.

Ralph P. Bocchino

Chair, Social Services & Human Services Liability Practice

RPBocchino@mdwcg.com

Portrait of Ralph P. Bocchino

A member of the firm since 1980, Ralph P. Bocchino is a senior shareholder and the chair of Casualty Group I in Philadelphia. In this role he oversees the workflow and administration of files for 15 attorneys and support staff.

Ralph has litigated a plethora of civil defense matters in the areas of product liability, premises liability, construction law and defect litigation, and motor vehicle liability including truck and bus accidents. Ralph was formerly the chair of the firm's Amusement, Sports & Entertainment Litigation Practice and, as such, represents amusement parks and entertainment venues.

In addition to his many achievements in the Casualty Department, Ralph has also litigated defamation and legal malpractice cases. He has represented universities, special needs schools, and institutions in claims alleging sexual, physical, and emotional abuse on behalf of the Elwyn Institute and a number of 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations, individual schools and entities in all types of liability, including but not limited to child molestation and abuse. He has also counseled nursing homes in elopement and sepsis cases.

When Ralph started at the firm, he was assigned to handle asbestos matters. At the time, the firm represented Johns Mansville Corporation, the largest producer of asbestos, and Ralph was the youngest attorney in the nation to successfully defend the company. His work earned him the "Order of the Salamander Award" for litigation excellence from Johns Mansville. (Coger v. Johns Mansville Corporation, et al.)

Ralph frequently lectures for the Pennsylvania Bar Institute and the Young Lawyers Association of Philadelphia on current civil procedure and legal issues. Ralph has also lectured at LaSalle University where he taught Real Estate, Business Law and Corporation courses. He has been recognized as a Pennsylvania Super Lawyer consecutively since 2006 and holds an AV® Preeminent™ by Martindale-Hubbell rating for more than 25 years.

If Ralph is not in the office or in a courtroom, he can be found coaching various youth sports teams. Ralph is a licensed soccer coach and licensed referee. He has been coaching soccer for more than 25 years. He is the President of the Hunter Soccer Club, a non-profit youth organization in Glenside, Pennsylvania. Ralph and all of the volunteers at Hunter were honored by the Abington Community Task Force for Hunter's service to youth since 1962. Ralph was elected to the Bishop McDevitt High School "Hall of Fame" for more than 30 years of coaching, refereeing and umpiring youth sports in the community.

