.

The Quarterly Dose

SIDEBAR: News and Happenings

The Quarterly Dose – August 2025

August 1, 2025

Our Health Care Department Continues to Grow

Susan Kostkas joins our department as a shareholder in Pittsburgh. She is an experienced trial attorney, with decades of experience defending nursing homes and personal care facilities in professional negligence claims resulting in personal injury and death. Prior to becoming a lawyer, Susan was a registered nurse in cardiology and intermediate care units, and she continues to maintain her RN license.

Joel Snavely joins us as shareholder in our Erie office. Joel’s legal career spans more than 30 years, with the majority of his practice focusing on the defense of health care providers in professional negligence and licensure actions. With a primary focus on health care law, Joel represents and advises health care providers in matters that include employment contracts, credentialing, peer review, end of life issues, guardianships, medical records, risk management, controlled substances, fraud and abuse, and nonprofit corporation law. 

Amelia Salem Rashid joins our Pittsburgh office as an associate, bringing with her a background in trial preparation and strategy, managing discovery, and presenting motions and pleadings for common pleas and federal district court.

In our Philadelphia office, we welcome new associates Ryan Harvie and Travis Talbot to the team. Ryan works closely with our clients, guiding them through all phases of litigation. In addition to handling complex medical malpractice and skilled nursing home matters, he handles child welfare cases involving severe allegations of sexual and physical abuse. Travis is experienced in defending health care providers in cases involving complex issues of medical malpractice. As a former public defender and Principal Court Attorney to a justice of the New York State Supreme Court in New York County, he gained invaluable insight into trial practice, motion writing, legal research and judicial decision-making.

As a new associate in our Harrisburg office, Michael Cadigan, Jr., defends medical professional liability matters filed against hospitals, long-term care and rehabilitation facilities, medical practices, physicians, dentists, veterinarians and other health care providers. Having also worked for a plaintiffs’ firm earlier in his career, Michael draws from his experience practicing on both sides of the aisle to effectively counsel clients and help them achieve their desired outcomes.

In our Cleveland office we welcome associate Michael Vigorito, whose legal practice focuses on defending health care clients in civil litigation matters involving medical malpractice and long-term care liability. Prior to practicing law, Michael worked for fire departments and EMS companies in Ohio and Pennsylvania, and he maintains his paramedic certification and continues to work as a flight paramedic and EMS Instructor.

David McColloch, who joins our King of Prussia office as an associate, has devoted his career to helping health care providers and professionals navigate challenging legal situations. He is experienced in handling litigation in state and federal court, from investigation and initial pleadings, to discovery, depositions and expert review, through to resolution. Known for his collaborative style, David provides his clients with comprehensive and strategic representation. 


 

Happenings

Karen “Missy” Minehan (Harrisburg) presented “Mitigating and Responding to a Professional Liability Claim: Documentation, Discovery, and Depositions” for the Skilled Nursing Development Institute’s administrator appreciation event. Missy discussed pre-suit documentation issues, including documentation of arbitration agreements, missing medical records documentation and maintenance of key paper records, intra-lawsuit discovery and depositions.

Melissa Dziak and Victoria Scanlon (Scranton) presented The CHART Institute June member webinar, which focused on advanced practice providers. They discussed the medical legal landscape post-pandemic, jury verdict trends, scope and use of Advanced Practice Providers (APPs), and best practices to mitigate legal risk.

Matthew Keris (Scranton) joined a panel presentation for a webinar put on by the Pennsylvania Coalition for Civil Justice Reform. The program, “Medical Malpractice Pennsylvania Update,” explored a number of emerging issues in medical malpractice, including the continuing surge of Philadelphia cases; dilution of plaintiffs’ burden to prove agents causing harm; preserving issues on appeal and waiver rulings of Superior Court; ethical concerns of double and triple booking; and rise of punitive damages.

Matt also presented two seminars at the Hospital Insurance Forum 2025 Conference in Charleston, South Carolina. He co-presented with Jill Huntley Taylor to discuss “New Jury Considerations in the Age of Big Law, Verdicts, and Medicine,” and he also presented “Al in Healthcare: Views From a Clinical and Legal Perspective.”

Matt also joined a panel discussion at the Medical Professional Liability Association’s annual conference in Austin, Texas, on the topic of preparing for Al from a medico-legal perspective.

Megan Nelson (Orlando) is presenting a webinar on incident reporting for the American College of Healthcare Executives Central Florida Chapter. As an attorney and registered nurse, Megan will offer insight into the importance of incident reporting from both a health care and legal point of view. More information can be found here. 

Megan also presented at the Florida Society for Health Care Risk Management and Patient Safety (FHSRMPS) 45th Annual Conference in Orlando. During a panel presentation on “The Latest on Medical Al and Liability Claims,” Megan discussed the rapid rise in the use of Al technology and the implications for potential liability and increased claims. 


 

Wishing a Fond Farewell and Retirement to Three Long-Time Members of Our Health Care Department!

T. Kevin FitzPatrick is retiring this month after a 32-year career at Marshall Dennehey. During his tenure, Kevin served as Director and Assistant Director of the Health Care Department and on the Board of Directors. Among his colleagues and clients, Kevin is recognized for always practicing law with class. His leadership, dedication and guidance will leave a lasting impact on not only our department, but also our firm.

William Banton, Jr. joined us in 1990 in our Philadelphia office. For those of you who know William, we’re sure you will agree that he practiced law consistent with his personality as a consummate gentleman. William also served as the Assistant Director of our Health Care Department under Kevin FitzPatrick.

Carolyn DiGiovanni joined the firm in 2010 in our King of Prussia office. Known for her tenacity and passion in zealously defending our clients, Carolyn was a valued and respected member of our health care team.

We will miss Kevin, William and Carolyn tremendously. It is hard to see our friends move on, but we thank them for their contributions and wish them the best in their retirement years. 

 

The Quarterly Dose – August 2025, 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. © 2025 Marshall Dennehey. All Rights Reserved.

Firm Highlights

News

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

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

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

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

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

Event

29th Annual FDLA Florida Liability Claims Conference

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

Thought Leadership

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

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

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

News

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

Thought Leadership

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

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

News

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

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.