.

Anthony Natale III

Chair, Medicare Compliance Practice

Shareholder

APNatale@mdwcg.com

Portrait of Anthony Natale III

Tony devotes his practice to Pennsylvania workers' compensation, unemployment compensation, municipal law (Heart and Lung Act), and federal Longshore and Harbor workers' compensation. He focuses on high-exposure, complex litigation including repetitive trauma claims, occupational disease and hearing loss claims, as well as chemical sensitivity claims. He also actively represents the National Hockey League and the National Basketball Association in regard to workers' compensation matters. In addition, Tony is the Chair of our Medicare Compliance Practice.

Tony has represented law firms, financial institutions, forging companies, steel mills, transportation companies, aeronautical/space manufacturers, universities and hospitals in various types of workers' compensation and unemployment compensation matters. He has handled multiple high-exposure workers' compensation chemical and toxic tort claims involving mass defendants, and he has had a high success rate in having clients dismissed from same.

Tony is the founder of Marshall Dennehey's in-house workers' compensation Continuing Legal Education program. He is also frequently called upon to speak to insurance companies and self-insured employers in the areas of workers' compensation and employment law.

    • Successfully argued that viewing the September 11 terrorist events and suffering a psychological condition did not rise to the degree of a work injury under Pennsylvania law.
    • Refined the interpretation of workers' compensation case law as it relates to the staute of limitations regarding death claims from medication abuse.
    • Successfully defeated and/or resolved at base value more than 400 high-exposure hearing loss cases in western and eastern Pennsylvania.
    • Successfully defended 50 late answer high-exposure claim petitions in eastern and middle Pennsylvania in 2007.
    • Successfully handled multiple heart attack and psychological claims.
    • Successfully handled multiple toxic tort (asbestos, silica) cases.
    • University of Pittsburgh School of Law (J.D., 1991)
    • University of Pennsylvania (B.A., 1988)
    • Pennsylvania, 1991
    • The Best Lawyers in America®, Workers’ Compensation Law – Employers (2025-2027)
    • Pennsylvania Super Lawyers (2026)
    • Philadelphia Bar Association
    • Average Weekly Wage, panelist, Pennsylvania Bar Association Workers' Compensation Fall Section Meeting, September 12, Hershey, Pennsylvania
    • How to Deal With Difficult Litigants, Pennsylvania Bar Institute's Tough Problems in Workers' Compensation webinar, May 11, 2023
    • Workers' Compensation Case Law Update, Marshall Dennehey Workers' Compensation Seminar, October 27, 2022
    • Hot Topics in Workers' Comp and Litigation Trends, Philly I-Day, Philadelphia, PA, September 20, 2022
    • "Insurance Defense Attorneys Combat Workers' Compensation Fraud,"AM Best Insurance Law Podcast, August 31, 2022
    • What People Do For Money:  Identifying Claimant Fraud In Workers’ Compensation Cases, Marshall Dennehey Insurance Fraud 360 Seminar, Lafayette Hill, PA, June, 2022 
    • The Right Way to Avoid a Wrongful Termination Claim When the Employee Is Also a Workers’ Compensation Claimant, Marshall Dennehey webinar, March 3, 2022
    • Navigate the Medicare Maze: A Practical Guide to Understanding Medicare Set-Asides, Marshall Dennehey webinar, November 19, 2020
    • Decisions, Decisions: A Legal Update, Marshall Dennehey webinar, October 28, 2020
    • HR Webinar Series Part I: Workers' Compensation Basics, Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry, February 13, 2020
