, the suspect died in a one-car accident. His blood alcohol level was three times the legal limit. Both suits were dismissed by way of summary judgment.
    • A jury returned a defense verdict in a case in which a corrections officer was accused of using excessive force to break up a fight between inmates.
    • A jury returned a defense verdict in a case in which a logger was accused of unlawful timbering practices.
    • Successful defense of a mandamus action against a sewer authority in which the authority was accused of imposing arbitrary standards for sewer hook-up in a case that had the potential of effecting 28,000 customers.
    • A jury returned a defense verdict in a case in which a dog track was accused of negligence in the deaths of racing dogs and in which the dog owners were permitted to present damages in the amount of $3.6 million.
    • A jury returned a defense verdict in a case in which a police officer was involved in a police pursuit which ended with the death of the individual being pursued and where the plaintiff, an innocent third party, suffered the loss of a leg and catastrophic brain injuries. This was the second defense verdict in this case, the first verdict rendered at the close of a summary jury trial.
    • A district court judge granted the defendants' motion to dismiss at the close of plaintiff's case in a matter in which a police officer accidentally shot and killed the plaintiff's decedent. The appeal of the dismissal was upheld by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in which the court focused on whether a prima facie case existed against the municipality for failing to require its officers to carry less than lethal weapons.
    • Tonya L. Carswell, et ux. v. Borough of Homestead, et al, 381 F.3d 235 (3rd. Cir. 2004)
    • Certified I.A.I. Crime Scene Analyst
    • Florida State Certified Police Field Training Officer

Firm Highlights

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

Marshall Dennehey is proud to highlight the firm’s 106 attorneys who have been recognized in the 2027 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, four of the firm’s attorneys received the Best Lawyers® 2027 “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 2027 LAWYERS OF THE YEAR Harrisburg, PA Christopher Reeser, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Kacey Wiedt, Workers Compensation Law - Employers Roseland, NJ Justin F. Johnson, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Leonard Leicht, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants   OUR 2026 BEST LAWYERS IN AMERICA Philadelphia, PA Nicholas D. Bowers, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Josh J. T. Byrne, Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants Jefferey J. Chomko, Insurance Law James H. Cole, Insurance Law John J. Delany III, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Laurianne Falcone, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants John P. Gonzales, Employment Law - Management John Hare, Appellate Practice Daniel D. Krebbs, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Michele Punturi, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Bradley D. Remick, Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Andrea Cicero Rock, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Robin M. Romano, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Daniel J. Ryan, Jr., Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Gary M. Samms, Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants Christopher N. Santoro, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation -Defendants Josh D. Scheets, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Robert P. Schenk, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Robert E. Smith, Insurance Law Robin Snyder, Litigation - Health Care Michael L. Turner, Commercial Litigation; Criminal Defense: White-Collar; Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants Claire Breaux Ventola, Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Pittsburgh, PA Melissa Devich Cochran, Commercial Litigation; Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants  John F. Deasy, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Daniel W. Deitrick, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Douglas C. LaSota, Litigation - Construction; Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants Joseph V. Lesinski, Product Liability Litigation – Defendants   Christian D. Marquis, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Patricia A. Monahan, Insurance Law; Litigation - Insurance Patrick T. Reilly, Commercial Litigation; Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Brett C. Shear, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Teresa O. Sirianni, Education Law; Employment Law – Management; Litigation - Labor and Employment Stuart Sostmann, Product Liability Litigation – Defendants Danielle M. Vugrinovich, Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants Scranton, PA Sarah E. Argo, Litigation - Insurance Michael J. Connolly, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants; Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants Matthew Keris, Litigation - Health Care; Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants John T. McGrath, Jr., Insurance Law; Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants William J. McPartland, Insurance Law John R. Nealon, Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Victoria Scanlon, Health Care Law; Litigation - Health Care; Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Michael A. Sebastian, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Thomas A. Specht, Insurance Law; Litigation - Insurance Suzanne Tighe, Litigation Insurance Harrisburg , PA Casey Alan Coyle, Administrative/Regulatory Law; Appellate Practice; Commercial Litigation Brittany E. Bakshi, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Shannon P. Fellin, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Allison Krupp, Insurance Law John R. Ninosky, Litigation – Insurance; Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Christopher Reeser, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Kacey Wiedt, Workers' Compensation Law – Employers King of Prussia, PA  Michael L. Detweiler, Construction Law Joseph L. Hoynoski III, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Gregory J. Kelley, Construction Law, Litigation - Construction Anthony Natale III, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Francis X. Wickersham, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers A. Judd Woytek, Workers' Compensation Law – Employers Erie, PA Patrick M. Carey, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Joel M. Snavely, Health Care Law; Insurance Law New Haven, CT Michael Wrona, Commercial Litigation, Litigation - Bankruptcy  Mount Laurel, NJ David D. Blake, Litigation - Insurance Barbara Davis, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Lynne Nahmani, Litigation - Health Care John H. Osorio, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants John L. Slimm, Legal Malpractice Law – Defendants; Professional Malpractice Law – Defendants Roseland, NJ Robert T. Evers, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Justin F. Johnson, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Julia Klubenspies, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Leonard C. Leicht, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Patricia M. McDonagh, Appellate Practice Sunny Sparano, Litigation - Construction Randall S. Watts, Health Care Law New York, NY Tonya M. Lindsey, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Tampa, FL Michael Archibald, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Lindsay G. McCormick, Litigation – Construction Orlando, FL Thomas F. Brown, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Dante C. Rohr, Commercial Litigation Fort Lauderdale, FL Kimberly Kanoff Berman, Appellate Practice Patrick M. Delong, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants Jacksonville, FL  Heather Byrer Carbone, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Linda Wagner Farrell, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Elizabeth B. Ferguson, Litigation - Construction James P. Hanratty, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants Wilmington, DE Sarah B. Cole, Litigation - Insurance Benjamin K. Durstein, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Maria R. Granaudo, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants  Keri L. Morris-Johnston, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Cincinnati, OH Timothy B. Schenkel, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants David E. Williamson, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Cleveland, OH Vincent E. Cononico, Litigation – Insurance, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Jillian L. Dinehart, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants David J. Fagnilli, Insurance Law Jason P. Ferrante, Health Care Law, Litigation - Health Care Andrew H. Isakoff, Transportation Law Leslie M. Jenny, Litigation - Health Care; Medical Malpractice Law – Defendant OUR 2026 BEST LAWYERS: ONES TO WATCH Jacksonville, FL Sean J. Reeves, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Orlando, FL Carolin A. Pacheco, Insurance Law Mount Laurel Stacey Gorin, Insurance Law Melville, NY Kimberly Gitlin, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants Matthew A. Gray, Insurance Law; Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Philadelphia, PA Holli K. Archer, Health Care Law; Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants; Professional Malpractice Law Emily Pritchyk, Commercial Litigation; Product Liability Litigation – Defendants Pittsburgh, PA Taylor E. Kosko, Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Defendants; Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Alana Staniszewski, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Michael D. Winsko, Product Liability Litigation – Defendants; Transportation Law King of Prussia, PA Richard Lechette, Commercial Litigation; Insurance Law, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants

