.

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2025 Shareholder Class And Special Counsel Promotions

December 13, 2024

Marshall Dennehey is pleased to announce that 10 attorneys have been elected shareholders of the firm effective Jan. 1, 2025. Additionally, two attorneys have been promoted from associate to special counsel. These new shareholders and special counsel represent the firm's four core departments – Casualty, Professional Liability, Health Care and Workers' Compensation – and come from eight of the firm's 19 offices. 

“Marshall Dennehey is proud to celebrate this accomplished group of newly elected shareholders,” said firm President & CEO, G. Mark Thompson. “Their talent, dedication, and hard work have been instrumental to the success of our clients and the firm. We are particularly proud that 40 percent of this class are either women or minority attorneys, reflecting our commitment to diversity and inclusion. We congratulate them on this milestone and eagerly anticipate their continued contributions to our growth and success.”

Promoted to Shareholder

LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK (MELVILLE)
James M. Boyce, Casualty Department (former Special Counsel)
James focuses his practice on New York construction and Labor Law matters, construction defect litigation and general liability matters. His clients include design professionals, owners, contractors and subcontractors when facing construction defect and delay claims, personal injury claims, fee disputes and New York State Labor Law matters. A member of the American Council of Engineering Companies, he is a graduate of the State University of New York at Albany and Hofstra University School of Law. James is admitted to practice in New York. 

Matthew A. Gray, Casualty Department (former Associate)
Matthew primarily defends insurance carriers in disputes involving New York Personal Injury Protection (PIP) claims. A member of the firm’s Fraud/Special Investigation Practice Group, he is experienced in defending clients against intentional/staged losses and medical provider fraud. He has extensive motion practice experience and with alongside his fellow colleagues to obtain favorable decision for each of his clients, whether through litigation or arbitration. Matthew holds a B.A. and M.A. from St. John’s University and earned his J.D. from the Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center. He is admitted to practice in New York.


MOUNT LAUREL, NEW JERSEY
Mari I. Gangadean, Professional Liability Department (former Special Counsel)
Mari is a member of the firm’s Employment Law Practice Group where she defends employers in employment-related claims involving allegations of discrimination based upon age, gender, race, sexual orientation and disability, as well as retaliation and "whistle blowing" in both federal and state courts. She additionally is experienced in insurance coverage and bad faith litigation as well as defending automobile negligence and uninsured/underinsured motorist claims. Mari is a graduate of Mount Holyoke College and Temple University School of Law. She is admitted to practice in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

Kiara Hartwell, Workers’ Compensation Department (former Associate)
Kiara devotes her practice to workers' compensation litigation on behalf of employers, insurance carriers and self-insureds. She is a member of the New Jersey State Bar Association's Workers' Compensation Executive Committee, a group charged with studying and developing beneficial changes in the administration and procedures pertaining to workers' compensation. Kiara authors the New Jersey updates for Marshall Dennehey’s monthly workers’ compensation newsletter and frequently writes for external publication. Admitted to practice in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, she is a graduate of New York University and Rutgers University School of Law. 

Jonathan C. Magpantay, CPCU, Casualty Department (former Associate)
As a member of the firm’s Fraud and Special Investigation Unit (SIU) Practice Group, Jonathan focuses on large loss and medical provider fraud, including the filing of affirmative litigation recovery and RICO actions across the country. A Chartered Property and Casualty Underwriter (CPCU), he also handles insurance coverage disputes, bad faith litigation and general defense litigation. He has broad experience in New Jersey Personal Injury Protection (PIP) litigation and appears regularly before the courts and administrative bodies. Jonathan is a member of the Asian Pacific American Lawyers Association of New Jersey (APALA-NJ) and the National Filipino American Lawyers Association (NFALA). A graduate of the University of Pittsburgh and Rutgers University School of Law, he is admitted to practice in New Jersey, the District of Columbia, and Michigan. 


Michael J. Sweeney, CPCU, Casualty Department (former Associate)
As a member of the firm’s Fraud and Special Investigation Unit (SIU) Practice Group, Michael investigates and defends large loss and medical provider fraud matters. He has  litigated and filed affirmative litigation recovery and RICO actions in many states, recovering tens of millions of dollars in restitution and recovery on behalf of the insurance industry. A Chartered Property and Casualty Underwriter (CPCU), Michael has extensive experience handling insurance coverage disputes, SIU investigations, bad faith allegations, and general defense litigation. He is a graduate of the University of Delaware and Villanova University School of Law, and is admitted to practice in New Jersey. 