    • Workers' Compensation and Medicare Legal Update, Marshall Dennehey Workers' Compensation Seminar, October 24, 2019
    • Identifying Fraudulent Workers' Compensation Claims, Marshall Dennehey Workers' Compensation Seminar, October 24, 2019
    • The Interplay Between Traumatic Brain Injuries and Fraud in Workers' Compensation, Pennsylvania Insurance Fraud Conference, Hershey, Pennsylvania, April 24, 2019
    • Influence of Pharmaceuticals and Changing Landscape in Workers' Comp Medical Costs, Philly I-Day, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, April 9, 2019
    • Workers' Compensation Case Law Update; and Workers' Compensation Fraud, Marshall Dennehey Workers' Compensation Seminar, October 25, 2018
    • Workers' Compensation Fraud: Don't Forget the Data, Marshall Dennehey Insurance Fraud 360, June 13, 2018
    • Workers' Compensation Fraud: Don't Ignore the Data! 2018 Pennsylvania Insurance Fraud Conference, Pocono Manor, Pennsylvania, April 13, 2018
    • Workers' Compensation Fraud: Don't Forget the Data, Philly I-Day, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, April 12, 2018
    • Biggest Mistakes Companies Make in Complying with Workers’ Compensation, Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry Annual Human Resources Conference, Hershey, Pennsylvania, November 28, 2017
    • Workers' Compensation Legal Update, Marshall Dennehey Workers' Compensation Seminar, October 19, 2017
    • If You See Something, Say Something – Detecting Workers' Compensation Fraud, Pennsylvania’s 2017 Insurance Fraud Conference, Hershey, Pennsylvania, April 6, 2017
    • Case Law Update, Marshall Dennehey Workers' Compensation Seminars, October 19 and 27, 2016
    • Pennsylvania's Workers’ Compensation Law: Best Practices for Complying with Benefits, Understanding the Flow of a Workers’ Compensation Claim, and Tips to Prevent WC Fraud, PA Chamber of Business and Industry Workers' Compensation Summit, September 30, 2016
    • Check the Rulebook: Workers' Compensation Legal Update, Marshall Dennehey Workers' Compensation Seminar, October 22, 2015
    • Unemployment Compensation Roundtable, Pennsylvania Chamber of Commerce, June 2015
    • Tough Problems in Workers' Compensation 2015, Pennsylvania Bar Institute, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, April 13, 2015
    • UC/WC 101 Benefits Roundtable, Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, March 19, 2015
    • PEO's effect on Guaranty Fund: Insurance Company Perspective, Fund Perspective and Counsel Perspective, NCIGF 2014 Fall Workshop, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, October 22, 2014
    • Case Law and House Bill Update, Marshall Dennehey Workers' Compensation Seminar, October 30, 2014
    • Social Media and Workers’ Compensation, and Handling Unusual WC Situations, Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry Workers' Compensation Summit, Hershey, Pennsylvania, October 1, 2014
    • Workers' Compensation Medical Fraud and Abuse, CEU Institute, June 25, 2014
    • Busted! Identifying, Proving And Prosecuting Workers' Compensation Fraud, National Workers' Compensation Insurance ExecuSummit, Uncasville, Connecticut, February 4-5, 2014
    • Understanding the Most Common Mistakes Made in Workers' Compensation, Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry Annual Human Resources Conference, Hershey, Pennsylvania, December 3, 2013
    • Tri-State Workers' Compensation Legal Update, Roadmap to Success - Understanding Workers' Compensation, Marshall Dennehey seminar, October 24, 2013
    • FrankenFraud – The New Employee Monster, Marshall Dennehey Workers' Compensation Seminar, November 30, 2012 
    • Workers' Compensation 101 Roundtable, Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, June 8, 2012
