.

Defense Digest

Message From the Executive Committee

Defense Digest, Vol. 29, No. 2, June 2023

June 1, 2023

by Craig S. Hudson

Beginning in April 2021 and extending through the end of this April, Marshall Dennehey added 14 lateral shareholders. While public pronouncements were issued at the time each joined our firm, I want to introduce them again as a group, to show how the addition of these shareholders reaffirms our continuing commitment to be the go-to civil defense firm in every jurisdiction where we practice. 

This influx of new, experienced attorneys took place in nine out of our 19 offices, in six states, and in all four of our practice departments. These shareholders augment our already deep roster of talented and experienced litigation specialists. They have an average of over 28 years of legal experience, representing clients in federal and state court. Together, they have handled over 375 jury trials and countless non-jury trials, arbitrations, mediations, and administrative hearings. Collectively, they have handled every imaginable type of civil litigation, and each of their practices and experiences add depth to our existing practices. Many of them are active in national, state, and local bar associations and industry groups, are frequent lecturers to attorneys and claims professionals, and are contributors to several legal publications. 

Seven of the shareholders who joined Marshall Dennehey over this period are in our Casualty Department. The most high-profile of these occurred this past October, when Jack Delany, a prominent, international, catastrophic damage trial attorney, decided to join our firm. Joining Jack as shareholders from his previous firm are Kristen Worley and Andrew Campbell. Jack and his team have been counsel in some of the most significant national and international civil litigation in recent memory, including lawsuits stemming from the Grenfell Tower fire in London, the Surfside condominium collapse in Florida, a recent factory explosion in Pennsylvania, and many other high-profile catastrophic events. Within weeks of joining Marshall Dennehey, Jack, Kristen, and Andrew began a large construction defect case in which the plaintiffs sought over $24 million in damages. After a three-week trial in federal court, the jury returned with a unanimous defense verdict. 

In February 2021, Melissa Devich Cochran was the first of the 14 shareholders to join Marshall Dennehey. Melissa was already familiar with Marshall Dennehey, having previously been a 12-year Marshall Dennehey attorney, who decided to return after several years at another firm. She rejoined our Pittsburgh office in our Asbestos and Mass Tort Litigation Practice Group. Melissa quickly settled back into familiar surroundings, bringing with her deep client relations and extensive knowledge and experience in defending national equipment manufacturers, outside contractors, and suppliers in asbestos litigation throughout Western Pennsylvania. 

Later in 2021, Vince Cononico joined our Cleveland office from a major insurance company’s staff counsel office where, for over 25 years, he handled a variety of significant automobile, premises liability, uninsured/underinsured motorist, and other personal injury matters throughout Ohio. Vince has first-chaired over 50 jury trials and several times was acknowledged by the insurance company as having the highest winning percentage of the staff counsel in his region. 

In 2022, John Yaninek, a 33-year trial attorney, joined our Harrisburg office. John, who is admitted in both Pennsylvania and Maryland, handles a variety of complex casualty matters in both states. John’s experience extends beyond his injury cases, as he has also defended clients in white-collar criminal cases and clients in real estate E&O matters. John is a decorated U.S. Army veteran of the Gulf War, where he managed legal issues for the Army in occupied Iraqi territory during the ground conflict. John retired from the Army Reserve as a Lieutenant Colonel.

Just a few months ago, Keith McCabe joined our New Haven office, which we opened in February of 2022. Keith brings to this rapidly-growing office over 30 years of litigation experience, defending personal and commercial clients in the Connecticut federal and state courts. Keith has tried over 75 jury cases to verdict in a broad range of cases, including those that involve catastrophic injuries and deaths. 

Four of the 14 lateral shareholders joined our Health Care Department. The first is Bill Gianaris, who joined our Westchester office where he represents hospitals and medical providers in the five boroughs of New York City and upstate New York. A 34-year attorney, Bill spent the first 14 years of his career as an Assistant District Attorney in Queens County where he tried numerous criminal cases. Since leaving the District Attorney’s office, Bill has been primarily defending medical liability and general liability matters. He has tried numerous high-exposure cases involving medical professional liability across New York.

