.

121 Marshall Dennehey Attorneys Recognized in the 2024 Editions of The Best Lawyers in America® and the Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America

August 17, 2023

Marshall Dennehey is proud to highlight the firm’s 121 attorneys who have been recognized in the 2024 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, five of the firm’s attorneys received the Best Lawyers® 2024 “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 2024 LAWYERS OF THE YEAR

Pittsburgh: Daniel Deitrick, Workers’ Compensation Law - Employers
Pittsburgh: Dennis J. Roman, Legal Malpractice Law - Defendants
Harrisburg: John Ninosky, Litigation - Insurance
Harrisburg: Shannon Fellin, Workers’ Compensation Law  - Employers
Newark: Robert Evers, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants

Our 2024 BEST LAWYERS IN AMERICA

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

Erie, PA
•    Patrick Carey, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants
•    Thomas Lent, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants

Harrisburg, PA
•    Brigid Alford, Insurance Law; Litigation - Insurance
•    Shannon Fellin, Workers’ Compensation Law - Employers
•    Brooks Foland, Insurance Law; Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants
•    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 

Jacksonville, FL
•    Michael DeCandio, Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants; Commercial Litigation; Construction Law; Litigation - Construction
•    Elizabeth Ferguson, Litigation - Construction
•    James Hanratty, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants

King of Prussia, PA
•    Gregory Kelley, Litigation - Construction
•    Mark Riley, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
•    Robin Snyder, Litigation - Health Care
•    Frank Wickersham, Workers’ Compensation Law - Employers 

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

Orlando, FL
•    Bradley Blystone, Insurance Law; Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants
•    Thomas Brown, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
•    Peggy Bush, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
•    Janice Merrill, Litigation - Health Care 

Philadelphia, PA
•    Joanna Buchanico, Insurance Law
•    Josh J.T. Byrne, Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants
•    James Cole, Insurance Law
•    John Gonzales, Employment Law - Management
•    John Hare, Appellate Practice
•    Daniel Krebbs, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants 
•    J. Bruce McKissock, Commercial Litigation; 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 
•    Thomas Wagner, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants

Pittsburgh, PA
•    Thomas Birris, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
•    Melissa Devich Cochran, Commercial Litigation; Mass Tort Litigation/Class Actions - Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants
•    Daniel Deitrick, 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
•    Ronald Puntil, Jr., Litigation - Health Care; Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants
•    Patrick Reilly, Commercial Litigation; Mass Tort/Class Action - Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants
•    Dennis Roman, Legal Malpractice Law – Defendants
•    Teresa Sirianni, Litigation - Labor and Employment
•    Stu Sostmann, Product Liability Litigation - Defendants
•    Anthony Williott, Litigation - Health Care; Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants

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

Scranton, PA
•    Sarah Argo, Litigation - Insurance
•    Leo Bohanski, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants
•    Ross Carrozza, Workers’ Compensation Law - Employers
•    Michael Connolly, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
•    Matthew Keris, 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
•    Benjamin Nicolosi Jr., Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants 
•    Victoria Scanlon, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants
•    Michael Sebastian, Workers’ Compensation Law - Employers
•    Thomas Specht, Insurance Law; Litigation - Insurance  

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 

Westchester County, NY
•    Ephraim Fink, Insurance Law

Wilmington, DE
•    Tracy Burleigh, Product Liability Litigation - Defendants
•    Sarah Cole, Litigation - Insurance 
•    Bradley Goewert, Product Liability Litigation - Defendants
•    Keri Morris-Johnston, Workers’ Compensation Law - Employers

Our 2024 BEST LAWYERS: ONES TO WATCH

Cleveland, OH
•    Jillian Dinehart, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants

Fort Lauderdale, FL
•    Holly Hamilton, Financial Services Regulation Law

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

Jacksonville, FL
•    Kathleen Carlson, Insurance Law
•    Sean Reeves, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants 
•    Kelly Scifres, Workers’ Compensation Law - Employers
•    Corey Setterlund, Insurance Law

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

Mount Laurel, NJ
•    Christopher DiCicco, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants; Transportation Law
•    Jeremy Zacharias, Commercial Litigation

New York, NY
•    Danielle Corbisiero, Insurance Law; Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
•    Elizabeth Driscoll, Insurance Law
•    Brian Ramkissoon, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
•    Andrew Thebaud, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants 

Orlando, FL
•    Nicholas Ferreiro, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
•    Carolin Pacheco, Insurance Law

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
•    Andrew Goldstein, Insurance Law; Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
•    Tyson Mott, 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 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

Roseland, NJ 
•    Paul Lanza, Product Liability Litigation - Defendants; Transportation Law
•    Josie Scanlan, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants

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

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

Wilmington, DE
•    Benjamin Durstein, Workers’ Compensation Law

Firm Highlights

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.

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

graphic with Maria Granaudo photo text announces she has joined the firm as a shareholder in the Health Care Dept.

News

Maria R. Granaudo Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Wilmington Office As a Shareholder in the Health Care Department

News

John J. Hare Featured in Pennsylvania & Delaware Super Lawyers Magazine

News

Christina Gonzales To Speak at the Women of Color Roundtable at DRI’s Diversity and Inclusion Seminar

Event

29th Annual FDLA Florida Liability Claims Conference

Jim and Erica will team up to present, "Supporting the Next Generation: Connecting with Associates." This panel-style presentation will explore communication best practices from the perspective of a senior shareholder and newer associate. The discussion will focus on the communication styles of different generations and effective strategies to avoid communication breakdowns. Topics to be discussed include the hiring process, perceptions of defense work among newer lawyers, work-life balance issues after hiring, and mentoring.