    • Unemployment Claims Fraud: Protect Your Organization from Bogus Jobless Claims, Center for Competitive Management, April 19, 2012 
    • Unemployment Compensation Roundtable, Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry, Scranton, Pennsylvania, March 8, 2012; King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, March 16, 2012
    • The Interplay Between the Pennsylvania Heart and Lung Act and the Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Act, AmeriHealth Casualty webinar, August 25, 2011
    • Top Ten Defenses to a Fee Review Action, Chubb Seminar, April 2011; discussion about the problems associated with provider fraud in fee review applications and a 10-point analysis on how to properly defend these cases
    • Workers' Compensation Primer, Drexel Seminar, March 2011; an analysis on how to defend workers' compensation actions in a university setting
    • Pennsylvania Claims Handling (monthly seminars in PA, NJ and DE), 2002-present
    • Defending Pennsylvania Claims, Boston, 2008
    • Prosecuting Fraud Under New Guides, Texas, 2006
    • Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Law and Claims Handling, Michigan, 2001
    • Case Law Updates to various insurers on monthly basis, 1998-2000
    • Prosecuting Fraud, 1997
    • Pennsylvania Forms Seminar, 1997
    • Act 57 Amendments, 1996
    • How to Defend Hearing Loss Cases, 1994
    • ADA and Workers' Compensation Act, five Pennsylvania cities, 1992
    • "Compensating the Boys of Fall - College Sports May Soon Face the Ultimate Call: Player or Employee?"CLM Magazine, October 22, 2025 
    • "Beware of the Language Used in Your Settlement Agreements: Medicare is Watching,"The Legal Intelligencer, Workers' Compensation Supplement, October 10, 2023
    • "Why do Claimants Lie? Because They Can and Swift Prosecution is the Only Way to Deter It,"CLM Magazine, June 2023
    • "The State of Pay-For-Play: College Athletes as Employees and the Implications for Workers' Compensation," CLM Magazine, September 2021
    • "Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Act and the Student-Athlete: The Ultimate Mismatch," Pennsylvania Lawyer, September/October 2019
    • "Suicide Squeeze: An Overview of Pa. Workers' Comp and the Pro Athlete," The Legal Intelligencer, Workers' Compensation Supplement, October 30, 2018
    • "If You See Something, Say Something - The Importance of Identifying and Reporting Workers' Compensation Fraud," CLM Magazine (page 10), August 2017
    • Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Guide, Eighth Edition, Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry, contributing author, 2016
    • "The Treating Physician: A Misnomer in Workers' Comp Litigation," Pennsylvania Law Weekly, August 25, 2015
    • Insurance Agency Risk Management: E & O Exposures By Line of Business, chapter on workers' compensation, 2014 edition
    • "Practical Ramifications of Supreme Court Determination Involving Latent Manifestation of Occupational Diseases Under the PA Workers' Compensation Act," CounterPoint, newsletter of the PA Defense Institute, April 2014.
    • "PEOs: A New Potential for Workers' Comp Fraud? A Close Look at Professional Employer Organizations," National Underwriter Property & Casualty, October 2013
    • "Fee Review Litigation: An Overview," Pennsylvania Self-Insurers' Association newsletter, May 2011
    • "Retirement Does Not Mean Retirement When You are Collecting Workers' Compensation Benefits," The Philadelphia Lawyer, Summer 2011
    • "Ding Dong Kachinski's Dead: Commonwealth Court Declines To Resuscitate," Defense Digest, Vol. 16, No. 3, September 2010
    • Articles in Defense Digest and the Pennsylvania Self-Insurer's Association's publications