    • Temple University Beasley School of Law (J.D., 1979)
    • La Salle University (B.A., 1976)
    • Pennsylvania, 1979
    • U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 1979
    • U.S. Court of Appeals 3rd Circuit, 1981
    • Supreme Court of the United States, 1984
    • AV® Preeminent™ by Martindale-Hubbell®
    • Pennsylvania Super Lawyer (2006-2022)
    • Honored Member of Who's Who in Practicing Attorneys (1990)
    • "Order of the Salamander Award," 1990
    • American Bar Association
    • Justinian Society
    • Lawyers Club of Philadelphia
    • Pennsylvania Bar Association
    • Pennsylvania Defense Institute
    • Philadelphia Bar Association
    • Obtained summary judgment in a premises liability slip and fall case after their initial Rule 1036 motion had been denied. The plaintiff alleged that a metal protrusion from our clients’ property created a dangerous condition on a Philadelphia street. We first moved to dismiss on April 24, 2025, arguing that our clients had no affiliation with the property, but the court denied the motion as outside the scope of Pa.R.C.P. 1036. After efforts to secure a stipulation of dismissal were unsuccessful, we filed a second motion on December 10, 2025, asserting prejudice following the close of discovery. The Court ultimately granted the motion, resulting in summary judgment for our clients.
    • Successfully secured reconsideration following the denial of summary judgment motion in a construction accident case. The plaintiff, represented by a prominent personal injury firm, demanded $35 million. Though the court initially denied summary judgment, the team argued for reconsideration following the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Yoder. Two weeks before jury selection, the Court of Common Pleas granted our motion—an outcome that is highly uncommon in Philadelphia—providing a decisive victory for our clients.
    • Defense verdict for manufacturer of concrete mixers in a suit claiming defective design in a truck roll-over matter.
    • Defense verdict for a garbage truck manufacturer for alleged defective design and failure to warn a truck driver who fell from the truck and required multiple surgeries.
    • Represented a personal care home in an elopement case where a resident left the premises and was found three weeks later drowned in the Delaware River. The court granted a compulsory non-suit based on the law of Pennsylvania and personal care homes.
    • Defense verdict on behalf of a manufacturer of a saw when a worker inadvertently sawed off part of his arm in a work-related accident.
    • Was the first attorney in Philadelphia to have an Azzarello hearing granted in a product liability case. A hearing was conducted before trial and then after the motion was granted, trial was commenced with product liability removed from the case, and a defense verdict was rendered thereafter by the empanelled jury. [Azzarello deals with having a court decide if a product is defective before trial, as a matter of law and fact.]
    • Received a defense verdict representing a 'mom and pop' hair salon when one of the customers claimed that they had a severe fall down the salon steps and required a hip replacement and knee replacement surgery.
    • Defense verdict received in representing an amusement park where a teenager drowned.
    • Defense verdict in a ski death case in upstate Pennsylvania.
    • Defense verdict in an asbestos case representing Johns Mansville Corporation, the largest manufacturer of asbestos products in the world in Philadelphia County, in 1980.
    • Defense verdict for an amusement park where a young child had severe lacerations and fractures from being injured in a sliding board accident.
    • Defense verdict in a gymnastics accident involving allegations of torn hamstrings, ruptured piriformus muscle and low back surgery following alleged improper stretching and warm-up exercises by a gymnastics instructor and coach.
    • Argued before the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in an elevator accident case trying to maintain a Rule 50(A) Motion, which was granted at trial by the trial court, involving multiple back surgeries following an elevator accident.
    • Two defense verdicts in fraud matters involving staged automobile accidents.
    • Hills and Ridges Doctrine and discussion of Collins v. Philadelphia Suburban Development Co., Client Seminar, May 2018
    • Lights, Camera, Evidence!, Pennsylvania Bar Institute (PBI), Philadelphia PA, December 5, 2017
    • Accident Prevention and Investigation: Strategies for Risk Mitigation, Client Presentation, April 2017
    • Risk Shifting and Indemnity and Additional Insured Status, Ohio Casualty, April 2013
    • Nuances of the Political Subdivision Torts Claims Act, Ohio Casualty, April 2013
    • Dram Shop Liquor Liability, Markel Insurance Co. and Markel International Insurance, August 2011
    • The New Fair Share Act, Markel Insurance Co. and Markel International Insurance, August 2011
    • Comparative Negligence Act of Pennsylvania; Alternatives in Discovery; Jury Verdicts and Jury Issues in Philadelphia and Outlying Counties, Ohio Casualty, April 2010
    • Potpourri, "The Black Box," discuss varying topics including computer chips and information, equipment in various vehicles, automobiles, and trucks (2005/2007).
    • Discovery, Rules of Civil Procedure and Bad Faith in Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Bar Institute
    • Releases and Uniform Contribution Among Joint Tortfeasors Act, LaSalle Alumni Law Luncheon
    • Discovery Techniques and Trial Techniques, Young Lawyers Association of Philadelphia
    • Risk Shifting and Indemnity and Additional Insured Status, Ohio Casualty, April 2013
    • “MAP-21 and the Role of Black-Box Recorders in Discovery,”  The Legal Intelligencer, June 5, 2012
    • "When Pucks and Foul Balls Fly No Duty Rule of Pennsylvania," Pennsylvania Law Weekly, 2002
    • "Punitive Damages and Deceased Defendants," Pennsylvania Law Weekly, March 8, 1999 and, Defense Digest, Vol 4, No. 6, 1998
    • "The Blizzard's Backlash: A Symposium on Issues Confronting Pennsylvania and New Jersey Property Owners," Co-Author, Defense Digest, March, 1996
    • "Challenges to Venue Produce Positive Result," Defense Digest, Fall, 1992
    • Obtained summary judgment in a premises liability slip and fall case after their initial Rule 1036 motion had been denied. The plaintiff alleged that a metal protrusion from our clients’ property created a dangerous condition on a Philadelphia street. We first moved to dismiss on April 24, 2025, arguing that our clients had no affiliation with the property, but the court denied the motion as outside the scope of Pa.R.C.P. 1036. After efforts to secure a stipulation of dismissal were unsuccessful, we filed a second motion on December 10, 2025, asserting prejudice following the close of discovery. The Court ultimately granted the motion, resulting in summary judgment for our clients.
    • Successfully secured reconsideration following the denial of summary judgment motion in a construction accident case. The plaintiff, represented by a prominent personal injury firm, demanded $35 million. Though the court initially denied summary judgment, the team argued for reconsideration following the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Yoder. Two weeks before jury selection, the Court of Common Pleas granted our motion—an outcome that is highly uncommon in Philadelphia—providing a decisive victory for our clients.
    • Defense verdict for manufacturer of concrete mixers in a suit claiming defective design in a truck roll-over matter.
    • Defense verdict for a garbage truck manufacturer for alleged defective design and failure to warn a truck driver who fell from the truck and required multiple surgeries.
    • Represented a personal care home in an elopement case where a resident left the premises and was found three weeks later drowned in the Delaware River. The court granted a compulsory non-suit based on the law of Pennsylvania and personal care homes.
    • Defense verdict on behalf of a manufacturer of a saw when a worker inadvertently sawed off part of his arm in a work-related accident.
    • Was the first attorney in Philadelphia to have an Azzarello hearing granted in a product liability case. A hearing was conducted before trial and then after the motion was granted, trial was commenced with product liability removed from the case, and a defense verdict was rendered thereafter by the empanelled jury. [Azzarello deals with having a court decide if a product is defective before trial, as a matter of law and fact.]
    • Received a defense verdict representing a 'mom and pop' hair salon when one of the customers claimed that they had a severe fall down the salon steps and required a hip replacement and knee replacement surgery.
    • Defense verdict received in representing an amusement park where a teenager drowned.
    • Defense verdict in a ski death case in upstate Pennsylvania.
    • Defense verdict in an asbestos case representing Johns Mansville Corporation, the largest manufacturer of asbestos products in the world in Philadelphia County, in 1980.
    • Defense verdict for an amusement park where a young child had severe lacerations and fractures from being injured in a sliding board accident.
    • Defense verdict in a gymnastics accident involving allegations of torn hamstrings, ruptured piriformus muscle and low back surgery following alleged improper stretching and warm-up exercises by a gymnastics instructor and coach.
    • Argued before the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in an elevator accident case trying to maintain a Rule 50(A) Motion, which was granted at trial by the trial court, involving multiple back surgeries following an elevator accident.
    • Two defense verdicts in fraud matters involving staged automobile accidents.
    • OSHA 10-Hour Construction Certification