KING OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA
Gabor Ovari, Health Care Department (former Associate)
Gabor focuses his practice on the defense of hospitals, health care systems and medical providers in medical malpractice and health care liability matters. He has second-chaired multiple jury trials and is experienced in all aspects of litigation. Gabor is a member of the Pennsylvania and Montgomery County Bar Associations. He is a graduate of Temple University and Widener University School of Law, and is admitted to practice in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.  

JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA
Sean J. Reeves, Casualty Department (former Associate)
Sean litigates a wide range of general liability matters representing insureds, self-insureds, and corporations in cases involving motor vehicle negligence, catastrophic product liability matters, personal injury, premises liability, wrongful death and warranty defense. Sean also has experience representing clients in the food and beverage industry in matters involving food allergies, foreign objects, foodborne illness and contamination cases. Sean is a graduate of the University of West Florida; Saint Leo University (MBA); and the University of Florida Levin College of Law. He is admitted to practice in Florida.

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA
Taniesha K. Salmons, Casualty Department (former Associate)
Taniesha concentrates her practice on premises and product liability litigation. On the premises side, her clients include national and regional grocery retailers, condominium and homeowners’ associations, business owners and private property owners. On the product side, she defends manufacturers and distributors of tools, automatic doors, machinery and other heavy industrial equipment. Taniesha additionally assists in the defense of fire loss and complex product liability cases involving catastrophic losses. A certified arbitrator in Philadelphia, Taniesha is admitted to practice in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Florida. She is a two-time graduate of the University of Miami, where she earned both her Bachelor’s and Juris Doctor degrees.


PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA
Michael D. Winsko, Casualty Department (former Associate) 
Michael defends corporations, individuals, and local governments in complex civil litigation matters. In this capacity, he has successfully handled numerous high-exposure premises liability, liquor liability, product liability, and catastrophic injury/wrongful death actions throughout the state and federal courts of Pennsylvania. Michael additionally defends clients against design and construction defect claims, trucking/automobile accidents, fall down incidents and negligent security claims. A graduate of Duquesne University and Duquesne University School of Law, he is admitted to practice in Pennsylvania. 

Associates Promoted to Special Counsel

ORLANDO, FLORIDA
Frank L. Madia, Casualty Department
Frank handles matters involving premises and retail liability, personal injury, product liability, negligent security and automobile liability. As former staff counsel with a national insurance company, he also has substantial experience in insurance coverage matters, business litigation, and real estate transactions. Frank is a 30-year veteran of the New York Air National Guard, where he served as a Staff Judge Advocate before retiring as a Lieutenant Colonel in 2017. He is a graduate of the University at Buffalo, the United States Air Force Judge Advocate Training School, and the Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center. Frank also served 18 years as a local municipal judge in the upstate New York township where he previously resided. He is admitted to practice in Florida and New York. 


HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA
Christopher W. Woodward, Professional Liability Department
Christopher focuses his practice on insurance coverage and bad faith litigation. An experienced litigator and former claims examiner, he has a deep understanding of insurance policy and coverage issues arising from commercial, personal, and specialty property and casualty policies, professional liability policies, health/life policies and workers’ compensation policies. He is a graduate of Pennsylvania State University and Widener University School of Law. 

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Perlmutter Provides Predictability for Punitive Damages Claims in Florida

