.

Samuel E. Cohen

Chair, Securities and Investments Professional Liability Practice Group

SECohen@mdwcg.com

Portrait of Samuel E. Cohen

As Chair of the Securities & Investments Professional Liability Practice Group, Sam represents broker-dealers, registered representatives and registered investment advisors in state and federal court and in Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) arbitration proceedings. Sam also represents broker-dealers, registered representatives and registered investment advisors before state and federal regulatory authorities as well as in FINRA investigations, examinations, inquiries and enforcement matters. As well, Sam represents registered representatives in FINRA expungement proceedings. Sam's practice also includes the defense of life insurance agents and brokers, real estate agents and title agents.

From 1996 through 1997, Sam served as a law clerk to the Honorable G. Craig Lord in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. Sam graduated from Temple University in 1993 where he received a Bachelor of Business Administration and subsequently his juris doctor in 1996 from Temple University School of Law. At Temple Law School, Sam served as the vice president of his graduating class.

In 2019 Sam was appointed to serve on the Special Olympics PA-Philadelphia Executive Advisory Board. The Executive Advisory Board assists Special Olympics PA-Philadelphia by opening doors to key community and corporate contacts, raising funding for the program, providing high-level support of its strategic objectives and in general, advocating on behalf of its athletes and mission.

    • Temple University Beasley School of Law (J.D., 1996)
    • Temple University (B.B.A., 1993)
    • New Jersey, 1996
    • Pennsylvania, 1996
    • AV® Preeminent™ by Martindale-Hubbell®
    • Pennsylvania Super Lawyers Rising Star (2005-2008)
    • Pennsylvania Bar Association
    • Philadelphia Bar Association
    • Special Olympics Pennsylvania, Philadelphia Executive Advisory Board, 2019-Present
    • Best Interest Reviews: Decoding FINRA Rule 2330 (Variable Annuities), Financial Services Institute OneVoice Conference, January 28, 2025 
    • Outside Business Activities: Overview and Best Practices for Broker-Dealers, 7th Annual CNA Life Agent and Broker-Dealer Conference, October 5, 2023
    • Educational and Technology Tools that May Save You in the Long Run if You Are Named in an Arbitration/Lawsuit, IBDC (Independent Broker Dealer Consortium) Annual Risk Management Conference, May 8, 2023
    • Hiring with Caution: How One Bad Apple Can Spoil Your Business, Alternative & Direct Investment Securities Association (ADISA) Annual Conference and Trade Show, October 11, 2022
    • Claims Involving Life Insurance Impacting Life Agents and Broker-Dealers, Independent Broker Dealer Consortium (IBDC) Annual Conference, September 2021
    • Current Issues Facing Broker-Dealers, Registered Investment Advisors and Their E&O Carriers, Client seminar, June 22, 2021
    • Reconciling SEC and FINRA Examinations in Complex Products and Business Practices. Independent Broker Dealer Consortium 10th Annual Risk Management Conference in Amelia Island, Florida, October 2018.
    • Department of Labor Fiduciary Rule, Delaware County Estate Planning Council, September 2017
    • Reducing Regulatory Exposure: Properly Preparing for FINRA and SEC Regulatory Examination, Independent Broker-Dealer Consortium Annual Conference, September 2017
    • Protecting Seniors, A Priority for FINRA, State and Federal Legislators, and Arbitration Panels, 2016 Cadaret, Grant Advisor Forum, October 21, 2016
    • Legislative Update on Issues of Concern to Financial Advisors and Independent Broker Dealers, Financial Services Institute, April 2010
    • "DOL's Retirement Security Rule Imposes New Fiduciary Standards on Financial Services, Insurance Industries,"The Legal Intelligencer, May 10, 2024
    • "FINRA Proposal Creates Urgency for Brokers Seeking Expungement of Customer Complaints,"The Legal Intelligencer, May 4, 2023
    • "FINRA, the SEC and Congress Aim to Safeguard Senior Investors,"The Legal Intelligencer, May 12, 2022
    • "FINRA Proposes Rule to Streamline Broker/Dealers’ Oversight of Outside Business Activities", Aon Advisor Solutions, Summer 2018 Newsletter 
    • “Protecting Seniors: A Priority for FINRA, Federal and State Legislators, and Arbitration Panels,” Defense Digest, Vol. 22, No. 3, September 2016
    • "Protecting Seniors: A Priority for FINRA, Federal and State Legislators, and Arbitration Panels," Financial Services Institute newsletter, July 2016
    • Legal Updates for Securities, regular contributor, 2015-present
    • "Bum Rap? Wrap Fee Programs Under Scrutiny," Westlaw Journal: Securities Regulation & Litigation, October 2014
    • Case Law Alerts, regular contributor, 2012-present
    • "FINRA Requests Comment On Brokercheck Enhancements," Defense Digest, Vol. 18, No. 2, June 2012
    • "Covenants Not To Compete: Why You May Not Be Able To Work For Your Employer's Competitors," co-author, AgentsofAmerica.org, January 13, 2009
    • "FINRA Moves to Limit Dispositive Motions In Arbitration," PLUS Journal, Volume XXI, Number 1, January 2008
    • "NASD Approves Merger With The New York Stock Exchange," Defense Digest, Vol. 13, No. 2, June 2007
    • "Injured Plaintiff Has No Direct Action Against Tortfeasor's Insurer for Bad Faith," Pittsburgh Legal Journal
    • "Customer Account Statements Must Include Reminder To Customers To Report Inaccuracies In Their Accounts In Writing," Defense Digest, Vol. 13, No. 2, June 2007
    • "529 Plans: Tax Free Withdrawals Now Permanent, But Regulatory Concerns Remain," Defense Digest, Vol. 13, No. 1, March 2007
    • "U.S. Supreme Court Continues Its Strong Support Of Arbitration," Defense Digest, Vol. 12, No. 2, June 2006
