Advertising Disclosure Email Disclosure

Health Care Liability

Recognition

Marshall Dennehey's health care attorneys have a reputation for excellence in defending health care liability matters. In September 2016, our Professional Liability Department was recognized as the Pennsylvania "Litigation Department of the Year" for both medical and non-medical professional liability by The Legal Intelligencer. The practice group was selected for its focused approach and responsiveness to clients. Read "Ready to Roll: Marshall Dennehey Puts Clients' Needs First."

This award follows the Health Care Department's 2012 recognition by The Legal Intelligencer as the "Medical Malpractice Litigation Department of the Year." Such accolades serve as a testament to our attorneys' dedication and commitment to providing excellence in defense representation to all manner of professionals, hospitals and other entities in the health care environment.

Overview

The attorneys in the Health Care Liability Practice Group defend medical professionals and providers in all areas of health care liability, ranging from medical malpractice and credentialing and licensing issues to investigations involving governmental agencies. We represent health care providers throughout Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey, Ohio, Florida and New York, including:

  • Physicians
  • Registered nurses
  • Certified registered nurse anesthetists
  • Dentists
  • Oral surgeons
  • Midwives
  • Psychologists
  • Podiatrists
  • Chiropractors


In addition, we count many health care institutions among our clients, including:

  • Hospitals
  • Health systems
  • Surgical centers
  • Psychiatric facilities
  • Health clinics


The health care industry is constantly evolving and we recognize the need to remain abreast of these changes in order to best serve our clients. The attorneys in the Health Care Liability Practice Group are well versed in the unique intricacies and regulations affecting health care providers. In fact, several attorneys in the group are former health care professionals with clinical experience in the fields of nursing, podiatry, pharmacology and physical therapy.

Clients benefit from a unique blend of experienced and dedicated litigators, geographical coverage and cost-effectiveness in the field of health care liability. We work together early on in litigation to determine exactly what they wish to accomplish, and counsel them as cases unfold. Timely, substantive and prompt communications are paramount in our approach to working closely with clients in defending their interests.

We take great pride in the depth of litigation experience our firm offers and will not hesitate to try cases to verdict and challenge issues at the appellate level.

Pages

Jan 24, 2011
Attorneys obtained a defense verdict in a binding high/low ADR in which we represented an emergency room physician who treated the plaintiff for approximately 10 hours in the ER for complaints of diarrhea, vomiting and fever before having the...
Dec 6, 2010
Attorneys obtained a defense verdict after a 6 day trial. Plaintiff was claiming she suffered from fibromyalgia and was disabled and unable to work following a jaw fracture she sustained after extraction of an impacted third molar.
Dec 6, 2010
Attorneys received a defense verdict in a case in which they defended a gynecologist in a case involving a tubal ligation procedure. Plaintiff had claimed that the doctor was negligent in causing a bowel perforation. The jury disagreed, finding no...
Dec 6, 2010
Attorneys obtained a defense verdict following a 3 week trial involving the death of a 71 year old woman who, following a routine cardiac catheterization, suffered a retroperitoneal bleed which, 2 days later, resulted in a cardiac arrest due to...
Nov 11, 2010
Attorney obtained a defense verdict for a Pulmonary/Critical Care group after an 11 day trial. The jury deliberated seven hours before returning a verdict against the co-defendant hospital, while finding no negligence on the part of the three...
Oct 29, 2010
Attorneys successfully defened at trial, a large hospital and an employed C.R.N.A. The two week trial involved the death, after 8 months of conscious pain and suffering, of an otherwise healthy, recently married, 48 year-old consecrated Bishop....
Oct 11, 2010
Attorneys secured a defense verdict after a six day jury trial in an optometry malpractice suit. It was claimed that the optometrist, along with two ophthalmologists in his practice group, failed to make a timely diagnosis of acanthameoba...
Aug 30, 2010
Attorneys were successful in having a Second Amended Complaint dismissed on Preliminary Objections. After meeting with the Plaintiff's daughter, the employee of the insured psychology group reported suspected child abuse to various county...
Jun 28, 2010
Attorneys obtained a defense verdict in a medical negligence case. Defendant, a pulmonologist, was alleged to have breached the standard of care by failing to give the 46 year-old decedent informed consent prior to performing a bronchoscopy with...
Jun 21, 2010
Attorney obtained a defense verdict in a medical negligence case. Defendants, two family practice physicians, were alleged to have breached the standard of care by failing to inform the patient that a wound culture came back positive for...