In a much anticipated decision, the Florida Supreme Court provided clarity for the standards of proof for punitive damages claims in Perlmutter v. Federal Insurance Company, SC2024-0058 (Fla. June 11, 2026). Litigants and trial judges must be mindful of the standards laid out by the Court. And, defense practitioners must be prepared to alter their strategies to defend against such claims. Perlmutter came to the Court from the Fourth District, based on conflict jurisdiction with decisions from the Second and Fifth District and on certification of a question of great public importance as to the standard of proof for punitive damages claims at the pleading stage. Fed. Ins. Co. v. Perlmutter, 376 So. 3d 24, 29 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023). In the underlying case, the Fourth District made two conclusions. First, it held that a “trial court must consider the evidentiary showing by all parties at the hearing on the motion to amend, that is, evidence ‘in the record’ and evidence ‘proffered by the claimant.’”  376 So. 3d at 33. Second, the Fourth held that it “interpreted section 768.72(1) and (2) to require the trial court to make a preliminary determination of whether a reasonable jury, viewing the totality of proffered evidence in the light most favorable to the movant, could find by clear and convincing evidence that punitive damages are warranted.  Id. at 34 (underscoring in the original). In making these conclusions, the court cautioned trial courts that the “preliminary determination” analysis did not entitle the trial court to decide whether the evidence is clear and convincing and noted that the trial court should not weigh evidence and should not determine witness credibility. Id. The Florida Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction and answered the certified question in the negative. It quashed the decision below and remanded the case for application of the following standards: The trial court should consider only the evidence identified or proffered by the claimant; it should not entertain an evidentiary counter-submission from the opponent. The trial court should consider whether a reasonable person could conclude based on the claimant’s evidence, that the defendant committed “intentional misconduct” or “gross negligence” as defined in section 768.72(2) or section 768.72(3). The trial court must review the request for punitive damages in the context of the underlying claims. The trial court should not apply the clear and convincing standard of proof in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence at the pleading stage. The trial court does not act as a fact-finder; the trial court must not weigh the claimant’s evidence—it cannot decide the truth of the matter. The trial court must consider the record evidence and the proffered evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, but the allegations in the proposed amended complaint are not themselves evidence. Perlmutter, SC2024-0058 at 13-15 (emphasis added). In explaining these standards, the Court interpreted the text of the statute and compared it to a related statute which governs punitive damages in the nursing home context. The nursing home statute expressly calls for evidentiary submissions by “the parties” and expressly tells the trial court to determine whether there is a reasonable basis to believe the claimant could satisfy the “clear and convincing evidence” standard at trial. Id. at 17-18 (comparing the text of section 768.72(1), Florida Statutes, with section 400.0237, Florida Statutes). Without that express language in section 768.72, the statute could not be applied in the same manner. With these standards specially delineated for the trial courts, the Court is “confident that its interpretation of section 768.72(1) will not frustrate the effectiveness of the statute in accomplishing the Legislature’s textually evident purposes.” Id.  at 22 (cleaned up). This remains to be seen. While Perlmutter provides predictability and clarity for trial courts when reviewing the evidentiary submissions in support of a punitive damages claim, the decision will not likely impact the numbers of punitive damages motions filed. Rather, these new parameters will change the way claims are defended, reminiscent of a time when rulings on punitive damages were only subject to certiorari review and appellate courts were limited in reviewing procedural errors. This decision will likely deflate the level-playing field that Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(G) addressed by allowing appeals of orders granting and denying punitive damages amendments. Further, Perlmutter may have impliedly created a call to action for the Legislature to amend section 768.72(1) in the same manner it amended section 400.0237 to allow the courts to analyze “admissible evidence submitted by the parties” and determine at a hearing whether there is a reasonable basis to believe the claimant at trial would be able to demonstrate by “clear and convincing evidence” that the recovery of punitive damages is warranted. Until then, defendants must adjust their strategies. To adapt to these new standards, defense practitioners will need to tailor their strategy for defending punitive damages claims since they can no longer submit a counter-proffer or urge a court to apply the clear and convincing standard at the pleading phase. Instead, defendants will need to attack the deficiencies in the claimant’s pleadings and proffer. If the trial court fails to serve as a gatekeeper, and does not apply the above standards, then defendants can pursue an interlocutory appeal under Rule 9.130(a)(3)(G). If a nonfinal appeal is taken, then defendants should move to stay any intrusive financial discovery while the appellate court analyzes the issues on appeal. Finally, defendants should utilize Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510 to serve as a screening device to allow the trial court to analyze all evidence and prevent nonmeritorious punitive damages claims from proceeding to a jury.

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

Thought Leadership

Unanimous New Jersey Supreme Court Holds That Personal Emails of Public Employees and Officials are Subject to OPRA

In Rosetti v. Ramapo-Indian Hills Regional High School Board of Education, the New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously held that government-related emails, which are contained within personal email accounts, are government records under the Open Public Records Act (OPRA), and a log of those emails must be produced when requested. In reaching this decision, the court conducted an analysis of the OPRA and cited previous cases that held that emails do in fact fall within OPRA’s definition of a record and must be produced when requested pursuant to the Act. The court in Rosetti then had to answer the question as to whether public officials’ personal email accounts that are used for government purposes are subject to OPRA, and found that they are. Rosetti made an OPRA request to the Board of Education seeking email logs from Board members’ personal email accounts. The Board refused to produce the logs and indicated that it was not under any obligation to produce personal email account logs, only from government-related email accounts. The issue was whether a log had to be produced for Board members’ personal email accounts, which they used to conduct Board business. The Board argued that while it was possible to create a log for government-related email accounts through its IT Department, it was not possible to do so for personal email accounts. The court rejected this argument and ruled that Board members are required to search their personal email accounts and create a log of government-related emails housed in those accounts. Once completed, each Board member then must submit a certification detailing the searches that were conducted. The court went one step further with a suggestion to government employees and officials, stating, “[g]overnment agencies should strongly advise their employees, elected officials, and others engaged in government-related business to refrain from using their personal email accounts when conducting government-related business.”  Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions regarding this case and others pertaining to the OPRA. 