    • "Agreements To Arbitrate Upheld By Pennsylvania State And Eastern District Court Despite Alleged Confidential Relationship Between Plaintiff Investors And Defendant Stockbrokers," Defense Digest, Vol. 11, No. 3, September 2005
    • "Judge Reversed On Order Compelling Court Action To Arbitration," Defense Digest, Vol. 10, No. 1, March 2004
    • "NASD Reminds Firm Of Their Discovery Obligations," Defense Digest, Vol. 10, No. 1, March 2004
    • "NASD Members Are Warned To Give Investors Their Required Breaks," PLUS Journal, September 2003, Vol. XVI, No. 9 and Defense Digest, Vol. 9, No. 2, June 2003
    • "Injured Plaintiff Has No Direct Action Against Tortfeasor's Insurer For 'Bad Faith'," Pittsburgh Legal Journal, June 9, 1998
    • "No Assignment -- No Excess Garnishment," Defense Digest, Vol. 4, No. 3, June 1998
    • Defense award obtained on behalf of our client, a registered investment advisor, in a FINRA arbitration involving alleged mismanagement and lack of transparency concerning a Donor Advised Fund. The arbitration panel denied the claims in their entirety and recommended expungement of the claim from our client's registration records.  
    • Defense award obtained in a binding FINRA arbitration in Columbus, Ohio on behalf of a financial advisor. The Claimant alleged unauthorized trading and breach of fiduciary duty in connection with individual stock trades. The Claimant further alleged breach of fiduciary duty in relation to the financial advisor’s recommendation that the account be changed from a commission based to an advisory fee-based account.
    • Defense verdict obtained on behalf of a broker dealer in a FINRA arbitration alleging over concentration in energy and precious metals investments. 
    • Defense verdict obtained on behalf of broker-dealer in arbitration in a suit brought by two retired broker Claimants who sought $5 million dollars in past and future benefits under a retirement program which paid override fees to retired brokers on books of business the retired brokers had developed decades ago.
    • Expungement recommendation obtained in FINRA arbitration on behalf of financial advisor involving investment losses in an advisory account.
    • Defense verdict obtained on behalf of a registered investment advisor and broker-dealer following a four day jury trial in Schuylkill County.  The registered investment advisor and broker dealer were sued by their former client for investment losses.  The Plaintiff was a paraplegic whose wealth was obtained through a jury verdict and settlements related to his injuries.  The case was defended on the basis that the registered investment advisor met the standard of care and did not breach any duties owed to the Plaintiff, as well as the fact that the Plaintiff was net profitable in his investments.  The Plaintiff sought to "cherry pick" losing investments from an overall profitable portfolio.  
    • Defense verdict obtained on behalf of a broker-dealer and a broker in a FINRA arbitration in New York. The Claimant, owner of a broker-dealer, alleged he was being charged an unreasonable mark-up on municipal bond sales and that he was the victim of elder abuse. In granting the motion to dismiss, the arbitration panel found that the Claimant failed to present a basis for his claim and recommended expungement of all references to the arbitration from the broker's records maintained by FINRA on the grounds that the claim, allegation or information was factually impossible or clearly erroneous. As well, the panel found the mark-ups on the municipal bonds sold to Claimant were not unfair or unreasonable and were not inconsistent with industry regulations.  
    • Defense verdict obtained on behalf of broker-dealer in FINRA arbitration where the customer alleged that a violation of her privacy had occurred, as well as asserting claims for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence and breach of contract.
    • Defense verdict obtained on behalf of a broker-dealer and broker in FINRA arbitration alleging unsuitability and securities fraud in sale of a variable annuity. The defense was presented on the grounds that the variable annuity was suitable to the investment objectives of the customer and that any losses sustained by the customer were market related. 
    • Defense of broker-dealer in "selling away" case in FINRA arbitration alleging failure to supervise broker who allegedly operated a Ponzi scheme while affiliated with the broker dealer. Defense proceeded on the grounds that the broker-dealer's supervision of the broker was reasonable and that the Plaintiff did not sustain any losses in his investment in the scheme. Defense verdict obtained.
    • Motion to dismiss, with prejudice, granted in FINRA arbitration based upon Plaintiff customer's repeated discovery violations. Motion to dismiss upheld in federal district court following petition to vacate arbitration award filed by Plaintiff customer. Motion to dismiss granted in FINRA arbitration based upon FINRA Eligibility Rule.
    • Defense verdict obtained in FINRA arbitration on behalf of broker and broker-dealer where the public customer alleged that she was not properly advised regarding the tax implications resulting from a premature withdrawal from a variable annuity in a IRA account.
    • Motion to dismiss granted on behalf of title insurance agent in Federal civil RICO case.
    • Expungement obtained in FINRA arbitration on behalf of broker in case involving suitability of non-publicly traded REITs.
    • Dismissal on behalf of real estate agent in seller's disclosure case.
    • Dismissal on behalf of supervising life insurance general agent in wrongful termination case.
    • Motion for judgment on the pleadings granted on behalf of title insurance agent in real estate fraud case.

