.

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

$1.09 Billion Products Liability Verdict Overturned

In this products liability crashworthiness case, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania reversed a Philadelphia jury verdict of $1.09 billion, the largest verdict ever overturned by a PA appellate court.  The court ordered a new trial based on deficient jury instructions, clarified important aspects of crashworthiness law, and confirmed that so-called standard jury instructions may be incompatible with Pennsylvania law. 

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

News

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

graphic announcing our 6 2027 Super Lawyers & Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2027 New Jersey Super Lawyers And Rising Stars

Result

Statutory Employer Immunity Upheld

In this construction accident case that resulted in a $5 million verdict, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania upheld the Statutory Employer Doctrine, which immunizes general contractors and other contractors on construction sites when certain elements are satisfied.

Result

$19 Million Medical Malpractice Verdict Overturned

In this medical malpractice case, the trial court vacated $10 million of a $19 million verdict in post-trial motions and the Superior Court of Pennsylvania vacated the remaining $9 million on appeal.

Thought Leadership

Commonwealth Court Reaffirms the Constitutionality of Act 111's IRE Provisions

In this case, the claimant sustained a work injury of January 6, 1994, which was acknowledged by Notice of Compensation Payable (NCP). After the claimant’s receipt of 104 weeks of temporary total disability benefits, the employer filed a Request for an Impairment Rating Examination (IRE). The IRE was performed in May 2023 and the IRE physician found that the claimant had a 5% whole person impairment, under the AMA Guides. The employer filed a Petition based on the IRE results, and the Petition was granted by the WCJ. During litigation, the claimant argued that the IRE provisions of Act 111 (Section 306(a.3) of the Act) were not applicable to her injury, since it predated June 24, 1996, the date Act 57 went into effect, and that the IRE provisions were unconstitutional. The Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ)) granted the Petition and the Board affirmed. On appeal to the Commonwealth Court, the claimant argued that Act 111 violated the nondelegation doctrine and that its retroactive application to the claimant’s injury was unconstitutional. The court rejected the arguments on the basis that they had already found the same arguments without merit in multiple, prior cases. The court also addressed an argument made by the claimant that Act 111 was procedurally defective under the Pennsylvania Constitution because it was only considered on two days in each House after having undergone amendments and reassignments. The court noted that the Pennsylvania Constitution requires every bill to be considered on three different days in each House. The claimant maintained that, according to the legislative history, the bill did not receive three separate days of consideration from each House when it was assigned a new bill number. The court pointed out, however, that the bill number, H.B. 1840 remained constant and was considered on three occasions by the House. Further, the court concluded that minor amendments to the bill were germane to its original subject, which was to modify the Act’s IRE process, in accordance with Protz II.

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

News

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

Event

CLM 2026 Focus Conference

Allison joins three insurance industry leaders to discuss how cyber coverage disputes, the growing impact of social inflation on bodily injury claim valuation, and the use of artificial intelligence are reshaping the bad faith landscape. The panel will examine emerging sources of extra-contractual exposure, including evolving cyber insurance coverage issues and the challenges of accurately valuing bodily injury claims. Practical approaches to claim evaluation using AI, along with defense strategies designed to help prevent or successfully defend against bad faith litigation, will also be addressed. 

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Reversed Trial Judge's Orders Granting a Plaintiff's Section 40 Summary Judgement Motion