Results

View all
man with sling signing contract photo

Defense Verdict Obtained Involving an Employment-Related Shoulder Injury

Defense Verdict Secured in a Case Centered on an Employment-Related Low Back Injury

We received a defense verdict on our termination petition in a case where the claimant sustained a low back injury when he slipped and fell in an elevator during his employment. The employer had an IME wherein the claimant was pronounced fully recovered from strain injuries. The claimant presented evidence that alleged disc injury and ongoing radiculopathy. The matter proceeded to litigation and a decision on the merits. The court found the employer’s expert to be credible as to full recovery based on the finding that no architectural change could be identified between the claimant’s diagnostic studies when compared to studies from before and after the work injury.

Thought Leadership

View all

Compensating the Boys of Fall. College Sports May Soon Face the Ultimate Call: Player or Employee?

October 22, 2025

College sports may soon face the ultimate call: player or employee?

Beware of the Language Used in Your Settlement Agreements: Medicare Is Watching

October 2, 2023

The workers’ compensation practitioner has now become a forced bedfellow of CMS, like it or not. If you fail to “issue spot” in relevant settlements, you will have problems.

News

View all

Firm Highlights

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

Congratulations To Our 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers & Rising Stars! Super Lawyers: Thomas F. Glassman Personal Injury, General Defense. Rising Stars: Micheal A. Roberts Personal Injury, Medical Malpractice Defense, Gabriella M. Wittbrod Personal Injury, Medical Malpractice Defense

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

Thought Leadership

The Ohio Supreme Court Extends Sham-Affidavit Rule to Contradictory Expert Reports

Legal Roundup: Ohio In its June 23, 2026, decision in Moore v. Mercy Medical Center, the Ohio Supreme Court upheld a trial court’s decision to strike an expert witness’s affidavit that contradicted the opinions expressed in the expert’s prior report. This case pertains to allegations of medical malpractice after plaintiff Cheri Moore gave birth to an infant in respiratory distress who required intubation. Moore alleged that a delay in ordering an emergency cesarean section resulted in the need for intubation, causing her child’s injuries. Specifically, Moore sued Dr. Meniru, who completed his first shift at 7:00 a.m. on May 28, 2015, and did not resume treating Moore until 7:00 a.m. on May 29, 2015. One of Moore’s expert witnesses authored a report stating that the doctors, including Dr. Meniru, deviated from the standard of care by not advocating for a cesarean section in the evening of May 28, 2015. Based on this report, Dr. Meniru moved for summary judgment, arguing that the alleged breach occurred during a period when he was not on duty. In response to the summary judgment motion, the plaintiff filed an affidavit from the same expert. Although the expert expressly incorporated his previous report into his affidavit, he also offered an additional opinion: that Dr. Meniru breached the standard of care by failing to begin a cesarean section within 30 minutes of receiving reports of fetal distress. Dr. Meniru filed a motion to strike the expert’s affidavit, arguing that it contradicted the opinions set forth in his prior report in violation of the sham-affidavit rule. The sham-affidavit rule applies to “a contradictory affidavit that indicates only that the affiant cannot maintain a consistent story, or is willing to offer a statement solely for the purpose of defeating summary judgment”. Moore, supra, at ¶ 19, citing Pettiford v. Aggarwal, 126 Ohio St.3d 413, 2010-Ohio-3237. The trial court granted both the motion to strike and the motion for summary judgment, and the Fifth District affirmed. The Ohio Supreme Court accepted two questions of law: (1) whether the sham-affidavit rule applies when the sworn testimony contradicts prior unsworn statements; and (2) whether an inconsistency within the affidavit goes to credibility or admissibility, justifying an order striking the affidavit. Previous rulings by the Ohio Supreme Court regarding the sham-affidavit rule have pertained to contradictions between an affidavit and sworn deposition testimony. See, e.g., Byrd v. Smith, 2006- Ohio-3455, 110 Ohio St.3d 24, 850 N.E.2d 47. However, here, the Court was asked to apply the same rule to contradictions between a sworn affidavit and an unsworn expert report. The Court held that, because Moore’s expert incorporated his prior report into his affidavit, he effectively adopted the report as part of his sworn testimony.

News

106 Marshall Dennehey Attorneys Recognized in the 2027 Editions of The Best Lawyers in America® and the Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America