Results

View all

Defense Verdict Secured in FINRA Arbitration Matter

We obtained a defense verdict in a FINRA arbitration where the claimant donated approximately $600,000 to a donor advised fund in 2012 and took a tax deduction. The claimant alleged that the donor advised fund was mismanaged and lost approximately $140,000 in value in 2022. We defended the fund’s managers in the case based upon the claimant’s lack of standing once the funds were donated. Further, we presented evidence through the respondent’s testimony that the account was managed in accordance with the goals and objectives set for the account. In addition, we presented evidence that the account was overall profitable and performed better than the S&P 500 index during the relevant time period.

Secured Defense Verdict In Richmond FINRA Arbitration

Defense award obtained on behalf of our client, a registered investment advisor, in a FINRA arbitration involving alleged mismanagement and lack of transparency concerning a Donor Advised Fund. The arbitration panel denied the claims in their entirety and recommended expungement of the claim from our client's registration records.  

Thought Leadership

View all

DOL's Retirement Security Rule Imposes New Fiduciary Standards on Financial Services, Insurance Industries

May 10, 2024

Like many recent DOL rules related to retirement investing, the retirement security rule is polarizing and is sure to face significant legal challenges, including from the insurance industry to whom the rule applies a new, heightened duty.

Legal Updates for Securities and Investments

FINRA Announces Effective Date for New Procedures for Expungement Requests

August 16, 2023

On August 11, 2023, FINRA published Regulatory Notice 23-12, which offers guidance on recent rule amendments to FINRA Rules 12800 and 12805 related to the expungement of customer dispute information from BrokerCheck.  The below rule amendments become effective on October 16, 2023.  Straight-in requests (an expungement where a broker files an arbitration case against their current or former brokerage firm requesting the expungement of a client complaint) be decided by a three-person panel that is randomly selected from a roster of experienced public arbitrators with enhanced expungement training (Special Arbitrator Roster); Prohibit parties to a straight-in request from agreeing to fewer than three arbitrators to consider their expungement requests, striking any of the selected arbitrators, stipulating to an arbitrator’s removal, or stipulating to the use of pre-selected arbitrators; Provide notifications to state securities regulators of all requests to expunge customer dispute information and a mechanism for state securities regulators to attend and participate in expungement hearings in straight-in requests; Impose strict time limits on the filing of straight-in requests; Specify procedures for requesting expungement of customer dispute information during simplified customer arbitrations; Codify and update the best practices in the Notice to Arbitrators and Parties on Expanded Expungement Guidance (Guidance) applicable to all expungement hearings, which include establishing additional requirements for expungement hearings, facilitating customer attendance and participation in all aspects of the expungement hearings and codifying the panel’s ability to request any evidence relevant to the expungement request; Require the unanimous agreement of the panel to issue an award containing expungement relief; and Establish procedural requirements for filing expungement requests, which include on-behalf-of requests. Brokers with old or dated customer disputes on their BrokerCheck report which are not part of an existing arbitration claim should consider filing an expungement before October 16, 2023, to avoid the forthcoming onerous expungement proceeding requirements.      Legal Update for Securities Litigation – August 16, 2023, has been prepared for our readers by Marshall Dennehey. It is solely intended to provide information on recent legal developments, and is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We welcome the opportunity to provide such legal assistance as you require on this and other subjects. If you receive the alerts in error, please send a note to tamontemuro@mdwcg.com. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2023 Marshall Dennehey. All Rights Reserved.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Casual Care, Serious Consequences: How Informal Prescribing Can Trigger Medical Board Scrutiny

