Shane is a member of the firm's Post-Trial and Appellate Advocacy Practice Group. In this role, he handles all aspects of briefing and argument in federal and state appellate courts, and is also routinely tasked with assisting trial teams with the preparation and presentation of briefing and argument in support of pre-trial motions and post-trial motions. The appellate team at Marshall Dennehey also provides critical support to attorneys at trial to ensure that pitfalls are avoided and viable appellate issues are preserved. Serving as appellate lead counsel and trial-level support counsel allows Shane to handle cases of all varieties, including civil rights and municipal liability, negligence, construction accidents, professional malpractice, product liability, toxic torts, and class actions.
In 2021, Shane was named the Assistant General Counsel for the firm. In this role, and drawing on his litigation experience, he brings a results-oriented perspective to issues as they arise for the firm itself. Working with firm General Counsel Jay Rothman, Shane is tasked with process development and assisting colleagues navigate routine (and non-routine) issues that legal professionals face today.
Prior to joining the firm, Shane clerked for Judge D. Brooks Smith, former Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and earlier clerked for Judge William J. Zloch of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Shane has been admitted to practice in all state courts of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Florida, as well as the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the First, Third, Fourth, and Eleventh Circuits, and the United States District Courts for the Eastern and Middle Districts of Pennsylvania.
Honors & Awards
•Pennsylvania Super Lawyer Rising Star (2015-2017)
Classes/Seminars Taught
•Highlights in Pennsylvania Medical Malpractice Law, Health Care and Health Law Seminar, Marshall Dennehey, November 7, 2019
•Highlights in Pennsylvania Medical Malpractice Law, Health Care and Health Law Seminar, Marshall Dennehey, November 5, 2015
Published Works
•“The Phantom Vehicle: Prejudice in Delayed UM Claim Not Presumed, But Certainly Demonstrable,” Defense Digest, Vol. 20, No. 1, March 2014
•Case Law Alerts, regular contributor, January 2014-present
Media Commentary
•'Pa. Atty Off Hook For Extended Interest on Malpractice Award,' Law360, March 31, 2021
Results
Superior Court of Pennsylvania Vacates $1.09 Billion Verdict, Orders New Trial Over Crashworthiness Jury Instructions
We convinced the Superior Court of Pennsylvania to vacate a $1.09 billion jury verdict and remand for a new trial. The court held that the jury had not been properly instructed on the elements of a crashworthiness claim under Pennsylvania law. The court's ruling received press coverage in both The Legal Intelligencer and The Philadelphia Inquirer.
Successfully Dismantled a Complex Claim Against a Major Health Care Corporation
We succeeded in partially dismantling a complex claim against a major health care client. The family of a former in-patient resident who died as a result of complications from the COVID-19 virus filed suit, raising claims that the patient was sexually assaulted while in the care of the hospital and a subsidiary ambulance company. Asked to join the defense team shortly before trial, we effectively discredited the plaintiff’s witnesses throughout the plaintiff’s case-in-chief. At the nonsuit stage, we wholly extricated our client-sealing off any exposure to liability for the large, corporate parent company. Following the jury’s $3.5 million verdict against the remaining defendants, we were engaged as appellate counsel and succeeded in further winnowing the liability exposure. We convinced the trial judge to: (1) deny the plaintiff’s request to reinstate the punitive damages claim based on the trial record; (2) grant a partial judgment notwithstanding the verdict on one claim, lopping a full $700,000 off the jury’s verdict; and (3) outright deny the plaintiff’s motion for delay damages, which had sought to add $742,000 to the jury’s verdict.