Near the end of 2022, Suzanne Utke joined our Health Care Department in Philadelphia. Suzanne, who was a critical care nurse before going to law school, has over 20 years of experience defending physicians, nurses, and health care providers against medical and psychiatric malpractice claims. She also represents professionals in peer and credential reviews before various State Boards. 

This year, two additional shareholders joined our Health Care Department. In March, David G. Tomeo, a litigation leader with more than 30 years of experience across New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New York, joined our Roseland office. In addition to his medical professional liability practice, Dave handles commercial and business litigation and insurance coverage matters. Dave is also frequently called upon to defend urgent care center franchisors in medical malpractice suits and handles other matters at the intersection of franchise and medical malpractice law. 

A few weeks later, experienced medical malpractice litigator Tracey S. McGurk joined Marshall Dennehey as a shareholder in the firm’s Cleveland office. A member of the Health Care Department, she focuses on the defense of medical professionals and providers, including physicians, hospitals, and nursing home/extended care facilities. In addition to her medical liability experience, Tracey also represents non-medical professionals, primarily real estate agents and agencies, in a variety of E&O and commercial matters. 

Two of the 14 shareholders who joined Marshall Dennehey over the last 24 months are in our Workers’ Compensation Department. The first is Michael Sebastian, who joined our Scranton office and has represented employers in workers’ compensation matters for over 30 years. Mike came to us with a loyal client following and vast experience at all levels of the workers’ compensation system. 

Next, Kristopher Starr joined our Wilmington office. Kris started his legal career as a Deputy Attorney General, prosecuting criminal cases. The Delaware Secretary of Labor appointed Kris as a Workers’ Compensation Hearing Officer, where he spent three years issuing opinions and orders, before leaving the bench to represent public and private employers, which he continues to do. 

Finally, Josh J.T. Byrne joined our Professional Liability Department in 2021 as a shareholder in the Philadelphia office. A well-known attorney in the Pennsylvania legal community, Josh has over 24 years of experience representing and defending clients in a variety of professional liability matters, as well as assisting those clients with professional disciplinary and licensing matters. Josh is a frequent commentator on legal malpractice, disciplinary matters, and attorney ethics. He also serves as chair of the Pennsylvania Bar Association’s Professional Liability Committee, co-chair of the Pennsylvania Bar’s Amicus Curiae Brief Committee, and co-chair of the Philadelphia Bar Association’s Professional Responsibility Committee.

The successful integration of these 14 attorneys is the result of a disciplined process we employ at Marshall Dennehey. More than ten years ago, we created the role of Lateral Integration Coordinator to assist new shareholders in their transition to the firm. Since that time, Sandy Caiazzo, who is also Director of Administrative Services, has held this position. Sandy is the key internal point of contact for all lateral attorneys joining our firm. She works closely with these laterals before, during, and after their arrival to ensure a timely start and seamless transition. Many of these lateral shareholders brought with them other associates or special counsel, paralegals, and administrative staff, and Sandy oversees their onboarding as well. 

Among her responsibilities, Sandy liaises with the firm’s administrative departments to ensure that conflict searches are performed, client guidelines and rates are obtained, and press releases and marketing materials are prepared. From day one, she ensures that lateral shareholders who join Marshall Dennehey have the technological and administrative resources and training tools necessary to enable them to hit the ground running. Each of the 15 new shareholders was uniformly impressed with our lateral integration process and marveled at how quickly they were assimilated into Marshall Dennehey.

I am very pleased to highlight the addition of our remarkable new lateral shareholders, who further enhance our firm’s extraordinary litigation talent across our many jurisdictions, offices, and practice areas. To a person, these new attorneys saw Marshall Dennehey as the perfect firm in which to further develop their careers and build meaningful professional and personal relationships. I am humbled by their confidence in us, and I firmly believe that they made the right decision in joining us. With their transitions eased by the efficiency of Sandy Caiazzo’s team and our firm’s many other administrative and technological resources, our new lateral shareholders position Marshall Dennehey very well for continued success in the service of our clients. I am also confident that, over the coming months, Marshall Dennehey will have the opportunity to welcome other lateral shareholders who will continue our tradition of finding the right attorneys to serve our clients. 