The lesson for health care practitioners is that regular review of the regulatory requirements can ensure compliance and that casual prescribing may be in violation of state regulations if the necessary components are not met. Consider the following scenario: in December 2025, a medical provider renewed a prescription for a long-standing telemedicine patient receiving a Schedule II controlled dangerous substance. This was not a violation of the New Jersey Administrative Code. Another provider doing the same action for an equally situated patient in March 2026 would be in violation. The casual prescriber who is not aware of newer regulatory requirements may have a more difficult time responding to a medical board complaint. Medicine is a highly-regulated helping profession. Without addressing the merits of this regulatory burden, the practice of medicine continues to see drastic changes impacting the everyday life of patient and provider. Telemedicine, COVID-19, and other advances and roadblocks, present a challenge to those saving lives while attempting to comply with the rules of practice. Physicians often discover—through real cases and the lens of regulatory expectations—that even well-intentioned informal help can be reinterpreted as stepping outside mandated professional boundaries, and seemingly harmless actions can be construed as deviations from required practice standards specifically outlined in Title 13, Chapter 35, Subchapters 7.1A of the New Jersey Administrative Code. Title 45, "Professions and Occupations," of the New Jersey code governs the practice of medicine, nursing, optometry, pharmacy, and many other professional occupations. Section 9 specifically addresses the state board of medical examiners and allows for the creation of rules and regulations in Section 45:9-5.3. These regulations can be found in the New Jersey Administrative Code Title 13, Chapter 35. While broad in scope, Chapter 35 contains a subchapter dedicated to the administration and dispensing of prescription drugs. Such knowledge will arm physicians with the tools they need to prevent a negative outcome if a medical board complaint is filed. Likewise, attorneys must be familiar with these regulatory requirements when advising and defending providers. In New Jersey, N.J.A.C. Section 13:35-7.1A(a) requires that a practitioner conduct an examination and appropriately document the same within the medical record before dispensing drugs or issuing prescriptions. The examination must include an "appropriate history and physical examination," a diagnosis based upon the examination and any testing consistent with good medical care, the formulation of a therapeutic plan discussed with the patient, and the availability of appropriate follow-up care. There are only six exceptions to this requirement: In admission orders for a newly hospitalized patient For a patient of another physician for whom the practitioner is taking calls For continuation medications on a short-term basis for a new patient prior to the patient's first appointment For an established patient who, based on sound medical practice, the physician believes does not require a new examination before issuing a new prescription For a patient examined by a healthcare professional who is in collaborative practice with the practitioner When treatment is provided by a practitioner for an emergency medical condition Emergencies are also limited to situations where someone's health is in serious jeopardy, there is serious impairment to bodily functions, or serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part. During the COVID-19 pandemic, then New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy issued an executive order declaring a public health emergency and a state of emergency that allowed authorized prescribers to prescribe Schedule II controlled dangerous substances via telemedicine. The order was terminated when he left office earlier this year and the state reverted to the requirement of an initial in-person examination and quarterly in-person visits. With this return to prior regulatory requirements, practitioners subject to the jurisdiction of the board of medical examiners may benefit from a refresher on the regulatory limitations on their practice now that the pandemic-era flexibilities have ended. This new requirement may create confusion for prescribers and lead to casual prescribing of medication in violation of the regulations, even in the setting of recurrent telemedicine appointments as noted in the example above. Casual prescribing can take many forms: filling a prescription request from a friend or family member without an examination or