Thought Leadership
Case Law Alerts
New York Court Reaffirms Internal Affairs Doctrine, Denies Standing in Derivative Suit Against English Corporation
July 1, 2025
“Few principles are more firmly entrenched in corporate law than the internal affairs doctrine, a choice-of-law rule providing that, with rare exception, the substantive law of the place of incorporation governs disputes relating to the rights and relationships of corporate shareholders and managers.” Thus opened the court’s opinion-but that did not stop the challenge mounted against it in this case.Ezrasons, the plaintiff, is a New York corporation that is the beneficial owner of shares in Barclays PLC, a bank holding company incorporated under the laws of England and Wales with its principal office in London. Ezrasons filed suit “on behalf of Barclays” against directors and an affiliated company, alleging various breaches of fiduciary duty. Those defendants moved to dismiss for lack of standing because Ezrasons is not “a registered member of Barclays,” a substantive limitation on the right to maintain derivative actions under English law. With seemingly no dispute as to the requirements of English law, Ezrasons argued, instead, that New York’s Business Corporation Law gave it the right to maintain its action in New York.On appeal, the question was whether the New York statute (BCL) displaced the internal affairs doctrine in New York common law. The answer-spread over 24 pages, and over the 57-page dissent of two dissenting Justices who accuse the majority of working to impress Marty McFly and Doc Brown with their ability to travel back in time-was no.But while the genesis of the doctrine is the nineteenth century’s corporate boom and expansion of interstate corporate operations, the rationale for upholding the rule is decidedly timeless. Like the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals reaffirmed its stance that “only one state should have the authority to regulate a corporation’s internal affairs,” lest a company “be faced with conflicting demands.” Thus, the court held that the Business Corporation Law, which allows suits to be brought in the name of domestic or foreign corporations, does not unequivocally displace the substantive applicability of English law as regards suits in the name of English corporations. Instead, the BCL establishes the minimum predicate for New York courts to entertain the suit, without bestowing standing contrary to the law of the foreign corporation’s home.Thus, companies with operations in the Empire State can rest assured that their internal operations and “disputes relating to the rights and relationships of corporate shareholders and managers” will remain governed by the substantive law of their state of incorporation. Case Law Alerts, 3rd Quarter, July 2025 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright 2025 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.
The Quarterly Dose
LEGAL ROUNDUP - Pennsylvania
November 1, 2024
Supreme Court to Decide Pair of Mental Health Procedures Act Cases, Outlining the Contours of Claims Against Treatment ProvidersMatos v. Geisinger Med. Ctr., No. 192 MAL 2023; and Wunderly v. Saint Luke’s Hosp., 369 MAL 2023“One of the purposes of the Mental Health Procedures Act is to provide limited protection from civil and criminal liability to mental health personnel and their employers in rendering treatment in this unscientific and inexact field.” Farago v. Sacred Heart Gen. Hosp., 562 A.2d 300, 304 (Pa. 1989) (citing 50 P.S. 7114). Every so often, a tragic incident breaks through the bulwark of Pennsylvania’s intermediate, error-correcting courts, calling out for resolution by the High Court. Matos and Wunderly are two such currently pending cases.Matos v. Geisinger involves a situation in which an individual with a record of psychiatric issues submitted himself for voluntary inpatient examination at two treatment centers but was not accepted for treatment at either. He, shortly thereafter, murdered his girlfriend, whose estate now claims the treatment providers were grossly negligent under the MHPA. The Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether evidence that treatment has been formally initiated (rather than just considered) is a condition for the exposure to liability under the MHPA for voluntary treatment as it has been ruled to be for involuntary treatment. See 314 A.3d 512 (Pa. 2023) (allocatur grant).Wunderly v. St. Luke’s Hospital involves a situation of a residential patient who experienced pressure-related skin breakdown and deterioration of existing wounds. Following the patient’s death, the estate claims that medical negligence led to his demise. In defense, the treatment providers assert the patient was admitted to the facility for mental health treatment on an involuntary basis under Section 302 of the MHPA, and, therefore, the ancillary medical treatment given to this mental health patient brings any liability claim within the strictures of the MHPA. The Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether the Superior Court erred in affirming the dismissal of the case or, instead, whether the MHPA does not apply to the case at all. See 310 A.3d 715 (Pa. 2023) (allocatur grant).Mental health treatment is often its own reward, and something many of us might rather not have a role in. But the General Assembly has enshrined in law a strict and strong policy of “assuring the availability of adequate treatment to those who are mentally ill.” Leight v. University of Pittsburgh Physicians, 243 A.3d 126, 130 (Pa. 2020) (citing 50 P.S. 7102). The Supreme Court is again called upon to guide the bench, bar, and emergency department on the contours of civil liability for treatment providers for those suffering from mental illness. Matos and Wunderly will help define the rights and responsibilities of all involved in this inexact and sometimes thankless field. These are definitely two cases to keep an eye on. The Quarterly Dose - November 2024, 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. 2024 Marshall Dennehey. All Rights Reserved.
News
Marshall Dennehey Named 2024 Litigation Department of the Year for Appellate Law By ALM’s Pennsylvania Legal Awards
March 15, 2024
