David R. Dearden is a shareholder of Sansweet, Dearden and Burke, Ltd. Dave represents health care practices and professionals in a wide variety of litigation and arbitration matters.

Dave handles all types of business and employment cases, including breach of contract, shareholder disputes, discrimination, and whistleblower claims. He represents clients in jury trials, non-jury trials, and arbitration. He also negotiates settlements and releases.

Dave has extensive experience defending professional licenses. He has represented over 100 health care professionals in investigations and hearings, including proceedings before the State Board of Medicine, the Nursing Board, the Psychology Board, the Dental Board, and the Massage Therapy Board.

Dave also represents physicians and other providers in medical staff investigations and hearings.

Deeply committed to pro bono work, Dave routinely volunteers to handle Tangled Title litigation cases referred to him by the Volunteer Indigent Program of the Philadelphia Bar Association.

Dave has been honored to be selected as a Super Lawyer annually since 2009 and has been active in the Boy Scout Program for over 20 years and is a Scout Leader with Oreland Troop 1.

Reported Federal Cases

Zaengle v. Rosemount, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70211 (2013) Opinion supporting prima facie case of sex discrimination and retaliation

Roby-Wilson v. Potter, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6314 (2004) Opinion affirming jury verdict in sex and race discrimination case.

ASCO Heathcare, Inc.. v. County of Chester, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17651 (2000) Opinion finding County in breach of five medical and nursing supply contracts.

Zambelli v. Historic Landmarks, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3335 (1995) Opinion supporting prima facie case of violation of American’s with Disabilities Act.

Reported State Court Cases

Rubin v. Fox, 60 A.3d 179 (2012) Opinion supporting Department of Health’s restoration of EMT/Paramedic’s Certification

Philadelphia Ear, Throat & Nose v. Roth, 44 Pa. D. & C. 4th 427 (2000) Opinion finding employer in breach of employment contract and thereby invalidating restrictive covenant.