contemporary medical record; using telemedicine to expand your practice without proper in-person appointments or documentation in the medical record; failing to ensure appropriate follow-up care for a "one time" prescription; etc. Although not all board complaints end in a publicly available opinion, serious deviations from regulatory requirements can shine a light on practices that will require action by the board if a complaint is received. Consider the following cases: In October 2025, the board issued a final consent order in an administrative action where a doctor provided opioids without examination and his license was permanently revoked. In re Robert Dela Gente, D.O., N.J. State Bd. of Med. Exam'rs Oct. 21, 2025. Criminal charges were filed (though that is not always the case). In a September 2025 consent order, a physician was reprimanded for "prescribing opioids several months in advance without the proper patient follow-up..." and explained that they did so for "patients who can not pay for multiple visits to refill medications." In re A/an E. Schultz, M.D., N.J. State Bd. of Med. Exam'rs Sept. 25, 2025. Another physician was suspended and placed on probation in a consent order for prescribing three patients the weight-loss medication "Ozempic" via text messages through a website called "Push Health" and without any further communication with the patients or taking a medical history. In re Laura E. Purdy, M.D., N.J. State Bd. of Med. Exam'rs Aug. 29, 2025. A June 2025 interim consent order required a "full evaluation and assessment of [a physician's] general knowledge and skill, with specific emphasis on his knowledge of and ability to safely prescribe [controlled dangerous substances]" due to his failure to review a patient's prior medical history and medical record, assess and review the prescription monitoring program before prescribing CDS, and conduct random urine screens on a patient that tested positive for CDS upon admission to his practice because "he trusted the patient." In re Donald Oh, M.D., N.J. State Bd. of Med. Exam'rs June 2, 2025. Each of these examples demonstrate a failure to follow strict procedure regardless of the intention. Failing to follow procedure secondary to good intentions, such as considering a patient's financial constraints, trust in the patient, or utilizing a new telemedicine service platform, will not be a defense to a board complaint. Especially when practicing via telemedicine, practitioners must ensure they are adhering to the appropriate regulatory standard. A provider who calls in a prescription for a traveling friend or family member or agrees to prescribe medication for individuals using the newest phone app will have a hard time meeting the requirements of N.J.A.C. Section 13:35-7.1A. Even if a history was taken, a "therapeutic plan" was created, and "follow up care" was provided, the prescriber would still not be in compliance with the regulation without an in-person examination. In our opening hypothetical, the prescriber's behavior did not change between December and March; however, the legal shift in the regulatory landscape made once acceptable behavior a violation as a required examination did not occur. When complaints are made with regard to informal prescribing, the board has discretion to employ measures to encourage compliance in lieu of formal proceedings such as a private, written warning; suspending fines subject to continuing compliance; medical or professional treatment as may be necessary; medical or diagnostic testing and monitoring; skills assessment; corrective training; participation in outreach programming; or contribution to the consumer fraud protection fund. The lesson for health care practitioners is that regular review of the regulatory requirements can ensure compliance and that casual prescribing may be in violation of state regulations if the necessary components are not met. Even compliant providers who had not conducted an in-person examination for telemedicine patients during the COVID-19 emergency would be in violation of the regulations as of January 2026 for the same practice. Practitioners should be diligent in adhering to the prescribing rules to avoid sanctions related to casual care. Likewise, attorneys advising or defending practitioners before the board must be aware of the in-person examination requirements for prescribing in New Jersey whether the care in question took place in-person or in a telemedicine setting. Reprinted with permission from the April 22, 2026 issue of the New Jersey Law Journal. ©2026 ALM Media Properties, LLC. Further duplication without permission is prohibited. All rights reserved.

