Several years ago, Scott moved across the country for the opportunity to join the Nemeroff Law Firm and represent individuals and their families whose lives have been devastated by mesothelioma.

It continues to be a gratifying experience each and every day, as he and other attorneys from the firm do their best to provide counsel to clients on many of the most important legal decisions they will ever face.

Scott’s legal career began in 1998 after he earned his Juris Doctorate from the Duquesne University School of Law. In preparation for his legal studies, Scott attended the West Liberty State College where he earned his Bachelor of Science degree in 1991, and the Wheeling Jesuit University where he earned his Masters of Business Administration in 1993.

Backed by more than 25 years of professional practice, Scott is a longstanding member of the legal field and is admitted to practice law in the state of West Virginia, the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

Across the nation, Scott is recognized for his extensive knowledge of asbestos law and his winning case results. In 2009, he was asked to speak at the HarrisMartin Pennsylvania Asbestos Conference, where he led a discussion on “The Workers’ Compensation Bar in Asbestos Litigation – Dodson v. Penelec.” Scott has taken part in a number of impactful legal rulings, and he is prepared to do the same for your case.

Every attorney at the Nemeroff Law Firm is committed to providing top-notch legal representation to individuals in need, and R. Scott Marshall is no different. Scott is part of a team that uses its reputation for success and its devotion to advocacy to promote the interests of injured victims and their families across the United States. Together, Scott and the team of lawyers at Nemeroff Law Firm have more than 150 years of experience and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of their clients.
 

Representative Supreme Court Appeals:

 

Tooey v. A.K. Steel, 81 A.3d 851 (Pa. 2013)

In this landmark decision, which overturned more than fifty years of precedent, the Nemeroff Law Firm successfully argued the plain language of Section 301(c)(2) of the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act removed latent occupational diseases from the jurisdiction of the act and its exclusivity provision. As a result, a former employee is able to recover compensation from his employer through a civil action when the employee’s occupational disease first manifests beyond the statute’s three hundred (300) week limitation period. In its decision, the Supreme Court refused to give credence to the employer’s interpretation of the act because it would have amounted to a de facto exclusion of coverage for essentially all latent occupational disease claims. Instead, the Court agreed there was no evidence the legislature intended to preclude an employee from all opportunity to obtain compensation for a latent occupational disease that manifested outside the statutory period. In 2016, attorney Scott Marshall of the Nemeroff Law Firm received the NATIONAL APPELLATE ADVOCACY AWARD for his work in obtaining this ground-breaking decision.

Herold v. University of Pittsburgh, 329 A.3d 1159 (Pa. 2025)

In Herold, the University of Pittsburgh, the decedent’s employer, as well as Penn State University and Temple University, the employer’s amici, attempted to circumvent the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Tooey, by claiming a latent occupational disease was within the jurisdiction of the Occupational Disease Act and that its exclusivity provision precluded a civil action against the employer. But attorney Scott Marshall of the Nemeroff Law Firm argued that an ambiguity in Section 1403, the act’s exclusivity provision, limited its application to those cases where the employee recovered compensation under the terms of the act. The Supreme Court agreed. Accordingly, in those cases where the latent occupational disease manifested more than four (4) years after the last exposure to the toxin, and no compensation was available under the act, the employee can recover compensation through a civil action even when the occupational disease is within the jurisdiction of the act.

Boynton v. Industrial Supply Company, 2021 UT 67, 500 P.3d 847.

In this mesothelioma case, an electrical contractor brought asbestos fibers into the family home on his work clothes where his wife breathed the toxic dust and developed mesothelioma. Defendants, several large industrial premises owners, argued they did not owe a duty of care to a spouse that had never set foot on its premises. But the Nemeroff Law Firm successfully argued to the Utah Supreme Court that the premises defendants engaged in affirmative acts, as opposed to mere omissions, in causing the spouse to be exposed to asbestos fibers and thus created a duty to on the part of the premises owners to use reasonable care.

Manix v. ANCO Insulations, 2024-00967 (La. 11/14/24), 395 So.3d 1181.

The Manix case involved an eighty-seven (87) year old mesothelioma victim who completed an affidavit of exposure detailing his work with and around asbestos products, and industrial locations where he was exposed, but he died two days before his deposition could take place. Defendants moved for summary judgment, but Nemeroff Law Firm attorney Scott Marshall convinced the Louisiana Supreme Court that the affidavit, when considered with other corroborating evidence, sufficiently contained the necessary indicia of reliability to overcome the evidentiary objections.

Lola Crist v. Ranger Construction Industries, 632 S.E.2d 358 (W.Va. 2006)

In Crist, the decedent developed silicosis and after his death the spouse was awarded dependent’s benefits for the rest of her life or until she remarried pursuant to W. Va. Code § 23–4–10(b). After the award, the statute was amended to terminate dependent’s benefits once the decedent would have turned sixty-five. Counsel for the surviving spouse, attorney Scott Marshall, moved the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus. Although the Governor of West Virginia subsequently ordered the Commissioner of Insurance to restore and reinstate dependent’s benefits provided under the old law, the Supreme Court addressed the merits of the case and found there no ambiguity existed in the statute that would allow the Workers’ Compensation Division or the Commissioner of Insurance to unilaterally interpret the statute and retroactively terminate benefits.

Sexton v. Grieco, 613 S.E.2d 81 (W.Va. 2005)

This medical malpractice appeal addressed the trial court’s entry of a directed verdict for defendants on the grounds that Plaintiffs’ expert only testified as to a deviation from the standard of care but failed to explicitly testify that the defendants’ deviation from the standard of care was the proximate cause of the infant’s injuries. The trial court granted defendants motion for a directed verdict, but attorney Scott Marshall of the Nemeroff Law Firm argued that the expert’s testimony was sufficient. The West Virginia Supreme Court agreed and reversed holding that for medical testimony to be sufficient to warrant a finding by the jury of the proximate cause of an injury, in medical malpractice action, it is not required that it be based upon a reasonable certainty that the injury resulted from the negligence of the defendant; all that is required to render such testimony sufficient to carry it to the jury is that it should be of such character as would warrant a reasonable inference by the jury that the injury in question was caused by the negligent act or conduct of the defendant.