Results

View all

Dismissal Secured in Food Poisoning and Hepatitis A Case

We successfully obtained dismissal of their client in a death-from-food-poisoning and hepatitis A case. The plaintiff, Joyce Neeld, executrix of the Estate of Alfred Neeld, alleged that Mr. Neeld passed away due to an outbreak of hepatitis A in southeast Pennsylvania, which was widely covered by the news at the time. The plaintiff, who claimed that Mr. Neeld passed away after eating at Gino’s Pizzeria and Ristorante, was seeking several million dollars from every food provider that served the restaurant, including our client. Fortunately, the plaintiff stipulated to our dismissal.

Summary Judgment Granted in Major Jury Case Involving Serious Injuries

We successfully argued a motion for summary judgment on a major jury case where we represented a tenant shop owner. The plaintiff opposed our motion, alleging, inter alia, serious injuries to a shoulder and surgery. There were many moving pieces in this case, including indemnity issues, an alleged triple net lease and joinder after the statute of limitations. The plaintiff tripped and fell on a sidewalk that was under repair outside of our client’s store. We were joined by the original defendant, the landlord. We argued the plaintiff had no direct cause of action against us as we were joined after the statute of limitations; there was no evidence of record of our involvement as plaintiff did not visit our store; we were not responsible for the sidewalk repair; and the original defendant landlord was responsible for the sidewalk in question as the lease was ambiguous as to who was responsible for external repairs.   

Firm Highlights

Event

Florida Insurance Fraud Education Committee (FIFEC)

Sean and Alex will present, "Life Care Plans: From Low Impact to Policy Limits," focusing on the history and expanding use of life care plans in litigation and their ability to transform low impact injury claims to disproportionate high value claims. By focusing on the limitations of life care planners, Florida's tort-reform on medical damages, and the Daubert standard, extraordinary life care plans with inflated future medical care recommendations can be defended.

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.

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.

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.

Congratulations to our 2026 Florida Super Lawyers & Rising Stars: Elizabeth Ferguson, A.C. Nash, Taylor Naughton, Sophia Philor, Amara Rodriguez

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Florida Super Lawyers & Florida Rising Stars

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.

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.