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

Pennsylvania Superior Court Reaffirms Liberal Pleading Standard in Medical Malpractice Actions

Legal Roundup: Pennsylvania The Pennsylvania Superior Court has reinforced a broader fact-pleading approach that may make it more difficult for health care 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, health care defendants should anticipate that challenges to claim sufficiency may be resolved in the later stages of litigation, including discovery and summary judgment.

Thought Leadership

The Ohio Supreme Court Extends Sham-Affidavit Rule to Contradictory Expert Reports

Legal Roundup: Ohio In its June 23, 2026, decision in Moore v. Mercy Medical Center, the Ohio Supreme Court upheld a trial court’s decision to strike an expert witness’s affidavit that contradicted the opinions expressed in the expert’s prior report. This case pertains to allegations of medical malpractice after plaintiff Cheri Moore gave birth to an infant in respiratory distress who required intubation. Moore alleged that a delay in ordering an emergency cesarean section resulted in the need for intubation, causing her child’s injuries. Specifically, Moore sued Dr. Meniru, who completed his first shift at 7:00 a.m. on May 28, 2015, and did not resume treating Moore until 7:00 a.m. on May 29, 2015. One of Moore’s expert witnesses authored a report stating that the doctors, including Dr. Meniru, deviated from the standard of care by not advocating for a cesarean section in the evening of May 28, 2015. Based on this report, Dr. Meniru moved for summary judgment, arguing that the alleged breach occurred during a period when he was not on duty. In response to the summary judgment motion, the plaintiff filed an affidavit from the same expert. Although the expert expressly incorporated his previous report into his affidavit, he also offered an additional opinion: that Dr. Meniru breached the standard of care by failing to begin a cesarean section within 30 minutes of receiving reports of fetal distress. Dr. Meniru filed a motion to strike the expert’s affidavit, arguing that it contradicted the opinions set forth in his prior report in violation of the sham-affidavit rule. The sham-affidavit rule applies to “a contradictory affidavit that indicates only that the affiant cannot maintain a consistent story, or is willing to offer a statement solely for the purpose of defeating summary judgment”. Moore, supra, at ¶ 19, citing Pettiford v. Aggarwal, 126 Ohio St.3d 413, 2010-Ohio-3237. The trial court granted both the motion to strike and the motion for summary judgment, and the Fifth District affirmed. The Ohio Supreme Court accepted two questions of law: (1) whether the sham-affidavit rule applies when the sworn testimony contradicts prior unsworn statements; and (2) whether an inconsistency within the affidavit goes to credibility or admissibility, justifying an order striking the affidavit. Previous rulings by the Ohio Supreme Court regarding the sham-affidavit rule have pertained to contradictions between an affidavit and sworn deposition testimony. See, e.g., Byrd v. Smith, 2006- Ohio-3455, 110 Ohio St.3d 24, 850 N.E.2d 47. However, here, the Court was asked to apply the same rule to contradictions between a sworn affidavit and an unsworn expert report. The Court held that, because Moore’s expert incorporated his prior report into his affidavit, he effectively adopted the report as part of his sworn testimony.