Thought Leadership

Marijuana Legalization and Workplace Risk: What New Jersey Employers Need to Know

While the legalization of recreational marijuana usage poses a risk of increased work-related accidents for younger workers, employers can work to curb this increase by investing in education, effective drug policies, and employee assistance programs.

Thought Leadership

PA Middle District Dismisses Claims Against School District and its Superintendent, Principal, Special Education Director, and Classroom Teacher

A five-year-old special education student was enrolled in the Wyoming Valley West School District and attended the State Street Elementary School during the 2024-2025 school year. The student refused to clean up classroom toys at dismissal. When his teacher allegedly grabbed him by the wrist to walk him back to his seat, the student dropped to the floor and began crying. The teacher then allegedly grabbed the student by the ankle and dragged him across the floor. Following an investigation, criminal charges were not advanced by the county DA, and the school permitted the teacher to return to the classroom. The student’s parents sued, lodging thirteen legal counts under both state and federal law, which sought monetary damages from the teacher, the school district, the superintendent, the principal, and the director of special education. The plaintiff’s 42 USC 1983 claims were dismissed as to the school district for failure to allege a policy or custom violation, and the failure to alleged deliberate indifference in the failure-to-train context. As to the superintendent, building principal, and special education director, the Section 1983 claims were also dismissed for failure to allege personal involvement on the part of the individuals. Regarding an equal protection claim asserted against all defendants, the motion to dismiss was also granted for a failure to advance a plausible equal protection claim, holding that “plaintiffs' single-act allegations do not include a factual basis to even infer that the act was motivated by discriminatory animus rather than some other non-discriminatory impulse.” The court further dismissed the plaintiff’s negligence-based claims including negligence against the teacher and district administrators, NIED, and vicarious liability under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act (PSTCA). The federal claims under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA were also dismissed in various respects. The IDEA claim was dismissed against all defendants with prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Section 504 claims against the individual defendants were also dismissed with prejudice, as districts, not individuals, are the recipients of federal funds under Section 504. However, the Section 504 and ADA claims were dismissed without prejudice as to defendant Wyoming Valley West, and the plaintiff was permitted leave to amend.

Thought Leadership

U.S. Supreme Court Decides Key Issue Regarding Interstate Freight Broker Liability

Freight brokers are intermediaries.  They connect shippers of goods with trucking companies that transport those goods.  Freight brokers match a load of freight with a trucking company and oversee the logistics of the transportation. For a number of years there has been a division among the Federal Circuits regarding the potential liability of freight brokers when the trucking companies that they retain for interstate loads are involved in accidents.  At the center of this division was the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (FAAAA).  Some Federal Circuit Courts have held that state law negligent hiring claims against freight brokers were preempted by the FAAAA .  Other Federal Circuits Courts have held that even if preemption applied, the “safety exception” in the FAAAA saved state law negligent hiring claims from federal preemption.  On May 14, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the conflict in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, et al, No24-1238. In that case freight broker C.H. Robinson selected Caribe Transport to haul an interstate load. The commercial truck driver employed by Caribe Transport allegedly caused an accident and the plaintiff, Montgomery, was seriously injured. Montgomery brought an action against the driver, Caribe Transport and C.H. Robinson. The allegation against C.H. Robinson was that it negligently retained Caribe Transport when it knew, or should have known, that it was an unsafe company. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that Montgomery’s claims against C.H. Robinson were preempted by the FAAAA. The plaintiff appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.  The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision focused primarily on the safety exception in the FAAAA.  That provision provides that the FAAAA preemption “…shall not restrict the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles.” C.H. Robinson argued, as freight brokers historically have, that their function was not “with respect to motor vehicles” because they do not own trucks or employ drivers. They are merely intermediaries, connecting entities who need freight moved with entities who can do that job. Therefore, C.H. Robinson argued that preemption applied, not the safety exception. The U.S. Supreme Court did not accept that argument. The Court focused on the meaning of the phrase “with respect to” in the safety exception. The Court held that it means “referring to”, “concerning” or “regarding”. Therefore, writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Barrett concluded that “[r]equiring C.H. Robinson to exercise ordinary care in selecting a carrier therefore “concerns” motor vehicles—most obviously, the trucks that will transport the goods. So, Montgomery’s negligent-hiring claim falls within the FAAAA’s safety exception, which saves it from preemption.” Justice Kavanaugh, in his concurring opinion, noted the effect this ruling may have on freight brokers and their insurers throughout the country: Importantly, the Court's decision today should not be read to mean that brokers will routinely be subject to state tort liability in the wake of truck accidents. As even plaintiff's counsel stressed, brokers should be able to successfully defend against state tort suits if the brokers have acted reasonably and arranged transportation with reputable trucking companies. Tr. of Oral Arg. 27-29. In plaintiff's counsel's words, the brokers "just have to hire carriers that actually have a reasonable policy," and "the broker is not going to have a problem if it's asking the hard questions of the carrier." Id., at 42, 45. In addition, the proximate-cause requirement in typical state tort law should help protect brokers from excessive liability. Id., at 25. That said, the brokers rightly caution against naivete. In the real world, as the brokers forcefully respond, state tort law can be unpredictable, and the costs to brokers of litigation and insurance may be significant even when brokers prevail in lawsuits. Moreover, the costs of litigation and insurance, as well as the costs of brokers' conducting more substantial inquiries into trucking companies, will cascade through the economy and be paid in part by American consumers in the form of higher prices. The concerns expressed by the brokers are legitimate and weighty. The key point here is that freight brokers can no longer claim they are protected from negligent retention claims by the FAAAA (in cases involving interstate transportation). The challenge will be to determine what is considered ”reasonable efforts” used by brokers when retaining transportation companies. 

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.