.

Patrick M. Carey

Portrait of Patrick M. Carey

Patrick is active in the defense of a wide variety of litigation areas including motor vehicle liability, premises liability, municipal liability, and hospitality and liquor liability. With his extensive criminal law background, Patrick also handles civil rights defense and insurance fraud cases. He has successfully handled several civil rights and municipal liability cases involving prisons, police departments, police officers and municipalities.

Patrick is a graduate of Gannon University in Erie, Pennsylvania. Following graduation, Patrick attended Ohio Northern University School of Law where he achieved his juris doctor in 1987. He then served as a law clerk for the Honorable Shad Connelly of the Court of Common Pleas for Erie County, Pennsylvania. Prior to joining Marshall Dennehey, Patrick served as an Erie County Assistant District Attorney for more than eight years. In that role, he tried over 100 criminal cases, including high-profile homicide cases, as well as precedent-setting cases.

Patrick was an adjunct professor at Gannon University where he taught an undergraduate course in Criminal Evidence. He was also a lecturer in the joint project between the Erie County Courts and the Erie City School District entitled "Personal Responsibility and the Law." Patrick also was a lecturer in the Erie County Bar Association's "Stepping Out" program by which Erie County lawyers addressed high school students regarding legal issues facing them upon graduation.

    • Ohio Northern University Pettit College of Law (J.D., 1987)
    • Gannon University
      • B.S., B.A., 1984
    • Pennsylvania, 1987
    • U.S. District Court Western District of Pennsylvania, 1987
    • U.S. Court of Appeals 3rd Circuit, 1993
    • New York, 2016
    • The Best Lawyers in America©, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants (2024-2026)
    • Erie County Assistant District Attorney Association, Former Vice President
    • Erie County Bar Association
    • Pennsylvania Bar Association
    • Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association, Former Member
    • Criminal Evidence, Gannon University
    • Liability for Police Pursuits
    • Municipal Liability for Roadway Dangers
    • "Pennsylvania Superior Court Further Limits the Limited Tort Defense," Defense Digest, Vol. 21, No. 2, June 2015
    • Defended a former City of Erie Police Officer who was tried with his partner and the City of Erie in an excessive use of force matter arising from the arrest of the plaintiff, who sustained facial and low back injuries in the arrest. The case was tried in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The jury returned defense verdicts for both officers and the City of Erie.
    • Defended two City of Erie Police Officers, the Chief of Police, and the City of Erie in a civil rights suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The police were invited into the plaintiff’s home by her 18-year¬ old son to keep the peace while he gathered his belongings and moved out. During this, the plaintiff assaulted one of the officers and was taken into custody. In her struggles with the officers, the plaintiff sustained injuries to her wrist. She claimed illegal entry, illegal arrest, and excessive use of force. The jury returned defense verdicts after 20 minutes of deliberation.
    • Defending a number of Erie County Sheriff’s Deputies who used a taser on a convict who struggled with them as he was lead from the courtroom following sentencing.
    • Defending the Erie County Prison and the McKean County Jail in a number of prisoner suits alleging violations of 8th amendment and other civil rights violations regarding their incarceration in prison.
    • Defending the McKean County District Attorney, County Commissioners, and McKean County Prothonotary in civil rights actions arising from the plaintiff’s prosecution for criminal and protection from abuse matters.
    • Defending the Erie County District Attorney, Adult Probation Officers, and Clerk of Courts in a suit stemming from a criminal sentencing issue imposed on the plaintiff.
    • Defending various officials in Warren County, including their Sheriff, District Attorney, Public Defender, and Prothonotary, in civil rights claims raised by a convict.

Results

Appellate Reversal in the Third Circuit Obtained in Fourth Amendment Civil Rights Case

In a unanimous precedential opinion, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with our attorneys that a law enforcement officer’s attempted arrest of the plaintiff did not constitute an unlawful seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Our client was instructed by a neighboring police department to hold a burglary suspect who was subject to a search warrant, but not an arrest warrant. After the officer tried to detain the suspect, he fled, and a fight ensued. While the district court held that the officer’s initial attempt to detain the plaintiff was an unlawful seizure, the Third Circuit accepted our reasoning that no seizure occurred because the plaintiff never submitted to the officer.

Dismissal of claims against a Pennsylvania city and a police officer.