Thought Leadership

SIDEBAR: News and Happenings

We are pleased to share that attorneys from our health care team have been selected to the 2026  New Jersey and Pennsylvania Super Lawyers and Rising Stars lists. Their dedication to clients and commitment to high-quality work continues to strengthen our firm! Please join us in congratulating: NJ Super Lawyers: Robert T. Evers and Justin F. Johnson NJ Super Lawyer Rising Stars: Nataliana A. Guida  2026 Pennsylvania Super Lawyers: Alyson J. Kirleis and Gary M. Samms 2026 Pennsylvania Rising Stars: Holli K. Archer and Daniel Dolente Victoria Scanlon (Scranton) was a faculty presenter at the 2026 American Roentgen Ray Society (ARRS) Annual Meeting in Pittsburgh. She participated in the “Resident Symposium: Producing Quality Reports,” focusing her presentation on “How to Write a Great Report: Malpractice Lawyer’s Perspective.” Vicky, the only attorney presenter for this two-hour segment, was joined by several health care professionals including diagnostic radiologists, an interventional radiologist, an internal medicine physician, and a radiologist turned AI entrepreneur expert.  Matthew Keris (Scranton), President of the Pennsylvania Association for Health Care Risk Management (PAHCRM) and shareholder in our Scranton Health Care Department, presented an important and timely session titled “Keynote Address: A Conversation with RaDonda Vaught on Criminalizing Errors” at PAHCRM’s Annual Meeting in April. RaDonda is a former Tennessee nurse widely known for being criminally convicted in 2022 of negligent homicide and gross neglect after a 2017 fatal medication error at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. Her case gained national attention because she was criminally prosecuted rather than just facing licensing board action, sparking debate over blaming individual nurses for systemic healthcare failures. Matt and RaDonda’s conversation explored one of the most consequential issues in health care risk management today—how systems respond to human error, and what it means for patient safety, accountability, and the professionals who serve on the front lines. Gary Samms was a panelist for a podcast hosted by the Medical Liability Monitor, “From Outliers to Pattern: The Increasing Predictability of Megaverdicts in the Med-Mal Industry – and How to Reduce the Likelihood of Getting Hit with One.” Gary discussed the changing megaverdict landscape and why “outlier” verdicts are becoming structural, in addition to how plaintiffs turn weaknesses into megaverdicts (including building emotional narrative and jury psychology). Thank you to our clients who joined us for our Trends in Health Care & Health Law seminar on May 14. Led by our Health Care Department Director and Assistant Director, Robin Snyder and Donna Modestine, the session explored key issues that are currently shaping outcomes in health care litigation. We owe a debt of gratitude to our esteemed guest speaker, Mary Ellen Nepps, Esq., Senior Counsel, University of Pennsylvania, who presented “Medical Malpractice Litigation: Driving Another Health Care Crisis in Pennsylvania.” And special thanks to our attorneys who presented and shared their insights, including John J. Hare and Holli Archer who discussed “Highlights in PA Medical Malpractice Law;” David Drake for his presentation, “From Claims to Courtroom: Key Trends in NJ Medical Malpractice Litigation;” and Matthew Keris with an “Update on Health Care Tech Discovery.” Thank you to all of our clients for entrusting us with your health care litigation. We are proud to partner with you as we defend your interests and navigate legal landscapes together.

News

Stacey R. Gorin Installed as President of the Burlington County Bar Association

Thought Leadership

Dental Malpractice

For health care providers and insurers navigating the complexities of dental malpractice risk, Marshall Dennehey delivers a disciplined, end‑to‑end defense built on deep clinical understanding and litigation experience. Our health care litigators routinely represent general dentists, oral and maxillofacial surgeons, prosthodontists, periodontists, and endodontists at every stage of a claim—from early risk assessment and pre‑suit strategy through trial and appeal—helping clients manage exposure while protecting professional reputations. With a strong command of applicable standards of care across both routine and advanced procedures, our team is well positioned to address high‑severity allegations such as surgical complications, permanent nerve injury, infection, missed oral cancer diagnoses, and jaw fractures. We also guide providers through licensing board matters, offering measured, practical counsel aligned with clinical realities. “Our priority is to give providers and their insurers clarity and control from day one,” said Robin Snyder, director of our Health Care Department. “By combining early expert insight with a practical understanding of clinical decision‑making, we are able to defend claims effectively while helping clients achieve timely, favorable outcomes.”