Pages

Pages

Defense Digest Article September 4, 2018
Defense Digest, Vol. 24, No. 3, September 2018 By Nicholas A. Rimassa, Esq.* Key Points: New Jersey Appellate Devision explores distinctions between medical malpractice cases based upon deviation from applicalbe standard of care and...,   Defense Digest, Vol. 24, No. 3, September 2018. Defense Digest is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to...
Defense Digest Article June 1, 2018
Defense Digest, Vol. 24, No. 2, June 2018 By Rachel C. Freedman, Esq. and John C. Farrell, Esq.* Key Points: The Superior Court’s decision in Moody may make it more difficult for trial courts to successfully order venue transfers..., In Moody v. Lehigh Valley Hospital-Cedar Crest, et al., 179 A.3d 496 (Pa.Super. 2018), the Superior Court of Pennsylvania departed from Supreme Court of Pennsylvania precedent regarding venue transfer on forum non-conveniens grounds. It consequently...,   Defense Digest, Vol. 24, No. 2, June 2018. Defense Digest is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to...
Articles April 6, 2018
Law Alerts April 1, 2018
The plaintiffs failed to provide an Affidavit of Merit within the required 120 days. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss. After retaining new counsel, the plaintiffs moved to vacate the order of dismissal, arguing their..., Case Law Alerts, 2nd Quarter, April 2018 Case Law Alerts is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice...
Law Alerts April 1, 2018
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review to determine whether or not the Pennsylvania Superior Court committed an error of law in: (1) holding that a health care system client waives the work-product protection when its counsel exchanges pre-..., Case Law Alerts, 2nd Quarter, April 2018 Case Law Alerts is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice...
Defense Digest Article March 1, 2018
Defense Digest, Vol. 24, No. 1, March 2018 By Craig A. Stone, Esq.* Key Points: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled that the applicable statute of limitations for medical professional liability cases in which wrongful death or..., Defense Digest, Vol. 24, No. 1, March 2018. Defense Digest is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended...
Defense Digest Article March 1, 2018
Defense Digest, Vol. 24, No. 1, March 2018 By Chanel A. Mosley, Esq.* Key Points: Supreme Court of Florida renders decision regarding peer review records of health care facility or provider. The court’s opinion is death..., Defense Digest, Vol. 24, No. 1, March 2018. Defense Digest is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended...
Law Alerts January 19, 2018
In a sharply divided 4-3 decision, the Florida Supreme Court struck in its entirety § 766.1065(3)(E) of the mandatory HIPAA authorization which a plaintiff is required to provide to a defendant during pre-suit. The section at issue permitted ex..., Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, January 2018 Case Law Alerts is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal...
Law Alerts January 19, 2018
The plaintiff’s allegation was not that the cardiologist failed to properly interpret the echocardiogram or made any misdiagnoses of the plaintiff’s condition. Rather, the allegation was that the cardiologist failed to timely return the..., Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, January 2018 Case Law Alerts is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal...

Pages

Chair

T. Kevin FitzPatrick
Director, Health Care Department
(610) 354-8252
tkfitzpatrick@mdwcg.com

Co-Chair

William L. Banton Jr.
Shareholder
(215) 575-2806
wlbanton@mdwcg.com

Related Practice Areas

Before you send this email please note:

You are attempting to send email, through a link on our website, to an attorney of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin or an employee in our firm. Please note that your email may not be treated as confidential and does not create an attorney-client relationship. You should not rely upon the transmission of an email through this website if you are seeking to enter into such a relationship. Until such time as we have agreed to represent you, no information in your email will be treated as confidential. Please contact us directly by telephone at 1.800.220.3308 if it is your intent to seek legal counsel with our firm or convey confidential information.

If it is still your intent to send this email, knowing that it may not be treated as confidential, you may accept our terms of agreement by pressing "OK". If you choose not to accept these terms of agreement you may navigate away from this page by pressing "Cancel."