Defense Digest, Vol. 29, No. 2, June 2023, is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2023 Marshall Dennehey. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Two Tracks, No Preclusion: Ohio Supreme Court Preserves Separate Damages Claims After Chapter 2506 Appeals

The Supreme Court of Ohio has clarified that an administrative appeal under Ohio Revised Code Chapter 2506 does not bar a separate action for damages and declaratory relief that could not have been pursued in the administrative appeal. The Ohio Supreme Court considered Sheetz, Inc. v. Centerville (2026-Ohio-3531) as a result of a certified question from the Southern District of Ohio. The question was whether Sheetz, the gas station/convenience store brand, was barred from seeking damages in a separate action since damages were not sought in their administrative appeal. Ultimately, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that res judicata does not bar a separate action for damages after ruling on an administrative appeal because R.C. Chapter 2506 is limited to judicial review and cannot grant affirmative relief. The case arose after Centerville’s city council rejected a site plan proposed by Sheetz, Inc. that had received unanimous approval from the City’s planning commission. Sheetz filed an administrative appeal pursuant to R.C. 2506 in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, and two months later filed a complaint for damages and declaratory relief under 42 USC § 1983 as a takings action with the city, city council, and other objectors as improper takings and a violation of due process, as well as interference with business and contractual relationship. The city and city council removed the § 1983 action for damages to federal court. Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas reversed the city council’s denial, and allowed the Sheetz project to move forward. Upon that ruling, the federal court issued a show-cause order questioning whether the § 1983 action was barred by the doctrine of res judicata via claim preclusion (which includes all theories of recovery).  Sheetz argued that Ohio courts of common pleas do not have authority to award damages or declaratory relief as party of the R.C. Ch. 2506 appeal, therefore res judicata could not be triggered to apply to the § 1983 action. Additionally, Sheetz moved to certify the issue to the Ohio Supreme Court, citing differing results between the second and sixth districts on this same issue. Centerville approached the question, not from a claim preclusion standpoint, but from the holding in Grava v. Parkman, Twp which states that a final judgment rendered on the merits bars all subsequent action based on the same transaction or occurrence.  In yet another approach, an objector argued that claim preclusion was satisfied because Sheetz could have raised its damages claims in the administrative appeal – Sheetz disagrees. In their analysis, the Supreme Court of Ohio broke down the elements of a claim preclusion analysis: 1) a prior final, valid decision on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) a second action involving the same parties, or their privies, as the first; (3) a second action raising claims that were or could have been litigated in the first action; and (4) a second action arising out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the previous action. The Court held that R.C. Ch. 2506 does not permit a party to argue damages as R.C. Ch. 2506 limits the common pleas jurisdiction as if it were sitting on appeal, and therefore can only affirm, reverse, vacate, or modify the appealed order, or can remand the case to the administrative body. Further, the Court held that Grava’s conclusion that a final judgment precludes additional litigation for different relief is inapplicable under this fact pattern because it was meant only to apply to those matters in which the plaintiff brings the exact same case twice, but for new relief. The Court found Grava was inapplicable because Sheetz could have requested damages or declaratory relief in the R.C. 2506 appeal. Therefore, Grava would be nothing more than dicta if it even did apply. Going further, the Ohio Supreme Court disavowed Sixth Circuit precedent which, in reliance on Grava and other district court decisions, permitted an owner to seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alongside an administrative appeal. See Moore v Hiram Twp., 988 F.3d 353 (6th Cir.2021). The Ohio Supreme Court found that the Sixth Circuit had disregarded a critical decision in Community Concerned Citizens, Inc. v. Union Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 1993-Ohio-115, which clearly held that a R.C. Ch. 2506 appeal cannot be combined with a complaint seeking other claims for relief. Id. at ¶ 11. To that end, the Ohio Supreme Court has determined that the decisions Moore relied on (outside of Grava) are no longer good law, and that Moore was wrongly decided. The decision draws a clear procedural boundary: Chapter 2506 provides judicial review of an administrative decision, not a forum for independent claims seeking affirmative relief. Although Grava may place claims arising from a single transaction within the potential scope of claim preclusion, those claims are not barred unless the complete claim-preclusion test is satisfied. Because Sheetz could not have pursued damages or declaratory relief in its Chapter 2506 appeal, the separate action was not precluded. The remaining question for practitioners looking to apply or defend against this exception is when does the statute of limitations begin to run on damages and declaratory relief claims related to an administrative decision on appeal? A takings action in federal court has a 2-year statute of limitations, or as a state claim, 4 years (like the other tortious claims raised therein). Correlating this case with others, an administrative appeal will not likely toll the statute of limitations on claims based on a final decision by a municipal authority. Therefore, practitioners should look for these cases to be brought simultaneously.