Result

Unanimous Verdict Obtained in a Medical Malpractice Matter in Bergen County, New Jersey

Portrait of Thomas Glassman. Text: Joining our Cincinnati Office as a Shareholder in the Casualty Department

News

Marshall Dennehey Adds Shareholder Thomas F. Glassman in Cincinnati, Expands Casualty Practice in Ohio and Kentucky

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

News

Marshall Dennehey’s John J. Hare Brings Home Attorney of the Year Honors; Firm Named Litigation Department of the Year in Two Categories

Marshall Dennehey took home top honors in three categories at the The Legal Intelligencer’s 2026 Pennsylvania Legal Awards, held June 11 in Philadelphia. The first place awards include: Attorney of the Year: John J. Hare, Chair of the firm’s Appellate Advocacy & Post-Trial Practice Group and Executive Committee member, together with Charles “Chip” Becker of Kline & Specter Litigation Department of the Year, Appellate – Third Win in a Row! Litigation Department of the Year, Product Liability/Mass Torts “There is no one more deserving of Attorney of the Year honors than John. This award is a testament to his exceptional skill, dedication, and leadership—qualities that truly exemplify the very best of our firm,” said G. Mark Thompson, Marshall Dennehey’s President & CEO. “These honors also reflect the strength and depth of our product liability, mass torts, and appellate practices across Pennsylvania and beyond, underscoring our ongoing commitment to delivering outstanding results for our clients.” Attorney of the Year – John J. Hare, Marshall Dennehey, together with Charles “Chip” Becker, Kline & Specter Over the past year, John and Charles were opposing counsel in many of the highest-profile civil appeals in Pennsylvania. John is renowned as a preeminent appellate lawyer on the defense side, and Chip on the plaintiff's side. They have opposed each other repeatedly, exhibiting peerless professionalism and exceptional civility, while zealously litigating under the unremitting pressure of high-profile litigation and record-setting verdicts totaling more than $3.5 billion. They have also collaborated, outside of litigation, on many commissions, committees, and projects of importance to the Pennsylvania judiciary and legal community. Litigation Department of the Year – Appellate Law, Winner (previous winner, 2025 and 2024) 2025 was another standout year for the firm’s Appellate Advocacy & Post‑Trial Practice Group, led by John J. Hare, which was retained to challenge many of Pennsylvania’s “nuclear” verdicts—awards exceeding $10 million. Notably, the department persuaded the Pennsylvania Superior Court to reverse a Philadelphia judgment of $1.09 billion, the largest judgment ever overturned by a Pennsylvania appellate court. The group’s 11 full‑time Pennsylvania‑based appellate lawyers are at the center of Pennsylvania’s most high-profile matters, bringing more than 150 years of combined appellate experience. They routinely handle post‑trial and appellate matters and are frequently engaged to participate in and monitor trials in high‑exposure cases to ensure that critical legal issues are properly raised and preserved for appeal. Litigation Department of the Year – Product Liability/Mass Torts, Winner This marks the first win for the firm’s Pennsylvania Product Liability and Mass Torts practices, which operate within our Casualty Department, managed by Matthew Schorr and Jeff Rapattoni. For almost five decades, Fortune 500 product manufacturers/distributors and their insurers have turned to these groups to defend their litigation. Led by Bradley D. Remick and Vlada Tasich, our Product Liability group’s success can be attributed to its commitment to keeping abreast of ever-changing legal theories, judicial viewpoints, and evolving technology impacting the product liability landscape. Our attorneys have successfully handled thousands of product liability matters in all jurisdictions across the state. Likewise, our mass tort litigation practice – divided into Asbestos & Mass Tort, and Environmental & Toxic Tort Litigation –  has defended manufacturers, distributors, contractors, and premises owners in thousands of personal injury and other claims. Led by Kevin E. Hexstall and Patrick T. Reilly, most attorneys in these groups have more than 20 years of experience, and our seasoned trial team has tried hundreds of cases to verdict, consistently achieving strong results through both trials and settlements. In addition to these awards, Marshall Dennehey was a Litigation Department of the Year finalist for Professional 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.