In this civil rights litigation, we obtained summary judgment and the dismissal of all claims against a Pennsylvania City and one of its police officers. The court found that the traffic stop of the plaintiff was proper and did not violate his constitutional rights. The plaintiff filed a federal civil rights action against the police officer and the City, alleging that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated because of unlawful search and seizure as well as a malicious prosecution. The plaintiff further alleged that the City was liable for the constitutional violation based upon a failure to train its officers. These claims were based, in part, upon the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision in Commonwealth v. Hicks, which was filed approximately two months before the plaintiff’s arrest. In this civil rights case, the parties agree to forego discovery and instead rely solely upon the record developed in the plaintiff’s state criminal prosecution. After considering the record evidence, the arguments of each side, and the motions and briefs submitted, the District Court issued an opinion finding that the police officer possessed a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, justifying the traffic stop of the plaintiff’s vehicle. Because the court concluded that the plaintiff’s constitutional rights had not been violated, an analysis of qualified immunity was unnecessary. Finally, after finding that the officer did not violate the plaintiff’s constitutional rights, the court dismissed the Monell claims raised against the City.

Firm Highlights

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

Ohio Supreme Court Holds That a Binding Appraisal Award May Not Be Set Aside Absent Specific Evidence of Manifest Mistake or Fraud

On July 23, 2026, the Ohio Supreme Court issued a rare opinion on the binding effect of an appraisal award in a property insurance policy.  The Court in One Church held: A binding appraisal award will not be set aside unless an error is so palpably wrong that it undermines the intent of the agreement, such as corruption or gross mistake, not a mere error of judgment—To plead a claim of mistake with particularity as required by Civ.R. 9(B), facts alleged in a complaint must constitute the elements of mistake—Allegation that additional, hidden damage was discovered after appraisal award failed to state a claim of mistake that could justify setting aside binding appraisal.  The case arose out of a claim brought by One Church against its insurer, Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Company for roof damage from a storm. Pursuant to the terms of the insurance policy, the parties agreed to submit the matter to appraisal. The two appraisers inspected the building, and both appraisers agreed that the damages were $313,271.98. The insurer paid the agreed appraised amount.  Thereafter, the insured submitted a claim for an additional $206,663.09 in damages. The insured argued that these additional damages were not discovered until after the repairs began, and that they should be permitted to submit an additional claim, even though there had already been a binding appraisal of damages. The insurer refused to pay the additional damages, and the insured sued for breach of contract and bad faith.  In the trial court, the insurer moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, arguing that the binding appraisal award barred any further claims. The insured took the position that additional hidden damages could not be discovered until after the repairs began, and therefore there was a mutual mistake. The trial court dismissed the case on the insurer’s motion, because there was no “evidence of fraud, misfeasance, or mistake”. The Court of Appeals agreed that appraisal awards are generally binding, but noted that an appraisal award can be set aside for fraud or manifest mistake. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case to the trial court, finding that the insured had pled mistake with sufficient particularity. The insurer appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court. On appeal, the Ohio Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, and reinstated the trial court decision dismissing the case for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Supreme Court found that since the insured had already demanded appraisal, and the appraisal award was binding, “something more than error of judgement, such as corruption in the arbitrator, or gross mistake” must be pled with particularity, and proven for the insured to override the appraisal award. Since the complaint did not allege fraud or manifest mistake with sufficient particularity, something more than a mere error of judgment, the complaint was insufficient to state a claim.  The complaint in this case did not challenge the appraisal award. It pled that additional damages were discovered that were not apparent when the appraisal was done. It did not specify “who discovered the damages, how they were discovered, where they were found, why they were previously hidden, or why they rise to the level of a manifest mistake that the “appraiser would have corrected...had it been called to his attention”. Id at ¶22 citing Lakewood Mfg. Co. v. Home Ins. Co. of New York, 422 F.2d 796, 798 (6th Cir. 1970). Cases deciding the effect of appraisal awards are unusual. The Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in One Church relies primarily on 19th century case law for its conclusion. This emphasizes the fact that there is minimal case law deciding the effect of binding appraisal clauses in property insurance policies, and makes this case all the more significant. A lengthy dissent was written by Justice Fisher, who would have affirmed the Court of Appeals decision reversing and remanding the case for a decision on the merits. Of course, the decision works both ways, and an insurer dissatisfied with a binding appraisal award will likewise be without further recourse absent evidence of corruption, fraud, misfeasance, or manifest mistake, which must be pled with particularity. To constitute manifest mistake, “the mistake must be of such character that the arbitrator or appraiser would have corrected it had it been called to his attention.”  Lakewood Mfg. Co. v. Home Ins. Co. of New York, 422 F.2d 796, 798 (6th Cir. 1970).  The majority opinion does not specifically identify what would have been sufficient to plead mistake with particularity, or if the insured could have amended the complaint to overcome the deficiencies. The dissent argues that this was not really a case alleging mistake, but rather a question of contract interpretation. The insured did not challenge the appraisal, but argued that the hidden damage was not part of the appraisal, and the appraisal only covered the known damages.  However, this argument did not carry the day with the majority.  *Thomas F. Glassman, a shareholder in Marshall Dennehey’s Cincinnati office, filed a brief in the Ohio Supreme Court on behalf of the Ohio Association of Civil Trial Attorneys, in support of the insurer’s position.