Thought Leadership

The Search-Incident-to-Arrest Doctrine Does Not License Strip Searches

In Beatty v. Gardner, No. 25-2860 (3d Cir. Sept. 16, 2026), Kyle Beatty sued police officers Clinton Gardner and Calvin Irvin under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after they stopped, arrested, and searched him three times during a drug investigation in Williamsport, Pennsylvania. The officers initially smelled marijuana coming from the car in which Beatty was sitting and observed marijuana residue, giving them probable cause to arrest him. Beatty consented to the first pat-down, and the second search was conducted incident to his lawful arrest; neither search uncovered weapons or contraband. The officers then transported Beatty to the police station solely to strip-search him, but the strip search also revealed nothing. The District Court granted the officers summary judgment, concluding that the initial stop, arrest, and first two searches were reasonable and that qualified immunity protected the officers from liability for the strip search. The Third Circuit affirmed, but held that the strip search itself violated the Fourth Amendment. The court concluded that the search-incident-to-arrest doctrine does not automatically permit officers to strip-search an arrestee outside the jail or prison setting. Because strip searches are highly intrusive and the traditional justifications for searches incident to arrest (officer safety and preservation of evidence) did not justify the search of Beatty, the officers generally needed either the arrestee’s consent, exigent circumstances, or a warrant supported by probable cause to believe that a search beneath the clothing would reveal weapons, contraband, or evidence. Here, the officers had none of those justifications. Nevertheless, the court held that qualified immunity barred damages liability because, at the time of the search, the right against a warrantless strip search of an arrestee outside the institutional setting was not clearly established by Supreme Court or Third Circuit precedent. The court likewise upheld qualified immunity on Beatty’s First Amendment retaliation claim and affirmed summary judgment for the officers.

Thought Leadership

Pennsylvania Supreme Court to Review Whether Legal Malpractice Claims May Be Recast as Breach of Contract Claims

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently granted allowance of appeal to consider whether a plaintiff may pursue a breach of contract claim against an attorney based on allegations that the attorney failed to provide competent legal services. The issue is significant in professional liability litigation because it concerns whether a plaintiff may avoid the statute of limitations applicable to professional negligence claims by characterizing the alleged misconduct as a breach of contract. Antoine Poteat retained attorneys Gary Asteak and Nino V. Tinari to represent him in a criminal matter. After his conviction was subsequently overturned through a Post Conviction Relief Act proceeding, Poteat filed suit against his former attorneys alleging that they breached their retainer agreements by failing to provide competent legal services. The attorneys argued that the claims sounded in professional negligence, rather than breach of contract, and were therefore time-barred. The trial court dismissed Poteat’s complaint, but the Superior Court, sitting en banc, reversed. The Superior Court held that the gist-of-the-action doctrine did not bar Poteat’s breach of contract claim because the alleged failure to provide competent legal services could constitute a breach of the parties’ agreement. The Court further held that a legal-services agreement contains an implied duty requiring an attorney to provide competent legal services, even where the agreement does not contain an express provision requiring such services. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review in July 2026 and will consider whether the Superior Court’s decision conflicts with Pennsylvania precedent distinguishing contract and tort claims, including Bruno v. Erie Insurance Co. The Supreme Court will also address whether a plaintiff may maintain a breach of contract claim based on an implied duty to provide competent legal services without identifying a specific contractual provision that was breached. The Supreme Court’s decision could have significant implications for professional liability litigation in Pennsylvania, particularly where plaintiffs seek to characterize claims arising from alleged professional negligence as contractual claims.