Marshall Dennehey is proud to highlight the firm’s 106 attorneys who have been recognized in the 2027 editions of The Best Lawyers in America® and the Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America. Less than 6% of all practicing lawyers in the U.S. were selected by their peers for this recognition. Additionally, four of the firm’s attorneys received the Best Lawyers® 2027 “Lawyer of the Year” awards in their respective practice areas and demographic regions. Since it was first published in 1983, Best Lawyers® has become universally regarded as the definitive guide to legal excellence. Best Lawyers lists are compiled based on an exhaustive peer-review evaluation. For more information, please visit https://www.bestlawyers.com/. OUR 2027 LAWYERS OF THE YEAR Harrisburg, PA Christopher Reeser, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Kacey Wiedt, Workers Compensation Law - Employers Roseland, NJ Justin F. Johnson, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Leonard Leicht, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants   OUR 2026 BEST LAWYERS IN AMERICA Philadelphia, PA Nicholas D. Bowers, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Josh J. T. Byrne, Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants Jefferey J. Chomko, Insurance Law James H. Cole, Insurance Law John J. Delany III, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Laurianne Falcone, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants John P. Gonzales, Employment Law - Management John Hare, Appellate Practice Daniel D. Krebbs, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Michele Punturi, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Bradley D. Remick, Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Andrea Cicero Rock, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Robin M. Romano, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Daniel J. Ryan, Jr., Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Gary M. Samms, Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants Christopher N. Santoro, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation -Defendants Josh D. Scheets, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Robert P. Schenk, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Robert E. Smith, Insurance Law Robin Snyder, Litigation - Health Care Michael L. Turner, Commercial Litigation; Criminal Defense: White-Collar; Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants Claire Breaux Ventola, Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Pittsburgh, PA Melissa Devich Cochran, Commercial Litigation; Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants  John F. Deasy, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Daniel W. Deitrick, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Douglas C. LaSota, Litigation - Construction; Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants Joseph V. Lesinski, Product Liability Litigation – Defendants   Christian D. Marquis, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Patricia A. Monahan, Insurance Law; Litigation - Insurance Patrick T. Reilly, Commercial Litigation; Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Brett C. Shear, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Teresa O. Sirianni, Education Law; Employment Law – Management; Litigation - Labor and Employment Stuart Sostmann, Product Liability Litigation – Defendants Danielle M. Vugrinovich, Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants Scranton, PA Sarah E. Argo, Litigation - Insurance Michael J. Connolly, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants; Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants Matthew Keris, Litigation - Health Care; Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants John T. McGrath, Jr., Insurance Law; Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants William J. McPartland, Insurance Law John R. Nealon, Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Victoria Scanlon, Health Care Law; Litigation - Health Care; Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Michael A. Sebastian, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Thomas A. Specht, Insurance Law; Litigation - Insurance Suzanne Tighe, Litigation Insurance Harrisburg , PA Casey Alan Coyle, Administrative/Regulatory Law; Appellate Practice; Commercial Litigation Brittany E. Bakshi, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Shannon P. Fellin, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Allison Krupp, Insurance Law John R. Ninosky, Litigation – Insurance; Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Christopher Reeser, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Kacey Wiedt, Workers' Compensation Law – Employers King of Prussia, PA  Michael L. Detweiler, Construction Law Joseph L. Hoynoski III, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Gregory J. Kelley, Construction Law, Litigation - Construction Anthony Natale III, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Francis X. Wickersham, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers A. Judd Woytek, Workers' Compensation Law – Employers Erie, PA Patrick M. Carey, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Joel M. Snavely, Health Care Law; Insurance Law New Haven, CT Michael Wrona, Commercial Litigation, Litigation - Bankruptcy  Mount Laurel, NJ David D. Blake, Litigation - Insurance Barbara Davis, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Lynne Nahmani, Litigation - Health Care John H. Osorio, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants John L. Slimm, Legal Malpractice Law – Defendants; Professional Malpractice Law – Defendants Roseland, NJ Robert T. Evers, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Justin F. Johnson, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Julia Klubenspies, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Leonard C. Leicht, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Patricia M. McDonagh, Appellate Practice Sunny Sparano, Litigation - Construction Randall S. Watts, Health Care Law New York, NY Tonya M. Lindsey, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Tampa, FL Michael Archibald, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Lindsay G. McCormick, Litigation – Construction Orlando, FL Thomas F. Brown, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Dante C. Rohr, Commercial Litigation Fort Lauderdale, FL Kimberly Kanoff Berman, Appellate Practice Patrick M. Delong, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants Jacksonville, FL  Heather Byrer Carbone, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Linda Wagner Farrell, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Elizabeth B. Ferguson, Litigation - Construction James P. Hanratty, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants Wilmington, DE Sarah B. Cole, Litigation - Insurance Benjamin K. Durstein, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Maria R. Granaudo, Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants  Keri L. Morris-Johnston, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Cincinnati, OH Timothy B. Schenkel, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants David E. Williamson, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Cleveland, OH Vincent E. Cononico, Litigation – Insurance, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Jillian L. Dinehart, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants David J. Fagnilli, Insurance Law Jason P. Ferrante, Health Care Law, Litigation - Health Care Andrew H. Isakoff, Transportation Law Leslie M. Jenny, Litigation - Health Care; Medical Malpractice Law – Defendant OUR 2026 BEST LAWYERS: ONES TO WATCH Jacksonville, FL Sean J. Reeves, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Orlando, FL Carolin A. Pacheco, Insurance Law Mount Laurel Stacey Gorin, Insurance Law Melville, NY Kimberly Gitlin, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants Matthew A. Gray, Insurance Law; Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Philadelphia, PA Holli K. Archer, Health Care Law; Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants; Professional Malpractice Law Emily Pritchyk, Commercial Litigation; Product Liability Litigation – Defendants Pittsburgh, PA Taylor E. Kosko, Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Defendants; Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Alana Staniszewski, Workers' Compensation Law - Employers Michael D. Winsko, Product Liability Litigation – Defendants; Transportation Law King of Prussia, PA Richard Lechette, Commercial Litigation; Insurance Law, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants

