.

Victoria Crawshaw Scanlon

Shareholder

VCScanlon@mdwcg.com

Portrait of Victoria Crawshaw Scanlon

Victoria is the supervising attorney for the Health Care Liability Practice Group in the Scranton office. She is an experienced litigator with more than 20 years of experience representing physicians, midwives, nurse practitioners, nurses, physical therapists, hospitals, ambulatory surgery centers, skilled nursing facilities, personal care homes, home health care providers and physician practice groups in Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. Victoria is a proven trial attorney and highly successful negotiator. She also provides risk management services.

Prior to joining Marshall Dennehey in 2008, Victoria was a partner in the Boston office of a large litigation firm, where she represented health care professionals and entities in malpractice suits and manufacturers in products liability matters. She is a 1998 graduate of Suffolk University Law School. Victoria obtained her undergraduate degree in communications and political science in 1994 from the University of Rhode Island, where she was the 1994 student commencement speaker and captain of the debate team.

Victoria was born in Johannesburg, South Africa. She is a dual citizen of the United States of America and South Africa.

    • Suffolk University Law School (J.D., 1998)
    • University of Rhode Island (B.A., 1994)
    • Massachusetts, 1999
    • U.S. District Court District of Massachusetts, 2002
    • Pennsylvania, 2008
    • U.S. District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania, 2011
    • The Best Lawyers in America®, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants (2023-2027)
    • The Best Lawyers in America®, Health Care Law; Litigation - Health Care (2025-2027)
    • BV® Distinguished™ by LexisNexis Martindale-Hubbell
    • International Association of Defense Counsel (IADC) (2006 Trial Academy, attendee)
    • Massachusetts Super Lawyer Rising Star (2007)
    • Lackawanna Bar Association
    • Massachusetts Bar Association
    • How to Write a Great Report: Malpractice Lawyer’s Perspective, American Roentgen Ray Society (ARRS) Annual Meeting, Pittsburgh, PA, April 12, 2026
    • Legal Update: Advanced Practice Providers, The CHART Institute, webinar, June 18, 2025
    • Legal Update: Advanced Practice Providers, The CHART Institute, webinar, October 24, 2023
    • What a Radiologist Should Know About Medical Malpractice, Department of Radiology at Penn State Hershey Medical School, May 11, 2023
    • Advanced Practice Clinicians in Health Care: What Your Facility Needs to Know, ASHRM 2018 Annual Conference, Nashville, Tennessee, October 8, 2018
    • Mock Depositions: What the Child Psychiatrist Needs to Know Before Sitting in the Hot Seat, The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 64th Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C., October 27, 2017
    • Mock Trial: Lessons for Psychiatrists from the Bar and Risk Management, New York-Presbyterian Hospital Child Psychiatry Residency, New York University Child Psychiatry Residency, Weill Cornell Psychiatry Residency Programs, Allied World, August 2017
    • Medical Malpractice Case Study - Suicide and the Defense of a Wrongful Death Claim, Pennsylvania Association of Health Care Risk Management (PAHCRM), Annual Conference, September 9, 2016
    • Ostensible Agency and Corporate Liability Claims: What You Need to Know, Health Care and Health Law Seminar, Marshall Dennehey, November 5, 2015
    • Mock Trial: Lessons for Psychiatrists From the Bar and Risk Management, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Annual Meeting, San Antonio, Texas, October 30, 2015
    • Peer Review, Charting Pitfalls/Issues and Anticipated Legal Issues Pertaining to the Electronic Medical Record, Northeast Chapter of the Pennsylvania Association of Nonprofit Senior Services, Continuing Education Conference, April 2009
    • "Enforceability of Nursing Home Arbitration Agreements in Pennsylvania," Defense Digest, Vol. 20, No. 4, December 2014
    • Case Law Alerts, contributor, 2010-2012
    • Obtained a defense verdict on behalf a midwife defendant in an alleged failure to properly manage and care for a patient's labor and delivery, resulting in catastrophic injury to her child. Counsel for the minor-plaintiff argued that the pregnancy and labor were high risk and, therefore, it was below the standard of care to use intermittent auscultation (IA) during the second stage of labor. The plaintiff argued that the fetus suffered a catastrophic brain injury during the second stage of labor, resulting in cerebral palsy and daily intractable seizures. The child, six years of age, wheelchair bound and unable to speak or feed himself, will require lifetime supervision and care. The defense argued that the patient's pregnancy remained low risk, and therefore, IA was within the standard of care; that a sentinel event did not occur during the second stage of labor; and that child's brain injury occurred in the days leading up to the hospital admission for labor.

Results

View all

Medical Malpractice Arbitration Ends in Defense Award

We obtained an arbitration defense award in a medical malpractice case, in which the plaintiff alleged that our radiologist client misread the first of two head CT scans. She claimed that a timely diagnosis of her issue, which turned out to be cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT), would have given her the opportunity for a cure. We successfully argued that the head CT showed what appeared to be a normal anatomical variant, which only identified plaintiff’s CVT diagnosis with additional, more sensitive imaging studies.

Defense arbitration award in a podiatric surgical malpractice case.

The 55-year-old plaintiff underwent tarsal tunnel surgery. She developed post-operative complications, including infection, and required two additional surgeries, including a sural artery flap graft. The plaintiff gained over 100 pounds after the podiatric surgeries and underwent gastric bypass surgery. She alleged it was required as the result of being sedentary from the podiatric surgeries and complications. The plaintiff has significant lower extremity surgical scarring, chronic pain and a gait abnormality. She was never able to return to work. She  alleged that the defendant intentionally kept fraudulent, incomplete and untimely electronic medical records. The defense argued that the podiatric surgeries were indicated and performed within the standard of care, and that the plaintiff developed post-operative complications resulting in the need for additional surgeries due to her own noncompliance—prematurely and repeatedly walking on her surgical foot and getting her surgical dressings wet.

News

View all

Events

View all

Speaking Engagement

2026 American Roentgen Ray Society (ARRS) Annual Meeting

April 12, 2026

Pittsburgh, PA

Victoria Crawshaw Scanlon

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

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

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

Thought Leadership

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

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

Event

CLM 2026 Focus Conference

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

Result

$1.09 Billion Products Liability Verdict Overturned

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

Thought Leadership

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

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

Result

$19 Million Medical Malpractice Verdict Overturned

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

Result

Statutory Employer Immunity Upheld

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

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

News

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

graphic announcing our 6 2027 Super Lawyers & Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2027 New Jersey Super Lawyers And Rising Stars

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

News

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