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.

News

Veteran Trial Attorney Joseph M. Toddy Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Casualty Department in Philadelphia

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

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.

Result

No-Cause Jury Verdict Secured in Wrongful Death Trial

We successfully obtained a no-cause jury verdict in a 13-day wrongful death trial. The decedent, a 59-year-old man, was admitted to the emergency room on February 15, 2019, with complaints of abdominal pain, decreased appetite, and constipation, despite the use of laxatives. The patient did not complain of any nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea. He had a significant medical history including diabetes, hypertension, prior coronary artery stenting, morbid obesity (with past gastric bypass surgery), longstanding ventral hernia, and back pain. A CT scan revealed multiple hernias and a potential closed-loop bowel obstruction, leading to a surgery consultation. Our client, an emergency general surgeon, interpreted that the patient did not have a closed loop or any significant obstruction and recommended non-surgical management. The patient was approved to have clear liquids, and had a vomiting incident shortly after, but our client was not notified. The patient was returned to NPO status, and after improving overnight, he was returned to “clears” and additional medical and renal consults were ordered. Our client did not receive any communications from the residents/nurses of any changes in the patient’s condition. On February 18, 2019, two rapid responses were called due to increased heart rate and vomiting. It is believed that the vomiting resulted in aspiration, causing sepsis, ultimately leading to the patient’s death. During the trial, the plaintiff’s sole medical expert highlighted imaging on the wrong hernia, which called into question all of his opinions in the case. We made key objections related to the expert testimony, limiting what the allegations were, and preventing new allegations from being made. After approximately two and a half hours of deliberating, the jury returned a no-cause verdict. 

Thought Leadership

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Holds Self-Referral Prohibition Does Not Cover Prescriptions Written by Physicians with Ownership Interests in Dispensing Pharmacies

700 Pharmacy v. Bureau of Workers’ Compensation Fee Review Hearing Office (State Workers’ Insurance Fund); Nos. 97, 98, 99, 100, 101 MAP 2024; decided June 16, 2026; by Justice Mundy.   In this case, Drs. Miteswar Purewal and Shailen Jalali, treating physicians for workers’ compensation claimants, wrote prescriptions for various medications that were filled by 700 Pharmacy. The worker’s compensation insurer refused to pay for the prescriptions on the basis that they were illegal self-referrals under the Act. 700 Pharmacy subsequently filed fee review applications with The Bureau of Workers’ Compensation Medical Fee Review Office. At a fee review hearing, both physicians stipulated they had a financial interest in the pharmacy.  The physicians argued that the Anti-Referral Provision of the Act does not bar self-referrals on prescription drugs and pharmaceutical services, since the provision does not specifically identify prescription drugs. The Fee Review Hearing Officer rejected this argument and found that prescriptions for medications are prohibited under the “goods or services” language included in the provision. 700 Pharmacy appealed to the Commonwealth Court, and the court affirmed, agreeing with the Hearing Officer’s interpretation of “goods and services” as encompassing prescriptions. 700 Pharmacy appealed to the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the Hearing Officer and the Commonwealth Court, holding that the term “goods and services” in the Anti-Referral Provision of the Act did not include prescriptions. According to the Court, “goods and services” was not a catch-all, but simply explanatory as to the eight enumerated categories in the provision. The provision (Section 306(f.1)(3)(iii)) reads, in pertinent part: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it is unlawful for a provider to refer a person for laboratory, physical therapy, rehabilitation, chiropractic, radiation oncology, psychometric, home infusion therapy  or diagnostic imaging, goods or services pursuant to this section if the provider has a financial interest with the person or in the entity that receives the referral. The Court said that if the General Assembly wanted to specifically include prescription drugs and pharmaceutical services in the Anti-Referral Provision, they would have done so. They pointed out that prescription drugs and pharmaceutical services were included by the legislature in Section 306 (f.1)(3)(vi) of the Act as to reimbursement, and claimed that their omission from the Anti-Referral Provision supports the conclusion that those services are not included in the Anti-Referral Provision’s self-referral prohibition.