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.

Thought Leadership

Best Lawyers in America Recognition

We are proud of the firm’s 16 medical malpractice attorneys who have been recognized in the 2027 editions of The Best Lawyers in America® and the Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America. Less than 6% of all practicing lawyers in the U.S. were selected by their peers for this recognition. Special congratulations to Justin F. Johnson who was recognized as 2027 “Lawyer of the Year” in his jurisdiction for Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants. Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch • Holli K. Archer Best Lawyers in America: • Robert T. Evers • Jason P. Ferrante • Maria R. Granaudo • Joseph L. Hoynoski III • Leslie M. Jenny • Matthew P. Keris • Julia A. Klubenspies • Lynne N. Nahmani • John R. Ninosky • Gary M. Samms • Victoria Crawshaw Scanlon • Brett C. Shear • Joel M. Snavely • Robin B. Snyder

empty courtroom photo

Result

Summary Judgment Secured for Life Insurance Agent

Jason Banonis Holds PDI Attorney of the Year Award with the PDI President

News

Jason Banonis Named Attorney of the Year by the Pennsylvania Defense Institute

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

Pennsylvania Superior Court Reaffirms Liberal Pleading Standard in Medical Malpractice Actions

Legal Roundup: Pennsylvania The Pennsylvania Superior Court has reinforced a broader fact-pleading approach that may make it more difficult for health care defendants to obtain dismissal at the preliminary objection stage. In DaSilva v. Abington Memorial Hospital, the court held that the plaintiffs’ second amended complaint satisfied Pennsylvania’s fact‑pleading requirements despite the absence of individually named negligent actors. In DaSilva, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint alleging that Abington Memorial Hospital was directly and vicariously negligent after the patient, who was experiencing a mental health crisis, was left unattended by hospital staff, exited the emergency department, and was struck by a vehicle, suffering serious injuries. The trial court sustained the hospital’s preliminary objections and dismissed the complaint with prejudice, stating plaintiffs “failed to plead any material factual allegations in support of their claims of negligence [and] set forth vague allegations of negligence and unidentified agency.” Id. at *5. The plaintiffs appealed. On appeal, the Superior Court reversed, holding that the complaint sufficiently pled negligence and vicarious liability claims under Pa.R.C.P. 1019(a). The court concluded that allegations describing the patient’s condition, the hospital’s awareness of that condition, and the alleged failure to monitor or prevent elopement were adequate to satisfy Pennsylvania’s pleading requirements. Significantly, the court rejected the hospital’s argument that the complaint failed because it did not identify the specific employees responsible for the alleged negligence. Instead, the court found that generalized references to “emergency room staff” were sufficient to place the hospital on notice of the claims because “the names of those who performed services for the plaintiff are known to the defendant or can be ascertained during discovery.” Id. at *12 (citing Est. of Denmark ex rel. Hurst v. Williams, 117 A.3d 300, 307 (Pa. Super. 2015)). The effect of DaSilva is that plaintiffs may proceed past the pleading stage with relatively generalized allegations, particularly in cases involving institutional defendants where relevant details are uniquely within the defendant’s control. As a result, health care defendants should anticipate that challenges to claim sufficiency may be resolved in the later stages of litigation, including discovery and summary judgment.