In Haskins v. Casey, et al., the plaintiff Dane Haskins worked for defendant Ekornes, Inc. (Ekornes) as a material handler. In June 2021, he filed a workers’ compensation claim petition for benefits due to a left shoulder injury in December 2020. He then resolved his workers’ compensation claim in November 2022 under an Order Approving Settlement. In January 2023, he filed a lawsuit against Ekornes and later amended to add additional claims and name other defendants, including the Ekornes president, chief financial officer, and director of human resources. In May 2025, a second amended complaint alleged that after he filed the workers compensation claim, Ekornes placed him on leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), denied his request for a work accommodation, and ultimately terminated him from employment in December 2021. He pleaded several causes of action asserting violations of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) as well as fraudulent concealment and wrongful discharge. The plaintiff then moved for partial summary judgment, seeking an order enforcing Section 40 of the Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA) as well as summary judgment on his FMLA claims. The defendants opposed the motions and cross-moved for summary judgment on the FMLA claims. After arguments, the court entered an order in December 2025, denying the FMLA motion and cross motion and granting the plaintiff’s Section 40 motion. In the order, the court permitted the plaintiff to pursue compensatory damages at trial in connection with the bodily injury claim. The court also allowed the plaintiff to present evidence of any workers’ compensation benefits to support his claim. The court then denied the defendant's subsequent reconsideration motion in February 2026. The defendants that appealed the Section 40 aspect of the orders. In reviewing the appeal de novo, the Appellate Division rejected the plaintiff's argument that the work-related injury arose out of his discrimination claims under the LAD. The plaintiff argued that he should be able to pursue a personal injury claim as a part of his LAD claim, noting that the employer’s compensation carrier would be able to assert a lien against any recovery against his LAD claims. In distinguishing between the Richter vs. Oakland Board of Education, 246 N.J. 507 (2021) case, in which the Court found that any recovery would be subject to a Section 40 lien as the allegation was that the defendants failed to accommodate her pre-existing diabetic condition, which resulted in bodily injury. In this case, the Appellate Division indicated that there was no bodily injury caused by Ekornes’ failure to accommodate a pre-existing disability. Rather, the shoulder injury was a result of a workers compensation claim, for which he received appropriate benefits previously. The Appellate Division noted that if the plaintiff was successful in proving his LAD claims, he would be entitled to damages caused by the discriminatory discriminatory conduct such as lost wages and emotional distress damages and that there will be no Section 40 lien. In addition, the Appellate Division disagreed that the petitioner could present evidence about and seek damages for his shoulder injury at trial. Although the petitioner argued that a defendant who retaliated against an employee for filing a workers’ compensation claim should not benefit from the exclusivity provision of the WCA, the Appellate Division noted that the Legislature did not include this type of scenario in the statue nor did any of the case law recognize this type of claim as a remedy. As such, the Appellate Division reversed the December 2025 order granting the the plaintiff’s Section 40 summary judgment motion as well as the February 2026 reconsideration motion order. The Appellate Division noted that they did not intend to limit the plaintiff in his pursuit of his other claims on under the LAD, FMLA, and workers’ compensation retaliation causes of action.

Thought Leadership

WCJ Improperly Refused to Conduct C&R Hearing and Erroneously Required Settlement of All Pending Petitions

In this case, the claimant sustained injuries in the course and scope of her employment as a registered nurse. The employer acknowledged the injury by a Notice of Compensation Payable (NCP).  Subsequently, a Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) expanded the description of injury. The employer then filed a Termination Petition, alleging the claimant was fully recovered from the injuries. Providers filed Utilization Review (UR) Petitions, challenging UR determinations finding their chiropractic treatment to be not reasonable and necessary. A settlement of the claim was eventually reached, and the employer filed a Petition to Seek Approval of a Compromise and Release (C&R) Agreement. The C&R outlined that the agreement fully resolved all future workers’ compensation claims except for the termination and UR Petitions. Briefs were filed and one day later, the WCJ issued an Interlocutory Order which stated if instructions were not followed regarding filing of a C&R, a settlement hearing date would not be given. The employer complied with the order, and filed the C&R. Subsequently, the WCJ notified the parties that the C&R must resolve all issues in the petitions, or would not be entertained. A settlement hearing was never held, and the WCJ then issued a decision, granting the Termination Petition and dismissing the UR Petitions. The WCJ also said that the Petition for Approval of a C&R was dismissed without prejudice, as the issues in the Termination and UR Petitions went to a decision. The claimant appealed to the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Board). The Board granted the claimant’s appeal, finding that the WCJ violated the requirement of Section 449 that an expedited hearing be held when a Petition for Approval of a C&R is filed.  The Board further held that it was legally incorrect for the WCJ to insist that the C&R resolve all issues raised by the pending Petitions. The Board remanded the case to a new WCJ, and Employer appealed to the Commonwealth Court. The court affirmed the Board and held that the WCJ erred, as a matter of law, by refusing to hold an expedited hearing within 30 days, once the Petition for Approval of a C&R was filed.  The court noted that the language of Section 449(b) is mandatory, and a settlement hearing is not discretionary or dependent on a party’s separate request for a stay, or whether the record has been closed. The court further rejected Employer’s argument that the case should not be remanded to a new WCJ for a new decision on the termination and and UR Petitions, as the Board passed no judgment on whether the C&R Agreement resolved the termination and UR Petitions, and left it for the WCJ to decide in connection with the Petition for Approval of a C&R.